PDA

View Full Version : Why is there no hawk eye system in place for footfaults?


Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:05 PM
This is an obvious idea, the player feels aggrieved, instead of them lashing out by whatever means they intend, they can just challenge the call, hawkeye can show the whether the racket makes contact with the ball before the foot touches the line with the use of 2 seperate screens side by side.

topher.juan
09-16-2009, 04:08 PM
Sure. I don't see why they can't have that in place? The cameras and such are already there. Seems kinda obvious now that you mention it.

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:10 PM
I think i need to write in to the ATP governing sports body or whatever it is.

jrod
09-16-2009, 04:15 PM
Recently I read somewhere the folks who invented Hawkeye commented this would be a rather straighforward extension of the system's capability.

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:18 PM
Well, they need to impliment it asap, because it potentially could've costed Serena Williams a US Open crown, or the tennis World a thrilling 3 set ladies match up.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 04:24 PM
I don't think because one person wigs out and threatens a lines judge they should do that. Sure, other players will complain, but they won't act like Serena. They need to fix the current challenge system before they create a new one. Like why should Delpo get almost 1 minute to challenge a call? The challenge system is the biggest joke. "Wait...let me call my Mom in France to have her go to the next door neighbor to ask their dog if I should challenge." Either do it immediatly or you don't get to challenge.

jrod
09-16-2009, 04:26 PM
Quite frankly, that was perhaps the most exciting WTA match I've seen in a long time. The drama was exceptional and any challenge system would have totally destroyed the moment.

Personally, even if the footfault wasn't called, I felt Serena was going to lose that match. Glad to see Kim back. That kind of talent and personality is sorely lacking in womens tennis these days.

Just my $0.02.

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:34 PM
I don't think because one person wigs out and threatens a lines judge they should do that. Sure, other players will complain, but they won't act like Serena. They need to fix the current challenge system before they create a new one. Like why should Delpo get almost 1 minute to challenge a call? The challenge system is the biggest joke. "Wait...let me call my Mom in France to have her go to the next door neighbor to ask their dog if I should challenge." Either do it immediatly or you don't get to challenge.

LOL! @ the last bit

Regardless of whether Serena throws a hissy fit or not, the fact of the matter is the dwarf on the side of the court calling a footfault wrong is just as bad if not worse than a lines man / woman calling a linecall wrong.

See my point?

Just because the errors aren't made as frequently, doesn't mean to say they should be looked @ less with less priority.

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:36 PM
Quite frankly, that was perhaps the most exciting WTA match I've seen in a long time. The drama was exceptional and any challenge system would have totally destroyed the moment.

Personally, even if the footfault wasn't called, I felt Serena was going to lose that match. Glad to see Kim back. That kind of talent and personality is sorely lacking in womens tennis these days.

Just my $0.02.

I knew someone would say this and its true, it caused an uproar and has had everyone debating a tennis matter for the past, week or so.

However, i'm sure now its happened, it probably will not happen again, well, not atleast for a decade or so. Player's will be too wary. So therefore it wouldn't make a difference to that @ all.

Kim probably would've won, true.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 04:40 PM
I saw the video, and when they showed it up close from behind, she was over the line slightly. But still over the line nonetheless. It was the right call. I think alot of people (not you) want to find excuses of why Serena lost the match. What anyone fails to realize, she was not going to win...she was playing like **** and didn't deserve to win...just like Federer in the mens final.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 04:47 PM
I saw it live in HD on our TV at home....you cant tell from a youtube video.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 04:48 PM
This is an obvious idea, the player feels aggrieved, instead of them lashing out by whatever means they intend, they can just challenge the call, hawkeye can show the whether the racket makes contact with the ball before the foot touches the line with the use of 2 seperate screens side by side.

because no one cares about microscopic footfaults .

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:50 PM
because no one cares about microscopic footfaults .

That little nerdy oriental lady seemed to care, she seemed to care enough to broadcast it to the tennis viewing World on 15-30 with the World number 2 serving to stay in the match.

Chadwixx
09-16-2009, 04:51 PM
Amazing this rule has never been called into question in the past isnt it?

Its probably the easiest call for an umpire to make. Ive had them called on me from outside the court by a roaming offical.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 04:54 PM
That little nerdy oriental lady seemed to care, she seemed to care enough to broadcast it to the tennis viewing World on 15-30 with the World number 2 serving to stay in the match.

Ok, I'm going to tell you what I told Stormhollway, if Federer would have been serving Championship point at Wimbledon it would be ok for him to walk up to the net...serve the ball into the box and off the side of the court...that would be ok? Being the situation right? A foot fault is a foot fault no matter the situation....if Serena is such a good player, she shouldn't have gotten sloppy with her form.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 04:56 PM
That little nerdy oriental lady seemed to care, she seemed to care enough to broadcast it to the tennis viewing World on 15-30 with the World number 2 serving to stay in the match.

I know . Just shows you how a little power will get to ones heads.

Just take a look at TW....err scratch that. not allowed to critique.

ZhengJieisagoddess
09-16-2009, 04:56 PM
I don't think because one person wigs out and threatens a lines judge they should do that. Sure, other players will complain, but they won't act like Serena. They need to fix the current challenge system before they create a new one. Like why should Delpo get almost 1 minute to challenge a call? The challenge system is the biggest joke. "Wait...let me call my Mom in France to have her go to the next door neighbor to ask their dog if I should challenge." Either do it immediatly or you don't get to challenge.

One minute to challenge??? Come on!!! Just because Roger threw a hissy fit doesn't mean that we have to climb on the bandwagon..

Tennis_Maestro
09-16-2009, 04:58 PM
Ok, I'm going to tell you what I told Stormhollway, if Federer would have been serving Championship point at Wimbledon it would be ok for him to walk up to the net...serve the ball into the box and off the side of the court...that would be ok? Being the situation right? A foot fault is a foot fault no matter the situation....if Serena is such a good player, she shouldn't have gotten sloppy with her form.

You obviously miss the reason behind my post.

I think we've been lost in translation. My post was a subtle way of explaining to gut feeling that it is cared about.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 04:58 PM
One minute to challenge??? Come on!!! Just because Roger threw a hissy fit doesn't mean that we have to climb on the bandwagon..

Hissy fit....I love that. Perfect way to describe it.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 05:01 PM
One minute to challenge??? Come on!!! Just because Roger threw a hissy fit doesn't mean that we have to climb on the bandwagon..

I've hated the challenge system for the last year or so, because it's taking wayyy too long to challenge. It's up to the players, not the box, not the chair umpire. That's the thing that bothers me...when a player asks the chair if he/she should challenge. I would say 5 seconds after the point is stopped or over, should be the maximum time allowed. And it's not because Fed complained, even though he was right when he asked the umpire if there were any rules to challenging. Come to think of it Federer should have challenged a call that was made three years ago.

Lifted
09-16-2009, 05:34 PM
A challenge system for foot faults? IMO, that would be a waste of money. Not foot faulting isn't difficult at all and doesn't require a the extension of HawkEye.

Serena's foot fault didn't cost her the match. Her behavior did. She got a code violation for smashing her racquet IIRC and then she got a point penalty for her second code violation, which consisted of her yelling and threatening a linesperson. Say what you will about the codes she broke, but she knew they were there and she broke them. It's all currently part of the game.

EtePras
09-16-2009, 05:40 PM
There's no way a hawkeye system should be added just to appease a monkey woman who threatens to kill people over a game. Oh and it's pretty obvious when a foot fault happens, the server's feet tend to move much slower than a tennis ball.

NamRanger
09-16-2009, 05:56 PM
There's no way a hawkeye system should be added just to appease a monkey woman who threatens to kill people over a game. Oh and it's pretty obvious when a foot fault happens, the server's feet tend to move much slower than a tennis ball.


Regardless a machine would be much more accurate than the human eye, especially when it comes to a slow moving object.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 06:10 PM
How about a sensor that is on the ground that will beep when someone breaks the plane of the baseline. I mean if you go over 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 mm, it goes off. You know, kinda like the bells that sound when you walk into some stores.

jrod
09-16-2009, 06:27 PM
How about a sensor that is on the ground that will beep when someone breaks the plane of the baseline. I mean if you go over 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 mm, it goes off. You know, kinda like the bells that sound when you walk into some stores.

Such a system would not adquately address foot faulting...not even close. Think about it...there is a little more to it than just monitoring the baseline.

Court Valkyrie
09-16-2009, 06:38 PM
Such a system would not adquately address foot faulting...not even close. Think about it...there is a little more to it than just monitoring the baseline.

Ok...what is your idea?

jrod
09-16-2009, 06:55 PM
Ok...what is your idea?


I've already stated that I felt we were better off without such a system (see post#7).

Nevertheless, if someone wanted to design such a system they would have to consider more than just the baseline. At a minimum you would need to monitor the player's motion and position in relation to both the baseline and centerline, as well as the instant the ball is struck. I suspect that these kinds of things could be accommodated by augmenting the Hawkeye system.

stormholloway
09-16-2009, 07:14 PM
Look, if we're going to treat foot faults like any other line call then it should be given an equal amount of oversight and review, on principle. By not having a review system, it's essentially being stated that foot faults aren't taken as seriously.

topher.juan
09-16-2009, 07:48 PM
The signal for footfaulting should be way over the top: red flashing lights, air-horns, dimming of lighting (if indoor/night) and spotlight put on he/she who footfaults. Drop an ACME anvil for good measure.

NamRanger
09-16-2009, 08:05 PM
Look, if we're going to treat foot faults like any other line call then it should be given an equal amount of oversight and review, on principle. By not having a review system, it's essentially being stated that foot faults aren't taken as seriously.



And thus, because of that, it shouldn't also be enforced strictly as a line call.

batz
09-17-2009, 12:44 AM
There seems to be some confusion as to what Hawkeye is capable is doing. It would NOT be capable of determining whether or not a footfault had occured. Any system for doing that would need to measure 2 things in real time i.e. when was the ball hit and where were the servers feet at that exact time.

This is one of those things that is far easier to specify than it is to build. That is why there is no 'system' for calling foot faults.

topher.juan
09-17-2009, 01:04 AM
There seems to be some confusion as to what Hawkeye is capable is doing. It would NOT be capable of determining whether or not a footfault had occured. Any system for doing that would need to measure 2 things in real time i.e. when was the ball hit and where were the servers feet at that exact time.

This is one of those things that is far easier to specify than it is to build. That is why there is no 'system' for calling foot faults.

Why can't hawkeye do this? It measures where the ball travels in the air, ie. from toss to forward trajectory, and obviously has cameras on the lines. You simply look if the foot hit the line, if so, was it before or after the ball moved from vertical to horizontal? Everything is recorded on the same time line. Easy peasy, the technology is already in place.

batz
09-17-2009, 01:53 AM
Why can't hawkeye do this? It measures where the ball travels in the air, ie. from toss to forward trajectory, and obviously has cameras on the lines. You simply look if the foot hit the line, if so, was it before or after the ball moved from vertical to horizontal? Everything is recorded on the same time line. Easy peasy, the technology is already in place.

Hawkeye computes the most probable trajectory of a moving ball. It's ultimate purpose is to provide a 2 dimensional view of the 'footprint' of a landed ball and to determine if that footprint is within the court. In other words, it determines one thing - where the ball finishes - timing has no bearing on whether a ball is in or not.

In order to be able to determine if a foot-fault call was correct or not, hawkeye would need to determine where a player's feet were at the time they strike the ball - that's two things (when did the player strike the ball and where were his feet at this exact time). Now that might seem like only a slight difference to you, but from a systems perspective, it's a fundamental difference in required functionality.

I'm not saying it can't be done; what I am saying is that it would take a major modification.

jrod
09-17-2009, 03:29 AM
Hawkeye computes the most probable trajectory of a moving ball. It's ultimate purpose is to provide a 2 dimensional view of the 'footprint' of a landed ball and to determine if that footprint is within the court. In other words, it determines one thing - where the ball finishes - timing has no bearing on whether a ball is in or not.

In order to be able to determine if a foot-fault call was correct or not, hawkeye would need to determine where a player's feet were at the time they strike the ball - that's two things (when did the player strike the ball and where were his feet at this exact time). Now that might seem like only a slight difference to you, but from a systems perspective, it's a fundamental difference in required functionality.

I'm not saying it can't be done; what I am saying is that it would take a major modification.

With all those cameras, you can do pretty much anything, including monitoring for footfaults. The current software is designed to track the ball and determine where it hits the ground. Additional software could be added to monitor for footfaults. I'm not sure how major the mods required are, but all the hooks are probably already in place.

topspin
09-17-2009, 07:30 AM
There is no hawkeye for foot faults for the following reasons:

1. It is an easy and obvious call for any trained linesperson to make
2. It requires that the baseline be monitored only during the service motion

jrod
09-17-2009, 07:41 AM
There is no hawkeye for foot faults for the following reasons:

1. It is an easy and obvious call for any trained linesperson to make
2. It requires that the baseline be monitored only during the service motion

You could make precisely these same arguments for line calls, yet Hawkeye is still employed (in the primo courts).

topspin
09-17-2009, 07:54 AM
^ It is a lot easier for line calls because the system analyzes an entire shot. So you just go back to that shot and analyze it. For a serve, you have to have a system that will be able to detect the start of the service motion (when the arm or racquet start to move after lining up) up until the striking of the ball. It's more complex. I'm not saying it can't be done though. But for the reason that this is an easy call to make by humans, it has not been developed until now.

Eventually we might have something but I don't see it as a priority just because a spoiled arrogant bully decided to complain about a call she could not even see since, last time I checked, you are looking up at the ball to serve instead of looking at your feet.

GuyClinch
09-17-2009, 11:35 AM
Footfaults are pretty rare and easily avoided by pros. Lines calls, let calls and the rest are very common. So its clear why they created the system the way they did. Spend the money (and its significant) on getting the important common calls right.