PDA

View Full Version : Tournaments might go to Hawkeye Use


YEMntFtb
04-29-2005, 07:41 PM
ESPN Reports - US Open might go to the HAWKEYE

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=2046891

Personally I think it would change the game, I don't like it.

westside
05-01-2005, 12:18 AM
I love tournaments that have "HAWKEYE".

Max G.
05-01-2005, 01:02 PM
Hopefully it will make the linecalling fairer. That's one change in the game that I like.

scoot
05-01-2005, 01:20 PM
Its not even close to 100% accurate. Whether its more accurate than human eyes remains to be seen.

But the argument can be made that at least you can take away possible bias towards certain players that linespeople have been suspected of having. A machine might not be 100% accurate but at least it wont preferentially make calls in favor of one player.

Andy Hewitt
05-01-2005, 01:51 PM
Man I am like the only one I know who thinks its an AWESOME idea. No more arguing, *QUICK* challenges will be cool as hell. Moya will be happy and start winning. Who can argue?

Sox win agaiN!!!!

YEMntFtb
05-01-2005, 02:06 PM
hahha, well I think human error is apart of the game, I like it when the players get heated up over bad calls, it adds an element of gamesmenship an shows us that the players have emotions too.

splink779
05-01-2005, 02:55 PM
I think it is a good idea too, but they have to consider one major risk. The machine has to malfunction just once to put its use to an end. What if the ball lands well in like in the Serena Capriati match at the US open, but the machine malfunctions and calls it out? The controvery would probably make the tournaments go back to human line calling. But I'm sure the machines will be extremely accurate if Wimbledon even considers using them.

rhubarb
05-01-2005, 03:20 PM
I don't mind them using electronic means, as long as it's not less accurate than linespeople. But please, please don't let them implement any "challenge" system.

gugafanatic
05-01-2005, 03:26 PM
Hawkeye uses latest technology, it is far more accurate then man. However problems may arise such as slowing down of the game , and players repeatedly challenging decisons and asking for hawkeye to be introduced for line calls.

arosen
05-01-2005, 05:29 PM
This would be the end of Johnny Mac's "cannotbeserious" as we know it.

rhubarb
05-01-2005, 05:44 PM
Hawkeye uses latest technology, it is far more accurate then man. However problems may arise such as slowing down of the game , and players repeatedly challenging decisons and asking for hawkeye to be introduced for line calls.

Why would it slow down the game? Surely players wouldn't challenge decisions more than they do now, and the view of the line would be instantly available to the umpire to make a decision anyway. Might even be *faster* than it is now.

gugafanatic
05-01-2005, 05:46 PM
Why would it slow down the game? Surely players wouldn't challenge decisions more than they do now, and the view of the line would be instantly available to the umpire to make a decision anyway. Might even be *faster* than it is now.

I assume players would have to take a break between point in viewing wether the ball was in or out, it would be a fiascoe if they kept referring to the technology.

Rickson
05-01-2005, 05:49 PM
Shotspot and Hawkeye should have been used last year. Tennis has more line call situations than any other sport. More than basketball or baseball combined. Hawkeye or shotspot should be implemented as soon as possible.

Haka Boy
05-01-2005, 06:31 PM
In Australia concerning our version of football the NRL and also with cricket they have introduced what they call the "third umpire" where the on-field referee of the match with a signal can call on the “third umpire” to make a decision purely from watching a televised replay. Since this “third umpire” has all televised angles to view a point from, even in slow motion if needed, he is then given the ultimate final say regarding the point in question.

It really doesn’t take that much time and actually adds to the excitement of the game waiting for that final decision.

It’s about time tennis as a game had this modern innovation. It’s been a proven formula in other fields so why not tennis? It certainly needs it.

gugafanatic
05-01-2005, 06:43 PM
In Australia concerning our version of football the NRL and also with cricket they have introduced what they call the "third umpire" where the on-field referee of the match with a signal can call on the “third umpire” to make a decision purely from watching a televised replay. Since this “third umpire” has all televised angles to view a point from, even in slow motion if needed, he is then given the ultimate final say regarding the point in question.

It really doesn’t take that much time and actually adds to the excitement of the game waiting for that final decision.

It’s about time tennis as a game had this modern innovation. It’s been a proven formula in other fields so why not tennis? It certainly needs it.

Thanks for clearing up the concept, of how it would possibly work. Im in agreement.

The Ripper
05-01-2005, 07:17 PM
As we've seen in the last few weeks on clay, it is generally easy to check whether the ball hit the line or not, and the players can question any of the calls with no limit; and they obviously only question the ones they feel strongly about. Hawkeye and Shotspot are essentially using technology to add that same ability to hardcourts and grass. There have been some horrendous calls from lines people (who are only human after all) which didn't "add" to the game for me as a viewer. I was angry that a ball clearly in was called out (I'm thinking Serena at last year's Wimbledon). The new technology can only add to the game.

Deuce
05-02-2005, 12:30 AM
There's a huge difference between an actual video replay and a computer generated cartoon estimate. 'HawkEye' - or 'ShotSpot' - is the latter.

On the issue of there being less potential for bias... I doubt it. As long as human beings are involved at some level, there is always the potential for bias and abuse. Human beings will be in charge of electronically 'calibrating' 'HawkEye', and of its overall use. The potential for abuse will still exist.

Lastly, implementing such a feature, while sure to please those who are easily impressed and those who are partial to the 'WOW factor', will remove a significant degree of spontaneity from the game. And no fan of the game can consider that to be a positive thing.

degreefanlindi
05-02-2005, 02:27 AM
I tend to agree...I know it will change the game, but not necessarily for the better.

Max G.
05-02-2005, 12:45 PM
Well, as I see it - if the line calls it makes are accurate, then the change is for the better, since it removes error. If the line calls it makes are inaccurate, then of course it can't benefit anything.

So the issue is its accuracy - which is in the process of being evaluated, from what I hear.

Aykhan Mammadov
05-02-2005, 01:06 PM
I'm with 2 hands for the electronic system. This will, in the first, help to avoid sad mistakes ( sometimes crucial for the match's result), in the second will help to avoid doubts sometimes happen in the mind of a player despite the point was judged correctly and hence relax players psychologically.

I think in the era of mobile phones it is not possible to stop the influence of technologies into tennis. I consider that in the era of space shuttles it is not difficult to create such a system at all. Of course, in the first stages it may not be free of mistakes, but I think the new additions also must be made to the RULes approved by ITF in order to eliminate elctronics failure.

Why say not to give to the empire small LCD display with possibility to rewind video in very doubtfull situations? Peoples say that this may damage an ordinary flow of the game, create an interruptions, but I don't agree. There are a lot of interruptions already when there are such moments and players argue with empire for a long time. It is possible to make recording on DVD directly and within milli-seconds to watch exactly what happened in reality.

And etc...

Aykhan Mammadov
05-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Sorry read "umpire" instead of "empire."

Kevin Patrick
05-02-2005, 01:29 PM
From what I've read, only showcourts will have this technology. IMO, that makes it even more of a gimmick. Basically we'll have two different sets of rules within a tournament. 2 showcourts get instant replay, everyone else, tough luck with bad calls.

D-man
05-02-2005, 01:59 PM
after some matches i've watched it's hard to believe hawkeye could make it *worse*!

Hal
05-02-2005, 03:16 PM
From what I've read, only showcourts will have this technology. IMO, that makes it even more of a gimmick. Basically we'll have two different sets of rules within a tournament. 2 showcourts get instant replay, everyone else, tough luck with bad calls.

We already have this situation with "Cyclops" (the back service line electronic caller), so I don't see how this is any different than the current situation.

Kevin Patrick
05-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Yeah, but this seems a bit more extreme than cyclops. I remember davenport said last year she didn't think hawkeye would be fair unless it was used on all courts.

Max G.
05-02-2005, 03:33 PM
"Hawkeye" doesn't change the rules of the game. Its only purpose is to make linecalling more accurate...

Deuce
05-02-2005, 09:23 PM
Hal wrote:

"We already have this situation with "Cyclops" (the back service line electronic caller), so I don't see how this is any different than the current situation."
It is obviously more far reaching than is Cyclops. As such, the implications are far more wide reaching, as well...

Well, as I see it - if the line calls it makes are accurate, then the change is for the better, since it removes error. If the line calls it makes are inaccurate, then of course it can't benefit anything.

So the issue is its accuracy - which is in the process of being evaluated, from what I hear.

Actually, the issue reaches significantly deeper than mere accuracy...

Spontaneity and the human element are a large part of the issue with 'Hawkeye', as they are both being threatened with removal. Such spontaneity and human involvement have been a part of the game for a very long time. Linespersons and the umpire are a part of the package of a professional tennis match at this level - and have been for many decades. Their removal should not be experimented with lightly simply that some 'tech whiz' or two can show off their latest toy.

Errors are a part of life - from players as well as from officials. Some would have us believe that we must not accept errors as being a part of life - and so introduce some artificial measure to 'eliminate' errors - or so they claim. But I, for one, enjoy errors. It renders a circumstance more... human; less artificial. Some things ought to be accepted "warts and all", as is said - for, upon removal of the "warts", it is rendered less complete; somehow less genuine. Players make errors - at times blatantly stupid errors, the degree of which is at least on a par with the most blatant errors of any official. How long would it be before someone proposes that we no longer tolerate errors from the players? Hell, errors are what makes us human. Seen from a certain perspective, errors are not necessarily negative - but are essential, rather. I'll take human error any day over a claimed automated estimate of 'perfection' - for, the loss in 'eliminating' human error is far too great.

Were it proposed that umpires in baseball be replaced with some automated estimate system, there would be a huge outcry. Because arguing with the umpire is a part of the game. It is an inherent part of the game. Is it so much different in tennis? Tennis has its Earl Weavers and Billy Martins in the forms of the Illie Nastases, Jimmy Connorses, and John McEnroes. As an earlier poster mentioned, the presence of on-court officials making calls aids significantly in bringing out the unique characters and personalities of the players. Without the element of character and personality, and its motivational catalysts, the players would be reduced to being much more machine-like - less human. And so the introduction of automation will remove the human element not only by removing the human linespeople, but also, by inherent extension, removing the character and spontaneity of the players.

The potential implementation of 'HawkEye' - or something similar - is a far bigger deal than most people believe. It will change the nature of the game more than most people realize - or are willing to admit. On this basis, I vote no.

Max G.
05-03-2005, 02:28 AM
Spontaneity and the human element are a large part of the issue with 'Hawkeye', as they are both being threatened with removal. Such spontaneity and human involvement have been a part of the game for a very long time. Linespersons and the umpire are a part of the package of a professional tennis match at this level - and have been for many decades. Their removal should not be experimented with lightly simply that some 'tech whiz' or two can show off their latest toy.

Their removal should be experimented with if it would improve the quality of line calling.

Errors are a part of life - from players as well as from officials.

Yes. Errors from the players are part of the game, which is why we don't advocate watching robots. Errors from officials are unfortunate and interfere with the real game - what goes on on the court. The officials are there for one reason only - to decide whether the ball is inside the court or not. What is so difficult about that? If a machine can do the job better than a human, then replace the human with the machine.


Some would have us believe that we must not accept errors as being a part of life - and so introduce some artificial measure to 'eliminate' errors - or so they claim.

Yes, artificial measures such as line judges as opposed to having the players call their own balls, or artificial measures such as video replay, or artificial measures such as Hawkeye...

Errors are to be eliminated where they are not necessary. Such as when deciding whether the ball is in or out. That is all the system is designed to do. It is not going to prevent players from choking, it's not going to prevent players from making unforced errors. It's just going to decrease the amount of errors from unwanted sources - such as officials and linesmen.

But I, for one, enjoy errors. It renders a circumstance more... human; less artificial. Some things ought to be accepted "warts and all", as is said - for, upon removal of the "warts", it is rendered less complete; somehow less genuine. Players make errors - at times blatantly stupid errors, the degree of which is at least on a par with the most blatant errors of any official.

Exactly! That is what the game is centered around, and we do not need linesmen to make MORE errors when god knows the players have made and will make plenty.

How long would it be before someone proposes that we no longer tolerate errors from the players?

We already do not tolerate them - the player that makes an error loses the point. That is the way the rules of tennis are structured. I don't buy your slippery slope argument - the players are part of the game, the officials are an accessory to enforcing the rules. Just like I would prefer that tennis courts not be mismeasured and have the right dimensions, just like I would prefer the net to ALWAYS (no errors!) be the right height and not a foot higher or lower, I would prefer the lines to be called as best as possible.

Hell, errors are what makes us human. Seen from a certain perspective, errors are not necessarily negative - but are essential, rather.

And they will always remain in any endeavor - including line calls btw, there've been some that I've seen on shotspot that have been too close to call even there. However, even assuming Shotspot would eliminate all errors in linecalling, the error would remain where it is meant to be in the game, in the players, in the shots.

I'll take human error any day over a claimed automated estimate of 'perfection' - for, the loss in 'eliminating' human error is far too great.

Which is why we do not replace the players with robots, but merely the officials that enforce the rules.

Were it proposed that umpires in baseball be replaced with some automated estimate system, there would be a huge outcry. Because arguing with the umpire is a part of the game. It is an inherent part of the game. Is it so much different in tennis?

I don't know baseball, have never played and have never watched - but from you say, would say yes, tennis is so much different.

Tennis has its Earl Weavers and Billy Martins in the forms of the Illie Nastases, Jimmy Connorses, and John McEnroes. As an earlier poster mentioned, the presence of on-court officials making calls aids significantly in bringing out the unique characters and personalities of the players.

Which would otherwise be brought out some other way. Personalities are personalities - they don't go away because line calls become better.

Without the element of character and personality, and its motivational catalysts, the players would be reduced to being much more machine-like - less human. And so the introduction of automation will remove the human element not only by removing the human linespeople, but also, by inherent extension, removing the character and spontaneity of the players.

McEnroe's dropvolley is equally spontaneous and creative whether or not it is judged to be in by a human or a computer. Safin's outbursts would be equally angry whether or not his backhand is judged out by a human or a computer.


The potential implementation of 'HawkEye' - or something similar - is a far bigger deal than most people believe. It will change the nature of the game more than most people realize - or are willing to admit. On this basis, I vote no.

If it would change tennis in the way you describe, I would still vote yes - I would much prefer that players manifest their personality on the court playing tennis rather than arguing with the umpires over line calls that COULD have been made with more precision and accuracy.

Camilio Pascual
05-03-2005, 03:35 AM
Deuce makes the best argument for not using modern technology and it is almost convincing.
We should use ShotSpot (or similar) and other technologies to aid linescalling. But, it is the protocol of using it, not the implementation of it, that is the delicate matter. TENNIS put up a phony poll of 3 options (players get challenges, etc.) on how to use Shot Spot.
What they didn't give as a choice is how I would have it used: At the sole discretion of the chair umpire. He can even choose to NOT use it...during his whole career if he wants. Just allow it to be another tool to be used at the chair's discretion. OF COURSE the players are going to yell at him to use it, they yell about calls now. The linespersons can ask him to check if they are not sure. But, at the end of the day, this will be the most traditional and satisfactory way to determine calls, by the chair umpire who will still bear full authority and responsibility over lines calls.
Deuce, be fair, if Shot Spot is misused and mistakes are made, anyway, those are the human errors you want in the game, don't blame Shot Spot. My prediction: we will have perceived misuse of Shot Spot this year.

Max G.
05-03-2005, 02:43 PM
We should use ShotSpot (or similar) and other technologies to aid linescalling. But, it is the protocol of using it, not the implementation of it, that is the delicate matter. TENNIS put up a phony poll of 3 options (players get challenges, etc.) on how to use Shot Spot.
What they didn't give as a choice is how I would have it used: At the sole discretion of the chair umpire. He can even choose to NOT use it...during his whole career if he wants. Just allow it to be another tool to be used at the chair's discretion.

Yes! That's what the best option would be, I think. I hope they don't implement any sort of challenge system... just add one more thing for the chair umpire to look at and consider.