PDA

View Full Version : Federer figures out hawk eye


Reborn Rebel
04-06-2010, 06:55 PM
Is it me or has Fed finally become good with hawk eye. I think he got most of his challenges right in the australian open. Did anyone notice this improvement?

West Coast Ace
04-06-2010, 06:57 PM
He's just been on a hot/lucky streak. Won't last.

I have a theory: Fed, as best player on the planet, thinks he should get the close ones. Doesn't like a system that stops that from happening? Thoughts?

Ledigs
04-06-2010, 07:20 PM
No he thinks it doesn't work so he tries to get "extra" points by challenging. Points he didn't really win but hawkeye will give him

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:43 PM
No he thinks it doesn't work so he tries to get "extra" points by challenging. Points he didn't really win but hawkeye will give him

haha. I have actually thought he does it because of that too.

There's a margin of error associatted with the hawk eye. It's certainly not a perfect system and I remember two cases in wich a ball was clearly out (by at least 20 cm as shown on the tele) and the hawk eye called it on the line. Everyone on the statidum were bemused and the commentators couldn't believe it.

Changmaster
04-06-2010, 07:46 PM
haha. I have actually thought he does it because of that too.

There's a margin of error associatted with the hawk eye. It's certainly not a perfect system and I remember two cases in wich a ball was clearly out (by at least 20 cm as shown on the tele) and the hawk eye called it on the line. Everyone on the statidum were bemused and the commentators couldn't believe it.

Can you be more specific on the incidences? When/in what match did they occur?

JoshDragon
04-06-2010, 08:24 PM
Can you be more specific on the incidences? When/in what match did they occur?

Wimbledon 2007 final. Sometime in the fourth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeL23q5d_Ww

Changmaster
04-06-2010, 08:47 PM
Wimbledon 2007 final. Sometime in the fourth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeL23q5d_Ww

Yes, I remember that incident, Hawkeye may very well have been wrong on that occasion. It has a margin of error of a few millimeters, and it showed that ball in by the SMALLEST of margins. But in any case, it was very close, even the commentators said that it was worth a challenge. This is nowhere near the "20 cm" incidents that abraxas mentioned. He may have been exaggerating, but if he was, he was exaggerating by a LOT.

Can anyone remember another incident where the ball looked clearly out, but hawkeye called it in? Or vice versa.

defrule
04-07-2010, 07:23 AM
Wasn't their a point where Hawkeye took the second bounce instead of the first?

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 07:42 AM
No he thinks it doesn't work so he tries to get "extra" points by challenging. Points he didn't really win but hawkeye will give him

THIS!You know the man!

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 07:45 AM
Yes, I remember that incident, Hawkeye may very well have been wrong on that occasion. It has a margin of error of a few millimeters, and it showed that ball in by the SMALLEST of margins. But in any case, it was very close, even the commentators said that it was worth a challenge. This is nowhere near the "20 cm" incidents that abraxas mentioned. He may have been exaggerating, but if he was, he was exaggerating by a LOT.

Can anyone remember another incident where the ball looked clearly out, but hawkeye called it in? Or vice versa.

There were a few random extra long grass where Hawkeye recorded the ball as it brushed the tip of the grass before actually bouncing off the base of grass, few inches further away.

Changmaster
04-07-2010, 07:56 AM
Hypothetical situation that I've wondered: Say a tennis ball had a single, unusually long strand of fuzz, say a few inches long. A player hits a shot, and the ball lands at least a few inches long. But although it would be impossible to see with the naked eye, the extra-long piece of fuzz touches the inside of the court near the baseline before the actual ball hits the court surface outside the line. Technically, this shot would be considered in, right? :)

Changmaster
04-07-2010, 07:59 AM
There were a few random extra long grass where Hawkeye recorded the ball as it brushed the tip of the grass before actually bouncing off the base of grass, few inches further away.

Would hawkeye be right in this case, though? If a ball hits the tip of a blade of grass inside the line or on the line before actually hitting the court outside the line, would it technically be considered in?

yellowoctopus
04-07-2010, 08:38 AM
I have a theory: Fed, as best player on the planet, thinks he should get the close ones. Doesn't like a system that stops that from happening? Thoughts?


I think Mr. Federer's problem is not so much with the technology itself but rather how it is being implemented in the game. I believe the argument is that the chair umpire (aka, the 'official') should be the one using Hawk-Eye routinely to confirm line person's calls (just like baseball) and not force the players to have to make a challenge before it is used; otherwise, don't use it at all.

One has to admit that the challenge system, which has now become mainstream in many sports, adds an element of excitement for the viewers. It is a gimmick that sports entertainment people find values in it. Unfortunately it bothers some coaches and players, Mr. Federer included.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Observer/Pix/pictures/2009/7/24/1248449877784/Roger-Federer-using-Hawk--001.jpg

forzamilan90
04-07-2010, 08:42 AM
i still think safin is the worst hawk eye challenger ever, and not fed

GasquetGOAT
04-07-2010, 09:00 AM
Would hawkeye be right in this case, though? If a ball hits the tip of a blade of grass inside the line or on the line before actually hitting the court outside the line, would it technically be considered in?

When the ball actually bounced off the ground it looked clearly out to the naked eye but Hawkeye recorded and saw it touching the ground as the ball hit the (as you say) tip of a blade of grass, before the ball actually touch the "real" ground.

--------tip of grass O_______
------------------/
actual ground __O_________

O= ball

/= direction of ball travel


hope that make sense (but its just my theory:))

West Coast Ace
04-07-2010, 10:59 AM
I think Mr. Federer's problem is not so much with the technology itself but rather how it is being implemented in the game.Good point and very possible. And back to my point - as #1 he'd expect the chair to want to review more calls that could be favorable to him.

Commando Tennis Shorts
04-07-2010, 11:16 AM
Here's the thing: When the ball hits the ground, it stays on the ground and rolls for a split second, hence the oblong shape that comes with the Hawkeye, so just because you might see green between the ball and the line when the ball is hitting the ground, does not mean the ball is out. There have been many instances where the ball hits the line, then rolls just long enough to where it looks like it was out because you can see court between the ball and the line.

As far as Hawkeye's margin of error, it is greatly exaggerated on these boards. Its margin of error is very tiny, like a few mm. Do you realize how tiny that actually is?

And just because something has a margin of error doesn't mean it's automatically off by the amount all the time

jrod
04-07-2010, 11:18 AM
Would hawkeye be right in this case, though? If a ball hits the tip of a blade of grass inside the line or on the line before actually hitting the court outside the line, would it technically be considered in?


I am not aware of any feature within the Hawkeye system that accurately models imperfections in the surface. If anyone has evidence to support this feature I'd love to see it....

jrod
04-07-2010, 11:25 AM
Hawkeye is very sophisticated technology and works remarkably well. The 2nd bounce incident was operator error from what I understood...the system recorded both bounces but the wrong bounce was selected by the Hawkeye operator I believe.

The problem I have with Hawkeye is the way in which it is used in the pro game. It's use is restricted to a few show courts, and as a result the seeded players tend to benefit from it more, on average.

Fed's use of Hawkeye is intelligent in my view. I've seen him challenge when he clearly knew it was out presumably to slow things down. He also challenges when he thinks there is a possibility he could win the point. The last thing he is concerned about is his accuracy on his challenges.

AM95
04-07-2010, 11:25 AM
there was once a thread with a call in the wimby 2008 final.

the ball was definitly out by a good margin, and then hawkeye called it in..i think it may have been in the 3rd or 4th..

cant find the thread =\

P_Agony
04-07-2010, 12:44 PM
He's just been on a hot/lucky streak. Won't last.

I have a theory: Fed, as best player on the planet, thinks he should get the close ones. Doesn't like a system that stops that from happening? Thoughts?

Nah, Fed is way too fair as a player for that.

Ledigs
04-07-2010, 05:57 PM
IT seems like umpire should challenge as how could a player see it from all the way across the net? What do these umps do exactly

Changmaster
04-07-2010, 06:49 PM
I think Mr. Federer's problem is not so much with the technology itself but rather how it is being implemented in the game. I believe the argument is that the chair umpire (aka, the 'official') should be the one using Hawk-Eye routinely to confirm line person's calls (just like baseball) and not force the players to have to make a challenge before it is used; otherwise, don't use it at all.

One has to admit that the challenge system, which has now become mainstream in many sports, adds an element of excitement for the viewers. It is a gimmick that sports entertainment people find values in it. Unfortunately it bothers some coaches and players, Mr. Federer included.



The most logical system would just be to get rid of linesman and have hawkeye make every call (for example, by beeping everytime a shot is out.) The problem with this method is that hawkeye is not 100% accurate, and there would be a big problem if there was an incident where it malfunctioned during a pt.

But even if it WAS 100% accurate, I do think the challenge system adds intrigue and interest in the game. I would actually give the players more challenges though; three a set plus an extra one for a tiebreak is a tad low IMO. At least 5 a set, that way players still aren't abusing the system by using it every other pt, yet aren't worrying much about conserving their challenges, either.

kishnabe
04-07-2010, 07:05 PM
What comes to mind is when Safin challenged twice and twice it showed the same ball on the same place! It was hillarious!

valiant
04-08-2010, 02:42 AM
Federer was initially good with hawk-eye and then he got bored and so the sudden loss in interest in it lead to some weird calls :D