PDA

View Full Version : AO and the missed opportunity(hawk eye)


Zverev
01-27-2006, 07:01 AM
After great success of Hawk Eye at Hopman Cup, I thought that AO organisers would employ this excellent technology for AO 2006. But they blew this wonderful opportunity.
Instead we see again this medievil tennis, when linesmen make the calls at will, and the ref is just rolling his eyes when asked to confirm.
Plain stupid.... Why people are such morons?

Rickson
01-27-2006, 07:46 AM
SS/HE used at the HC is a step in the right direction. Maybe the slams will finally employ SS technology when they see the success it has.

david7410
01-27-2006, 10:13 AM
Especially after Baghy's winning point against David was overruled. It's a damn good thing Baghy was still able to close it out regardless.

The tennis guy
01-27-2006, 10:19 AM
After great success of Hawk Eye at Hopman Cup, I thought that AO organisers would employ this excellent technology for AO 2006. But they blew this wonderful opportunity.
Instead we see again this medievil tennis, when linesmen make the calls at will, and the ref is just rolling his eyes when asked to confirm.
Plain stupid.... Why people are such morons?

People take hawk eye as 100% accurate which is not true. In official testing done before US Open, Hawk eye were accurate in only about 87%. They can be off as much as 2 cm. Commentators should point this out. For those just touch the line slightly, commentators should point out it is inconclusive because it is within the margin of error.

skip1969
01-27-2006, 11:19 AM
People take hawk eye as 100% accurate which is not true. In official testing done before US Open, Hawk eye were accurate in only about 87%. They can be off as much as 2 cm. Commentators should point this out. For those just touch the line slightly, commentators should point out it is inconclusive because it is within the margin of error.

hmmm . . . interesting. didn't know that.

traditionally, tennis makes it's changes slowly. i suppose there's the issue of fairness, when they only have the technology on the show courts. i suppose everyone else would feel hard done by.

The tennis guy
01-27-2006, 11:52 AM
hmmm . . . interesting. didn't know that.

traditionally, tennis makes it's changes slowly. i suppose there's the issue of fairness, when they only have the technology on the show courts. i suppose everyone else would feel hard done by.

If it had passed the test, US Open would have used the technology at US Open last year. Test result showed it was not satifactory.

Zverev
01-29-2006, 05:34 AM
People take hawk eye as 100% accurate which is not true. In official testing done before US Open, Hawk eye were accurate in only about 87%. They can be off as much as 2 cm. Commentators should point this out. For those just touch the line slightly, commentators should point out it is inconclusive because it is within the margin of error.

Sorry, I believe that your information is incorrect.
Commentators at Hopman Cup have specifically mentioned that Hawk Eye has passed all tests by ITF,
and it's 100% accurate technology now.
OK you have mentioned the time frame here ("before US open") which might be correct then. Not now though.
Jim Courier has also mentioned that Hawk Eye is proven technology now. So it's up to tournament organisers to employ it.

Yours!05
01-29-2006, 05:48 AM
After great success of Hawk Eye at Hopman Cup, I thought that AO organisers would employ this excellent technology for AO 2006. But they blew this wonderful opportunity.
Instead we see again this medievil tennis, when linesmen make the calls at will, and the ref is just rolling his eyes when asked to confirm.
Plain stupid.... Why people are such morons?The plan was to test it first a Seniors event, at which Courier played, and second at Hopman Cup, where not too much was on the line. Testing is now over. Extremely complex to install so they wouldn't do that prior to getting universal acceptance.
BTW at Hopman Cup the commentators were very ill-informed about the technicalities I thought. It isn't 100% accurate, but they may be able to further improve it - so said the inventor when interviewed.

West Coast Ace
01-29-2006, 09:38 AM
I like the technology but have a few serious issues with it and its implementation: it's only employed on the main court. Therefore only the top players would get 'justice' - unless it's on every court and every player in the main draw has access to it then I wouldn't favor it. Secondly I don't like the talk that they would use the NFL paradigm where each side gets a set number challenges - what if a player does use you his/her challenges then a truly bad call happens? The results come up so fast I don't see why the chair couldn't stop play momentarily for any close call. Thirdly, some times ShotSpot (or Hawkeye) doesn't post a result: can you imagine the Conspiracy Theorists going wild if their favorite player doesn't get an opportunity to review a close ball?

Zverev
01-29-2006, 02:39 PM
There was no limit to number of challenges at Hopman Cup and players used them very few number of times, 3-4 per match as I remember.

Huge advantage of Hawkeye as I can see would be elimination of that "bad call" (unjustice) feel that players get which can ruin his/her game sometimes.