PDA

View Full Version : When is Shot Spot going to be used?


Indy Tennis
02-06-2006, 02:20 PM
Does anyone know when (or if) the ATP is going to allow Shot Spot to assist on disputed line calls?

Is the technology accurate enough?

How are they going to use it?

Will it be used for every disputed call?

I hope not. That would slow a match down to a crawl. Perhaps players could have the option to call for it two or three times per set. Then strategy would come into play as to when to use it.

Moose Malloy
02-06-2006, 02:24 PM
Saw it used at the Hopman Cup. Didn't slow down the game at all.

Indy Tennis
02-06-2006, 02:40 PM
Was it used on every close call?

Moose Malloy
02-06-2006, 02:43 PM
Whenever a player asked, the ump showed a replay. Players didn't ask as much as you would think. I think most players complain on close calls as a way of influencing linesman/umpires. With this system, they are more honest with their reactions & question only when they truly believe that it was close.

Infinite42
02-06-2006, 02:46 PM
There's absolutely no reason not to use the technology if it's accurate. After all, they already use a limited form of it on serves - and those out calls are never reversed. Therefore, it sounds like it would be reliable technology for the whole court if they already completely rely on it for the service line.

Ronaldo
02-06-2006, 03:14 PM
Should put it on a big screen after every close call. Worth a million bucks just to see the crowd reaction, especially a player like the X-man. Forgetabout changing the call.

Grigollif1
02-06-2006, 03:55 PM
I'm not a big enthusiast about Shot spot. I think line calling is a very interest part of the game and shows a player being able to deal with adversity. Put it this way, If eletronic line calling was introduced before we problably woulld not have had charachters such as John Mcenroe. altough I believe it will be introduce eventually...

Infinite42
02-06-2006, 03:58 PM
I'm not a big enthusiast about Shot spot. I think line calling is a very interest part of the game and shows a player being able to deal with adversity. Put it this way, If eletronic line calling was introduced before we problably woulld never had charachters such as John Mcenroe. altough I believe it will be introduce eventually...

Oh, I'm sure McEnroe would have found other ways to express himself. A player should not have to deal with that kind of adversity - the kind that stems from incorrect calls. The tours strive to better their officiating all the time - why not use a perfect system if it's feasible? Tennis seems to be the perfect sport to implement such a technology.

Chadwixx
02-06-2006, 04:03 PM
Does anyone know how much it costs to setup per court? For like davis cup and hopman cup it would be ok cause they use one court. But the us open has like 30 courts and it would add up.

tennistomcat
02-06-2006, 04:08 PM
Yeah, I agree with Infinite. why not use something if it's accurate & works. no player likes the bitter taste of a questionable call (that may or may not be wrong) that changes the tide of the match. with shot spot working correctly, it should remove all doubt & ease the players' minds

dmastous
02-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Here is my description of how I would implement insdtant replay, or in this case Shot Spot (from http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=624547&postcount=21;
The umpire would have access to a small 10 or 12 inch monitor. Either in front of him, or that he can telescope in as needed.
Each player would have a certain number of challenges (say 3) in a match. If he is right he doesn't loose a challenge, if he's wrong he looses a challenge and a point, or if you don't want to go that far he has one grace challenge then the second and further challenges cost him a point (by loosing a point I mean his opponent actually gains a point).
Once a challenge is issued the umpire uses the monitor to watch - ONE TIME - each of a slow-mo replay of the line, if available, and a shot spot, if available. If he can't make a determination having watched it once, the call stands. There is no reason to hem & haw over it. He's only looking at one thing, is it in or out? A decision should be possible in 30 seconds or so. All decisions are final.
With all the money the tour is making there is no reason the umpire's monitor and the necessary cameras can't be installed immediately. There would have to be someone who's job it is to render the video and feed to the ump as needed (I'll be the first applicant!). The only reason there may be a problem is with blocked camera views, and other than having two cameras for each line (which would be messy) I don't know if that can be solved. The way to resolve that problem is to simply say the call can't be reviewed.
Finally, I would say if there are more than three successful challenges you get rid of the entire lines crew and bring in a new, more capable crew.

arosen
02-06-2006, 04:45 PM
I thought it was a done deal and ITF has approved it to be used all over the place and all that. US Open is the first slam to use it.

superman1
02-06-2006, 05:02 PM
Good, I hope to see it soon. The announcers keep saying, "it's coming soon, isn't it?" It definitely will add a new dynamic if they have a certain number of challenges per set.

bigserving
02-06-2006, 06:28 PM
Does anyone know how much it costs to setup per court? For like davis cup and hopman cup it would be ok cause they use one court. But the us open has like 30 courts and it would add up.

I read somewhere, maybe here, that it costs about $25k per court per week for the setup, equipment and support staff.

There are actually 18 match courts at the US Open.

christo
02-06-2006, 09:31 PM
I read somewhere, maybe here, that it costs about $25k per court per week for the setup, equipment and support staff.

There are actually 18 match courts at the US Open.
That's OK, those lousy *******s at the USTA have more money than God, after some of the wretched calls at the US Open , the least they could do is spend some of it on Shot Spot ( Capriati wouldn't have to waste time berating the officials). And get a fricking roof going as well.

Deuce
02-06-2006, 10:10 PM
There's absolutely no reason not to use the technology if it's accurate.
Well, Grigollif1 gives a very good reason in post #7.

Tennis is obviously an individual sport. In a team sport, instant replay, etc. has less of an effect, because of the collection of individuals, and of different individual reactions. But in tennis, the reaction of one individual is all that matters in the case of a bad call.

How each different player reacts to a questionable call has been an inherent part of the game for a very long time. A player's reaction to a questionable call - or calls - has affected the outcome of many more matches than most people realize. The psychologically stronger players have the advantage here, for the most part. Removing the possible human errors of the linespeople and umpires will also unavoidably remove a significant aspect of the psychological element of the game. Keeping the importance of this mental element intact is to me much more important to the integrity of the game than is ensuring that every single ball is called correctly.

Human error is part of life. It is an integral and very necessary function of balance.

Infinite42
02-06-2006, 10:13 PM
Well, Grigollif1 gives a very good reason in post #7.

Tennis is obviously an individual sport. In a team sport, instant replay, etc. has less of an effect, because of the collection of individuals, and of different individual reactions. But in tennis, the reaction of one individual is all that matters in the case of a bad call.

How each different player reacts to a questionable call has been an inherent part of the game for a very long time. The psychologically stronger players have the advantage here, for the most part. Removing the possible human errors of the linespeople and umpires will also unavoidably remove a significant aspect of the psychological element of the game. Keeping the importance of this mental element intact is to me much more important to the integrity of the game than is ensuring that every single ball is called correctly.

Human error is part of life. It is a integral and very necessary function of balance.

Nice try at a justification for the tolerance of wrong calls on the court. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I'd rather strive for accuracy of calls than preserving some notion of a psychological effect on players based on fear of bad calls being made.

Grigollif1
02-06-2006, 11:46 PM
Nice try at a justification for the tolerance of wrong calls on the court. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I'd rather strive for accuracy of calls than preserving some notion of a psychological effect on players based on fear of bad calls being made.


I think you summed up our Point of view very nicely. The fear of the players you mention it about getting the wrong call is the reason why it affects them more then it should , so they eventually loose their mentall edge over their opponent. That is why is interesting to see mentally strong players rise above the adversities such as weather, crowd noise, chocking factor and human line calling error which in my view is equal to both players. One strong supporter to keep the game tradition, is none other then Roger Federer. why? Because he simply is not affected by it. I believe you will never see him loose a match due to a bad call. Not the same can be said about weaker mental players such as Safin and Hingis. but, I will agree that let say the system of 3 challenges Per set in big events can't do no harm....

pero
02-07-2006, 02:58 AM
NEVER :p ;)

devila
02-07-2006, 12:33 PM
Federer was 2 points from winning Masters Cup because 2 awful calls helped him win 2 sets. Federer, however, cried like a baby when Nalbandian dared to look at the line after Federer hit the ball near it.

Chadwixx
02-07-2006, 03:38 PM
I read somewhere, maybe here, that it costs about $25k per court per week for the setup, equipment and support staff.

There are actually 18 match courts at the US Open.

I really dont see the people doing away with doubles because it makes no money spending 675k for this technology (first week and 1/2 for the 2nd week).

If shot spot gets to be 100% accurate would they do away with lines people and just have the chair, or have both shot spot and the lines people?

Max G.
02-07-2006, 04:25 PM
If shot spot gets to be 100% accurate would they do away with lines people and just have the chair, or have both shot spot and the lines people?

No, I think they'd have both.

Shotspot takes a second or two to make a call. A linesperson makes it instantly. So for most cases, where the call is "obvious", a linesperson is better because he'll make the right call most of the time and do it quickly.

If there's an "out" call by a linesman, then after the point is stopped, a couple of seconds isn't big deal - the call can be checked. But a second or two is still too long if the call needs to be made in the middle of the point.

From what I know right now, I don't think shotspot is fast enough right now to serve as a real-time calling device instead of linespeople.

Chadwixx
02-07-2006, 04:58 PM
I could imagine the system going real time and just have the chair calling everything in and out. And interesting flair would be to let the players call shots in/out, and have shot spot verify the close ones. Maybe a point penalty for every 3 called out that were really in.

Not next year but it could evolve into that.

Oricus
02-07-2006, 05:16 PM
I don't like shot spot for a few reasons, first how does it work? Where does it recreate the image, how can it recreate an image if a player basically is on top of the ball?

Secondly, at the French Open last year, they showed a call where shot spot said the ball was in but when the ump checked the mark it was out, therefore how accurate is shotspot?

devila
02-07-2006, 05:22 PM
I've seen umpires ignore when the ball landed way in on clay. I also saw the linesman and umpire turn the other way when the ball landed 2 inches out in front of the linesman. The errors changed the results and made the opponents win matches and title.