Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennis-hero, May 12, 2009.
But hawkeye has a 5 inch error margin.
An ump cant overrule a hawkeye call, so it stands.
For all we know, a lot of calls should be in but are out or vice versa
good job nole!! Feddie
A 5 inch error margin? Wow, that's a lot, I thought it was more accurate.
Where did you get this?
Margin of error is 3 mm, not 5 inch.
My half blind grandma working as a lineswoman, would have a margin of error that is less than a 5 inch.
It appears to be a blog and we all know how accurate blog information can be :roll:
That sounds more like it.
After reading the blog... it appears the information concerning Hawkeye's accuracy doesn't appear anywhere in the paragraph.
Hmm, Fed seems to use his more to release anger than to get close line calls, and I rarely see Nadal get one wrong, I thought they would be flopped.
Thanks for clearing up the accuracy issue, gj011
"The Hawk-Eye Innovations website states that the system has an average error of 3.6 mm (it does not indicate what the maximum error is). The standard size of a tennis ball is reportedly 65 to 68 mm. This means that there is a 5% error relative to the diameter of the ball. This could throw into doubt the accuracy of such calls as the one mentioned in the Nadal-Federer 2007 Wimbledon final. For the sake of comparison, approximately 5% of the diameter is the fluff on the ball."
Same here, I don't carry a tally, but I was under the impression that Nads gets more calls right than Fed. Live and learn.
He may have the best eyes, but he could use some new lungs
When Nadal's losing a set he often makes wrong appeals.
another one of those , no common sense posts...
LOL that is soooo mean. Interesting facts, although I see nothing but some random coincidences.
yeah, it would be rather dumb to use a system with such ridiculous error margin, if we would believe him. Might as well roll a dice?
Or Joker only challenges the most obvious wrong line calls and lets the close ones slide.
Everyone has already corrected you on the 5 inch bit, but no one bothered to also correct your error that an ump can't overrule a hawkeye call. In fact, an umpire CAN if he deems it appropriate, but most don't.
The stat about various players' accuracy is not an indication of how good their eyes are, though, since some players challenge balls they know are probably in, based on the situation. It's more a reflection of "how" they challenge calls than "how accurately".
WOW! good for djoker, at least he's won something!
Roger and Rafa can't win them all.
No, the umpire CAN'T overrule a Hawkeye decision. The Hawkeye decision is final.
In case that's not enough, here is from the 2009 ATP Rulebook under the electronic review section.
9) The decision of the electronic review is final and cannot be appealed.
You've also misinterpreted the rules as stated. An electronic ruling can not be appealed, meaning a PLAYER can not appeal it, and it stands as final when referenced by an official. But the umpire can overrule it if he believes there was a technological error, just as has always been the case with Cyclops.
No, you have misinterpreted the part that says "The decision of the electronic review is final."
Also, if there is a malfunction with the system, and the electronic review is unavailable, the original call stands.
Well sometimes players challenge the last point of a set for the heck of it because they have a challenge to burn, even when they know they lost the point. This would skew these stats by lowering their percentage and saying they have "bad eyes" when in fact their eyes in this case were fine, they just challenged for the heck of it.
... do u even know how much 5 inches is... thats like 3 tennis balls.
Not sure about this myself but on another point, I remember last year in the final of the US Open between Jankovic and Williams, the umpire decided to use hawkeye to verify a call, and didn't ask Serena to use one of her challenges
The commentators seemed quite baffled by it, as did I.
That was because the line umpire was blocked by the player, and the ball was on the far sideline, so it was too close for the chair umpire to decide. When that happens, the umpire may request the electronic review. That is the only time the chair umpire can request the review.
Electronic Review Rule:
8.) If there is no call made from the on-court officials (unsighted line umpire and chair
umpire cannot make the call) on a point ending shot, the chair umpire may call for
a review and the result of the review will not affect the remaining challenges of
Ah, interesting! Thanks for that.
Exactly. This statistic is essentially meaningless. The conclusion that Djoko, Rafa and Fed have good eyes should be apparent to anyone with eyes.
Seems like Roger can't win ANY these days ...
Actually, at the ATP umpire briefings (one of which I recently attended), they ask the umpires to invoke 10 d) if they believe the system isn't functioning correctly, using the section that reads: "In this case, the chair umpire shall immediately notify both players that review is not available until further notice. " and provide the call themselves.
fwiw, if the average error is 3.6, basic statistics says that the error is almost never going to be much bigger than let's say, 6 mm or so, which is still much more reliable and accurate than a linesman...
I'd take a Hawkeye call over an incompetent linesman with a sometimes-obscured view of the ball any day.
Hell, I saw some bad calls at the Davis Cup when I was 150 yards away (I've got 20/15 with contacts), even though the linesman was 10 yards away...
You obviously weren't paying attention to the whole discussion then.
10d. is part of the Review Official's responsibilities, not the chair umpire's. That is saying that if there is a problem with the system that is causing it to not have the review, then the review official is to let the chair umpire know, who in turn will let the players know that Hawkeye has been turned off until it is repaired. In that case, the calls on court stand be it the line umpire's call or the chair umpire's overrule. This is not a case of the chair umpire overruling Hawkeye.
10) A certified official, approved by the ATP supervisor, shall act as the review official*
and his duties shall include, but are not limited to:
a. Determining which impact shall be reviewed by the system.
b. Act as the final authority on tracking the number of challenges each player has
c. Monitor the system to ensure that it is functioning properly.
d. Notify the chair umpire immediately in the case of a system failure or any other
condition that prohibits or brings into question the ability of the system to
review a challenged call. In this case, the chair umpire shall immediately notify
both players that review is not available until further notice.
Um, I think the UMPIRE corrects "obvious" wrong line calls. And if you've ever seen Djokovic challenge calls, he frequently challenges extremely close calls.
And, btw, which supposed "umpire briefings" did you attend? I am not going to say I don't believe you because you may work for ATP and have been at the end of the year meeting, or something like that. I am just curious, because you are arguing this rule with someone who knows a bit about it.
As "someone who knows a bit about it", how did they tell you situations in which Hawkeye made a clearly visible error (which happened with alarming frequency during the trial period, and quite a few times since) were to be handled? I only know what I heard as a response, when that question was asked by more than one umpire.
The review official in the booth upstairs sees the review before it is put on the video board. If it is obvious that the image is not of that shot in question, or if there is a malfunction, the review official is to let us know that the review is unavailable. Once the review is shown on the screen, unless a gross mistake is made and the image on the screen shows a baseline shot, and the questioned call was on the sideline, the decision of Hawkeye is final. If that huge mistake happens, then the decision would be that the original call stands. The chair umpire MAY NOT overrule Hawkeye's decision.
Testing on accuracy was done by Hawk-Eye themselves, not by independent testers. For all we know, Hawk-Eye could have a much bigger margin for error.
Interesting.. I hadn't expected that at all. I would expect Nadal to be at the top with 60% or so, then Djokovic and then Federer. :-?
There appears to be a contradiction here. If there is a huge mistake, and the umpire decides that the original call stands, he/she has just overruled Hawkeye. Obviously they won't allow the "Ljubicic incident" to happen again.
That is different than overruling Hawkeye. My interpretation of what you were saying originally was that the chair umpire can overrule the decision of Hawkeye because he sees the ball differently than the review.
What I am saying is, that the original call stands if there is an obvious malfunction with the system.
Separate names with a comma.