Fed talks to "hawk-eye"

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MasterTS, Jul 8, 2007.

?

Fed yells and talks to a machine

  1. Fed is a baby

    21.1%
  2. Fed is cuckoo

    13.2%
  3. Fed has the right to challenge those that challenge him, even if machine

    69.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    What did you think when fed yelled at hawkeye: "Was that in too you god damn idiot".. i dont remember the exact phase but I thought fed was going cuckoo.

    Then suddenly nadal's knee goes bad and the rest is history.. what a lame day.
     
    #1
  2. bdawg

    bdawg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    477
    you could tell he was very pissed, but i wouldn't say nuts.
     
    #2
  3. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    Fed's eyes are messed up.. He dares challenge a system of precision and technologically advancement vesus his human eyes?
     
    #3
  4. CyBorg

    CyBorg Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    5,544
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I don't trust machines - eventually they will kill us all. Neither should Federer.
     
    #4
  5. bluescreen

    bluescreen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,636
    dude, did u even listen to the commentary? johnny mac said hawkeye has a 90% accuracy rate, which means 10% of the calls can be wrong. today i really think fed was hooked on some of those calls.

    and u think he's nuts? imagine yourself in a wimbledon final going for five straight and tell me u wouldnt get a littled pissed at moments like that. what a troll man.
     
    #5
  6. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    Johnny mac said he didn't what the % accuracy is, but if it had 90% accuracy then fed beleives he's in the 10%..

    You completely misunderstood johnny mac's commentatary and I recommend you replay it if you have DVR or Tivo.

    Also I'm fairly certain the accuracy is in the 99% mark when I read about it last year.
     
    #6
  7. jaded

    jaded New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    what set did this happen?

    i'm watching the start of the 4th set right now on DVR
     
    #7
  8. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    4th set after fed goes double breaker down
     
    #8
  9. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,526
    It just shows fed is a baby when all is not going his way.
     
    #9
  10. Adrupert

    Adrupert New User

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    The machine is only accurate within 3 mm, it's possible he was right.
     
    #10
  11. tim8

    tim8 New User

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    60
    I don't know the exact accuracy or what exactly J-mac's comments were, but at the French Open there was a ball in the final that Hawk-eye had about a foot of the camera replay.
     
    #11
  12. armand

    armand Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,747
    Location:
    RDS001 90: SPPP 1.18 @ 63/61
    Funny comin consider your user name.
     
    #12
  13. bluescreen

    bluescreen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,636
    they should make hawkeye an option or something before a match. like each player has to agree to use it or it wont be used that match. or something like that. cuz u know, the proponents r talking about "imagine getting a bad call match point down." with hawkeye, u supposed wouldnt get hooked by a call.

    well it works both ways.
     
    #13
  14. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,038
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Man, you are relentless. If he wins, he's a baby. If he loses, he's a poor sport. Did you see the Bryan Brother's match today? They called the umpire stupid and wrong on TV. Are you ripping them? Are they babies? I know you're upset that Nadal lost a good chance to win Wimbledon today, but YOU are the one that is being a baby when not all goes your way (AKA Nadal loses). Seriously, you've said this in 3 or 4 different threads today. Let it go.
     
    #14
  15. jaded

    jaded New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    I just passed the part where Fed asks for hawk-eye to be switched off for the rest of the match. I know he's never been a huge fan of the hawk-eye challenge system, but it's definitely irritating him today.
     
    #15
  16. jaded

    jaded New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    What John actually said was:

    "If it's 90% accurate, which sounds good, 10% of the time it's going to be wrong. Federer clearly thinks he's in that 10%"
     
    #16
  17. princess bossass

    princess bossass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I agree. I think it's kinda BS that chair umps don't have to overrule line calls any more--if it looks close, they can rely on the players to challenge if they want. The players have enough going on physically and tactically without having to call their own lines. Seriously, this isn't HS junior varsity tennis.

    Some players say they like it because when they feel unsure about a call, whether their challenge is successful or not, at least they can put the point behind them and accept it, relieving their frustration. On the other hand, if (like Federer, clearly) you don't trust the technology, it just adds another layer of frustration.
     
    #17
  18. pow

    pow Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,439
    I agree with CyBorg. :-D
     
    #18
  19. dave333

    dave333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,018
    #19
  20. Big Fed

    Big Fed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    593
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Wow ur an ass.
     
    #20
  21. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Exactly and if you look at many of those calls that Hawkeye was used in that match and through the rest of the tournament many of them were within 3mm of the ball being in or out. The OP needs to do his homework better before creating such a thread. Just like his Djokovic thread. :roll:
     
    #21
  22. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,038
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Woah, someone went Greensalad on this thread. Any reason in particular? tlm and I were just talking, there wasn't name calling, etc...

    Anyway, tlm, I agree that sometimes Roger can be a bit boorish, but his talking to himself, the ump, etc today pales in comparison to some rants during this tournament, let alone in a historical context. Is it the best sportsmanship? No, but he could do worse. As for the poor sport thing...I don't know. People either think he is great or terrible. He seems like a genuinely nice guy to me, and that seems to be the general consensus among tour players, including Nadal (who has a TON of class, I love his attitude). I think JMac summed it up the best today: "Both Rafa and Roger are humbly arrogant." You have to think you're the best and despise losing to be that good. It's a skill they both posses. You may disagree, that's fine, I just thought I would give my take on it.

    I don't worship players, by the way. At the end of the day it's just a game.
     
    #22
  23. jaded

    jaded New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    48
    Federer sarcastically said "was that in too?"

    I'm not sure where you got the "you god damn idiot" part from...
     
    #23
  24. jaykay

    jaykay Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    992
    I believe that statistically, Hawk-eye is supposed to be APPROXIMATELY 97% accurate. While this statistical percentage cannot be accurate (which is why they deem is APPROXIMATE). The only thing that manufacturers guarantee about Hawk-eye is that it is accurate within 3mm of the line (which cannot, statistically translate to a percentage, with a high degree of accuracy). Thus, Hawk-Eye is NOT accurate ALL the time, as many players will definitely attest to.

    Part of the reason why Federer was going nuts was because Nadal was playing out of his mind in the 4th set; and the seemingly inaccurate Hawk-eye ruling made him go bonkers.

    Rafa trolls / Fed trolls apart, I thought it was a brilliant final (one of the best that I have seen in the last 5-6 years) and the nail-biting finish ensured that tennis was the victor.
     
    #24
  25. MoFed

    MoFed Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Victorville, CA
    Not to go off the subject, but the Bryans had every right to yell at the umpire. He called a game and set against because he thought they touched the net, but it was the ball. They tried to challenge, but that's not up for challenge.

    I can understand Roger's frustration with the machine, but every one of those balls were so close. I was looking at that thinking that it wasn't where the ball landed when I saw the live video.

    I think we can all say they both played a really good match.
     
    #25
  26. princess bossass

    princess bossass Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Greensalad? Help? :confused:
     
    #26
  27. saqdeez

    saqdeez Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    670
    nadal fans = sour grapes
     
    #27
  28. bluescreen

    bluescreen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,636
    that break of serve actually cost the bryans the match. now thats tough luck.
     
    #28
  29. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,038
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    That's a very good point about the Bryans. I think Federer over reacted a bit, but I understand that he was frustrated and we all do dumb things when we're frustrated. You're spot on at the end. It was a great match start to finish and both players deserve worlds of credit.
     
    #29
  30. Too Poor for Grass

    Too Poor for Grass New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    If we assume that Hawkeye has a 3mm margin of error, then we must assume that it's essentially infalliable because we're talking about about an eighth of an inch. No human eyes will see it more clearly.

    As for Federer, he was very frustrated at that point in the match, and he decided to take it out on hawkeye. My suspicion is that, in quieter moments, Federer will concede that the call was probably right.



    my suspicion is that, in quiter moments, he will concede that hawkeye is fine and th
     
    #30
  31. SuperSaiyanSonic

    SuperSaiyanSonic New User

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    14
    I thought it was funny.
     
    #31
  32. MasterTS

    MasterTS Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    Yep it reminds me of the time when Fed made an outburst, talking to Uncle Tony during one of their clay court matches when fed got super frustrated and lost.
     
    #32
  33. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,793
    Bottom line - Hawk-Eye was rigged in Nadal's favor today. It was clear for everyone to see. Even the slo-mo replays showed some of Rafa's shots to be clearly out but Hawk-Eye called them in.

    They need to build in some margin of error into the Hawk-Eye's algorithm. I think the Hawk-Eye system should only confirm what the human eye can actually see. A ball that lands only 1% on the line CANNOT be seen by the human eye so therefore Hawk-Eye should adjust for that and also call those shots out. If 100 different linespeople call a shot that lands in the exact same spot out 100 times each, then the ball is out. If it cannot be detected by the human eye, then Hawk-Eye should be programmed not to be able to detect it either. I think in those cases where less than 5% of the ball lands on the outside edge of the line, Hawk-Eye is not CORRECTING the linesperson's call, it is CHANGING the linesperson's call. There's a big difference. It is NOT a wrong call if it cannot be seen by any human eye under any circumstances. This is supposed to be real tennis played by real human beings, NOT some computerized digital tennis video game.
     
    #33
  34. jaykay

    jaykay Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    992

    BP: IMO, Hawkeye defly screwed up once and perhaps twice in today's match between Rafa and Fed. But was it rigged in Rafa's favor? --- C,mon... I don't think so. That is some weird conspiracy theory that I am not willing to buy into...
     
    #34
  35. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,742
    I don't understand how the system can be rigged for one player or not the other. It's easy to understand that with humans since there are favourites who get close calls but an electronic line calling system can not decide whether a ball is in or not based on who is challenging. Fed was being a bit pouty out there but he didn't expect to be down two breaks any set to Rafa on grass. His words on the changeover to himself said it all,
    "Look at the score now, it's just killing me today,".
     
    #35
  36. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,816
    And automobile accident prevention systems should allow accidents to happen because that is what humans would have done. Air bags should not inflate because humans should be allowed to bump their head into the steering - after all, it is they who should be in control, not a computer. And no radar or GPS on fighter jets either - can't see the enemy with your bare eyes at night? - just say your prayers and prepare to be shot down.

    No use of DNA in criminal cases either. I can't see the double strands of DNA - so a lab should not either. They should declare innocence or guilt just like they would have done if there was no DNA evidence.
     
    #36
  37. The Gorilla

    The Gorilla Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    2,495
    what would the point be of having hawkeye then breakpoint?And some people are better than others at seeing whether the ball landed in or out, so how would the machine be set up exactly?
     
    #37
  38. tennishead93

    tennishead93 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    505
    dude fed isnt even human
     
    #38
  39. couch

    couch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,897
    No, maybe it's that he cares a lot about winning five straight Wimbledons.
     
    #39
  40. DraGoNoFfiR3

    DraGoNoFfiR3 Guest

    hawkeye isnt always right. it's only right 90% of the time, which is pretty bad i think...
     
    #40
  41. poplar

    poplar Guest

    #41
  42. Vision84

    Vision84 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,655
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    You have to remember that 90% is for the balls that are close to the line and not for every one.
     
    #42
  43. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,793
    The point of Hawk-Eye should be to CORRECT obvious errors by the linespeople, NOT to CHANGE a lineperson's call which he saw correctly up to the limit what's possible for the human eye to see.

    They can easily re-program Hawk-Eye so that if less than 5% of the ball is on the outside edge of the line, that it would show the graphic of the ball as being out and also call the ball "OUT". The accuracy of Hawk-Eye should be limited only to what is physically possible for the human eye to see.

    If you were calling your own lines, like 99.999% of all tennis matches around the world are, would you be able to call a ball that lands only 1% on the outside edge of the line "IN"? Also, how about all the matches that are played on the outside courts at tournaments which do not have Hawk-Eye? The same exact shots that were called "OUT" are now all of a sudden called "IN" just because you're playing on a different court? Is that fair to everyone in the draw?

    Tennis is supposed to a real sport played by human beings with human eyes and not some computer video game. If it's not possible for the human eye to see it, then Hawk-Eye should not be allowed to change it.
     
    #43
  44. FuriousYellow

    FuriousYellow Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,485
    Nadal also had issues with Hawk-eye when he lost to Youzhny at Dubai earlier this year.

    LINK

    I agree with he said. Put Hawk-eye to the test at Roland Garros where the marks are clear.
     
    #44
  45. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,793
    What does any of this have to do with a game called tennis? :confused:

    A game in which 99.999% of all matches are played with the players calling their own lines and in which even the pros do not have electronic line calling unless you're in the Top 10 and get to play on one of the show courts?

    Do you also wish for more accuracy when the IRS audits your tax returns? :roll:

    If you want computers to control tennis too then throw away your racquet and get yourself a Playstation.
     
    #45
  46. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,793
    It's very obvious to me that Hawk-Eye is much less than 100% accurate. They say the accuracy is within 3mm. Well, the way the system is currently set-up, with the ball just barely touching the outside edge of the line being called "IN", 3mm could mean the difference between winning Wimbledon or losing it.

    It's ridiculous. They need to program in that margin of error so that if only 3mm or less of the ball is touching the outside edge of the line, it is still called "OUT". Right now, shots in which less than 0.5mm of the ball is touching the line are still being called "IN" all the time. That's crazy. No way is the system that accurate.
     
    #46
  47. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    from the link

    "I said `look the ball is out'," Nadal said later, "and the umpire said I know. The mark was clearly still there but the challenge said it was in. It's unbelievable.

    Federer had a similar incident today when he was staring right along the baseline when a Nadal shot landed on Federer's forehand side.

    Note to Nadal fans, this is a comment about the technology and not Nadal.
     
    #47
  48. Polaris

    Polaris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,316
    Actually, the umpire also said that he felt it was out. The slowed-down camera replays bore out the fact as well. This was not the first time that Hawk-Eye screwed up and it won't be the last.

    This is not to condone Federer's outburst. He should have accepted the decision and moved on, because the umpire's decision is final. It was unsporting to blame the system.

    But, it is quite instructive to see that some people don't want to accept that Hawk-Eye can screw up, and the remarks of MasterTS and tlm smack of blind bias more than anything else.
     
    #48
  49. AAAA

    AAAA Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,389
    It's also telling that the system doesn't show the public the actual video frame that recorded the ball landing in or out at the point of contact. Instead we are treated to a computer image CREATED by the system's ball trajectory mapping computer program.
     
    #49
  50. davey

    davey Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    352
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I agree. The NFL does a better job of using replay. They use actual video and only overturn calls if there is irrefutable evidence that the call is wrong. Tennis should get rid of the computerized line calling and if they really want to allow appeals of calls, then use high speed video and only overturn a call if the video absolutely shows the call was wrong.

    Part of the problem with the computerized system, is that it probably makes calls by a combination of video observing the ball something like 20 times a second and using the laws of physics to calculate the full path of the ball. The computer probably doesn't account for all factors in calculating the path of the ball. It doesn't know how fast the ball is spinning or the presence of any wind that can affect the ball. Either wind or spin can affect the ball far more than 3 mm. If neither were a factor, then it would be easy to project the path of the ball but they are and without knowing them it would be much more difficult to project the path of the ball accurately and when you consider how much spin players but on the ball, 3 mm sounds unrealistic. You could probably put some markings on the ball that would allow spin to be observed, but you still have wind.

    I know some people would argue that if the computer observes the ball 20 times a second or whatever it is, then the computer should be accurate, well, then just show the video, not what the computer interpreted from the video.

    At most, hawk-eye should be used to evaluate the line judges and chair umpire and only the people making the best calls should be calling the final. Baseball uses a video system to evaluate how umpires call balls and strikes but not to actually call balls and strikes.
     
    #50

Share This Page