Federer figures out hawk eye

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Reborn Rebel, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. Reborn Rebel

    Reborn Rebel Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    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?
     
    #1
  2. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,704
    Location:
    So Cal
    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?
     
    #2
  3. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    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
     
    #3
  4. abraxas21

    abraxas21 Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,136
    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.
     
    #4
  5. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    Can you be more specific on the incidences? When/in what match did they occur?
     
    #5
  6. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    #6
  7. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    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.
     
    #7
  8. defrule

    defrule Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    826
    Wasn't their a point where Hawkeye took the second bounce instead of the first?
     
    #8
  9. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    THIS´╝üYou know the man!
     
    #9
  10. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    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.
     
    #10
  11. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    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? :)
     
    #11
  12. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    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?
     
    #12
  13. yellowoctopus

    yellowoctopus Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,420
    Location:
    the present

    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    #13
  14. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    i still think safin is the worst hawk eye challenger ever, and not fed
     
    #14
  15. GasquetGOAT

    GasquetGOAT Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    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:))
     
    #15
  16. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,704
    Location:
    So Cal
    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.
     
    #16
  17. Commando Tennis Shorts

    Commando Tennis Shorts Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,708
    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
     
    #17
  18. jrod

    jrod Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566

    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....
     
    #18
  19. jrod

    jrod Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Messages:
    2,566
    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.
     
    #19
  20. AM95

    AM95 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    3,245
    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 =\
     
    #20
  21. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Nah, Fed is way too fair as a player for that.
     
    #21
  22. Ledigs

    Ledigs Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    4,074
    Location:
    NY
    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
     
    #22
  23. Changmaster

    Changmaster Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    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.
     
    #23
  24. kishnabe

    kishnabe G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2008
    Messages:
    17,204
    Location:
    Toronto
    What comes to mind is when Safin challenged twice and twice it showed the same ball on the same place! It was hillarious!
     
    #24
  25. valiant

    valiant Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,471
    Location:
    New Delhi
    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
     
    #25

Share This Page