In or Out? Eye can Be Fooled

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by DoubleDeuce, Jun 23, 2009.

  1. DoubleDeuce

    DoubleDeuce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    South
    Interesting piece from NYT:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/sports/tennis/24tennis.html?hp


    "The researchers identified 83 missed calls during the 2007 Wimbledon tournament. (Some were challenged by players and overruled, and others were later identified as unquestionably wrong through frame-by-frame video.) Seventy of those 83 calls, or 84 percent, were on balls ruled out — essentially, shots that line judges believed had traveled farther than they actually did."

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2009
    #1
  2. Wow! :shock::shock::shock::shock:
     
    #2
  3. Aldi Patron

    Aldi Patron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    107
    I feel like I'm missing details from that story. Was it the entire tournament, including boys and girls as well as mixed doubles and wheelchair? Was the study done only on courts with Hawk-Eye?
     
    #3
  4. DoubleDeuce

    DoubleDeuce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    South
    Yes, otherwise the researchers had no way of deciding whether the call was actually in or out.
     
    #4
  5. Aldi Patron

    Aldi Patron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    Messages:
    107
    Yeah, but isn't the Hawk-Eye only somewhat accurate? Either way, 83 missed calls actually seems somewhat low for an entire tournament.
     
    #5
  6. DoubleDeuce

    DoubleDeuce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    South
    The article does not question the accuracy of the hawk eye.

    If you note that in a whole tournament most of the balls are clearly in or out, that percentage becomes significant.
     
    #6
  7. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,426
    Location:
    Moldova
    I think Hawk-Eye is accurate to a few millimeters, but could be wrong on that. However, 83 calls out of, what, 10,000? Thats an incredibly small number. Or were these just calls that were challenged?
     
    #7
  8. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    It's not that incredible considering most points aren't borderline calls at all. There's nowhere near "10,000" balls that are ambiguously in or out. 83 is significant considering that.
     
    #8
  9. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    Are you sure when they said frame by frame they weren't using normal video?
     
    #9
  10. ChanceEncounter

    ChanceEncounter Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    1,269
    Yeah, I think it's more likely they use on court footage.
     
    #10
  11. DoubleDeuce

    DoubleDeuce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,288
    Location:
    South
    I am not sure. The article does not specify which courts they used.
     
    #11
  12. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    I know they totally screwed Safin today, on a very important point, too!

    But he was on court 18 where there is no hawkeye.
     
    #12
  13. IvanAndreevich

    IvanAndreevich Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,492
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Last year's semifinalist, the guy is retiring this year, and they put him on court 18? Geez..
     
    #13
  14. Blinkism

    Blinkism Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Messages:
    8,598
    They probably put Bartoli or Kuznestova or some other array of choke-artists on better courts.

    Where's the respect? I don't even know anymore.
     
    #14

Share This Page