Question about: Claycourts and Hawkeye

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by kosmikgroove, Apr 1, 2006.

  1. kosmikgroove

    kosmikgroove New User

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    During claycourt matches, will players still be able to ask the umpire to get out of the chair to check a mark? Or will they only be able to challenge a call?
     
    #1
  2. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    hey thats a good point..i also wonder if the accuracy of the thing is any different on clay for some reason. i would think they would just stay in their chairs as that would also speed up play
     
    #2
  3. splink779

    splink779 Guest

    I dont think Hawkeye will be used for clay. There is absolutely no point.
     
    #3
  4. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,066
    The FO has absolutely ruled out this technology.
     
    #4
  5. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    I agree.
    Sometimes you might get a funny mark on clay, specially if the ball hits the lines. Should be enogh to get the ump down of the chair.
     
    #5
  6. Max G.

    Max G. Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,357
    No point in using shotpot on clay - I really doubt they would bother to spend the money to set it up when they can just look at the mark.
     
    #6
  7. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    They already have it there for the viewing audience and commentators although I don't know if they'll be using it at the French. I hope they do because it'll make the clay game more interesting.
     
    #7
  8. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    How come?? :confused:
     
    #8
  9. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,447
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    see, i don't really see how it makes the clay game, or any other game more "interesting."
     
    #9
  10. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    I wonder of that was one way they tested Hawkeye...by testing it on a claycourt and comparing how the imagery matched up with the actual ball mark, that would be pretty revealing I think
     
    #10
  11. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Because the chair ump not coming down and going to hawkeye will save time and effort.
     
    #11
  12. chiru

    chiru Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,455
    yeah but checking a mark seems even more accurate than hawkeye, and i really dont see the point. the players will probably let the ump know whether its worth it to come down or not, and you wont see useless challenges like you do know, before the players challenge, they can already see whether they're right or not, so u wont have this 2 challenge system.
     
    #12
  13. dubsplayer

    dubsplayer Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    660
    They won't be using hawk-eye on clay and there won't be a limited amount of times an Umpire can be asked to get down from the chair and check a mark. What I don't get is why, when using hawk eye, there is a limit when there is none on clay. What is the difference between asking the umpire to check an image of a mark on a computer an one on clay?

    I also have a problem with it not being used on all courts. If players on lowly outer courts can lose matches and money/points due to bad calls why should it be any different for marque players.

    Personally, I think hawk eye and the challenge system is being implimented on hard courts strictly for the "entertainment value" that broadcasters hope will translate into higher viewership.
     
    #13
  14. eLterrible

    eLterrible Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    246
    I've always challenged the validity of hawk-eye because sometimes "the system is down" so i think it would be interesting to compare an actual mark on a claycourt against the hawkeye and see how accurate it really is.
     
    #14
  15. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    First of all, that wouldnt be interesting to me (that the ump stay stuck in his chair) at all. Secondly, about the time and effort, you may wanna consider the work of all the technicians who are behind hawkeye and the money to implement it. I really dont see your point.
     
    #15
  16. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Hawkeye is there for TV viewers whether the officials use it or not, so your effort and money argument is lost right there. The ump not coming down saves time and if it's interesting to you, that's your opinion because it's definitely not interesting to a whole host of people.
     
    #16
  17. diegaa

    diegaa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    somewhere in between
    Ok, so you r saying that the INTERSTING issue is about an animated computer image for the "amusement" TV viewers?? If that´s the case, speak for yourself, I prefer ten times more that the ump goes down a check the mark by himself.
     
    #17
  18. 156MPHserve

    156MPHserve Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,076
    sometimes, you can't be ENTIRELY sure about the mark the player claims is where the ball hit.

    also during the clay court season, there were many bad calls that were unresolved. definitely there were some that the ump could check and fix but there were still some bad calls hawkeye/shotspot could be useful to correct. and i really DO feel there's an excitement when a player challenges. You see the ball slowly landing and then it reveals to you where it was, it's interesting and suspenseful. You can easily tell by the crowd's reaction that it's interesting.
     
    #18
  19. gzhpcu

    gzhpcu Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,019
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Well, maybe it will eliminate questions which come up now and then on clay, such as: which mark was it? did the ball really touch the line? (assuming Hawk-eye is really accurate and accepted by the players)
     
    #19
  20. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    You won't be seeing Hawk-Eye used on court again until the summer hardcourt season (not sure if they are having it Houston though). No point in having it on clay really (although I agree that it would be rather interesting) and I think it might be a while before grass court tournaments adopt it, especially Wimbledon.
     
    #20
  21. roddick1982

    roddick1982 Guest

    i really think hawkeye is a good idea
    but i can see people's point about clay...would be good if they could afford it, cos marks on clay can be old marks too...
     
    #21
  22. roddick1982

    roddick1982 Guest

    i hear Wimbledon will test in 2007
     
    #22
  23. Babblelot

    Babblelot Professional

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    This was the very point I was raising when the USTA was considering implementing it for 2005 USO, dubs.

    On the other hand, I think each slam works hard to maintain its own identity.

    > AO has resisted changing from Rebound Ace (manufactured in Melbourne) to a faster, hardcourt surface over complaints raised by Patrick Rafter and Lleyton Hewitt

    > RG allows players to challenge every point even though it requires the ump to leave the chair and point to the mark

    > W has remained grass, despite the fact, for all intents and purposes, there is no grass court season

    > USO has a 5th set tie-breaker and will implement Hawk-Eye in 2006

    Variety must play into the discussion somewhere.
     
    #23
  24. skip1969

    skip1969 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    6,447
    Location:
    Pleasantville
    very good points, dubs. which only confirms in my mind how much of a gimmick factor is involved in the way the whole shot spot system is being implemeted. instead of allowing the drama on the court to build organically, they have decided to use shot spot on create drama surrounding close line calls. now its, "tune in to watch the player versus linesman/ump show".

    which, in a certain respect, implies that the actual tennis being played on the court (or the personalities playing) are not enough to draw in audiences, at least in the eyes of the atp and wta.
     
    #24
  25. RiosTheGenius

    RiosTheGenius Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,818
    Has Roger Federer used this challenge thing at all???.... somebody tell me.
     
    #25
  26. fishuuuuu

    fishuuuuu Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,769
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Yes.
     
    #26
  27. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Roger went 1 for 5 at Nasdaq. I thought he'd do a lot better, but I guess Roger's perception is not as good as I thought.
     
    #27

Share This Page