Is a ball that overhangs the line "in"?

[rufus_smith]

I am curious.
Is a ball that overhangs the line good? The ball does not touch the line or the interior court. It contacts the court 1 mm just outside to the line and does not flatten. When it contacts the ground the ball is so close to the line that a part of it overhangs the line without touching it. Is it officially "in" or "out"?

[Larrysümmers]

if its 1 mm out, then it might as well be mile out.

[woodrow1029]

It's only "IN" if it's touching the line. If it is only overhanging, it is "OUT"

[AELTC]

Theoretically, I don't think that ball is in. Think about the mark that ball would've left on a clay court.

If I saw a ball do that in match play, I'd probably call it good because the benefit of the doubt caused by whether the ball touched the line or just overhung it would go to my opponent.

[rufus_smith]

here is a pro example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Ufsrx5J-4

Some people commented that an overhanging ball is "in".
I never heard that before.

[jdubbs]

If a ball is only 1mm past the end line and you call it out, I would either say you have the world's greatest vision or you tend to call your lines pretty closely, maybe even unfairly.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

Some people commented that an overhanging ball is "in".
I never heard that before.

Well, it depends on how hairy the ball is.

[tennis_ocd]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

here is a pro example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Ufsrx5J-4

Some people commented that an overhanging ball is "in".
I never heard that before.

I thought that ball was IN!

[jswinf]

^^^hard post to follow...

The overhanging ball is technically out unless some fuzz grazes the edge of the line. Just be sure it doesn't hit you in the face until after it bounces--after all, to make a call with that kind of precision you'd obviously have to have your head down on the court looking straight up the line...

Or you could just call it good.

[Power Player]

I call those good and keep playing.

[kylebarendrick]

I have to assume that the question is in reference to a mark left on clay. Otherwise I'd have to agree that the shot is too close to call out with 100% confidence.

[tennis tom]

Unless at least one hair of the ball touches the line it is OUT. Maybe you are referring to a compression hit where the ball compresses and touches the line? The ball's shadow is not the ball, it is OUT. Nice pic, is that your sister--can we play mixed someday?

[Taxvictim]

This is the exact question I've always had about the Hawk-Eye system in pro matches. When the virtual camera moves overhead and then zooms down on the ball, is the shaded part the part of the ball actually touching the court? Or is is the regular dimension of the ball, which could possibly be just an overhang.

In club play, you have to call those in, unless you have a clear mark that is not touching the line.

[rufus_smith]

There's a lot for me to clear up here.

The pro example on youtube is Nadal's ball vs Federer that was called "in" by Hawkeye. Federer complained to no avail. To me the the slow motion replay shows that the ball never touched the line. In that case the correct call is out. As far as I know, an "overhang" ball isn't as "in". To be sure, I thought I would check with you guys since you are all experts and never make a mistake.

This has nothing to do with how I personally call balls in my matches. That is why I posted the "Don't assume, CHECK" picture of my pretty young "sister" who forgot a piece of apparel that she assumed she was wearing for tennis but wasn't. That post was apparently deleted by mods since it had some naughtiness. Sorry I posted that. For those who still would like to see it, I think it is okay to give you a remote link to the poster:

blackcatvintagetrials.com/2009/04/23/the-pre-65-departure.aspx

if this is not okay, sorry.

[woodrow1029]

A ball is not in if it doesn't touch part of the line. Therefore, if a ball touches out, and the ball is just overhanging over the line, it is OUT.

As for the video, there are people who would say that ball DID touch the line. This is why they need to use a system like Hawkeye, which is not actual video of the ball, because it is still subjective, and someone would need to make a decision on those really tight ones if it actually is in or out. Hawkeye is objective, and decided by a computer.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Taxvictim

This is the exact question I've always had about the Hawk-Eye system in pro matches. When the virtual camera moves overhead and then zooms down on the ball, is the shaded part the part of the ball actually touching the court? Or is is the regular dimension of the ball, which could possibly be just an overhang.

In club play, you have to call those in, unless you have a clear mark that is not touching the line.

AFAIK, the hawk eye system does not use cameras directly to determine in / out, but rather uses cameras to determine the trajectory of the ball, and then based on that, the presumed landing point of the ball is calculated. The system also calculates the probable 'footprint' the ball makes on the court using as inputs the trajectory, speed/height of the shot, and the compression characteristic of tennis balls. So when we are shown the virtual image, it is the "footprint" that we are shown, i.e. the part and shape of the ball having contact with the court.

[michael_1265]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

I am curious.
Is a ball that overhangs the line good? The ball does not touch the line or the interior court. It contacts the court 1 mm just outside to the line and does not flatten. When it contacts the ground the ball is so close to the line that a part of it overhangs the line without touching it. Is it officially "in" or "out"?

It's in. Your physical limitations do not allow you to discriminate between a ball that is 1mm outside the line and a ball that is on the line. Therefore, it is in.

[r2473]

Depends.

Is it break point or 40-0?

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by jdubbs

If a ball is only 1mm past the end line and you call it out, I would either say you have the world's greatest vision or you tend to call your lines pretty closely, maybe even unfairly.

Extending your argument, what about 1.1 mm? 1.2 mm? Is there a minimum margin one must provide?

[tennis tom]

Originally Posted by rufus_smith

... I thought I would check with you guys since you are all experts and never make a mistake.

Your kind words are greatly appreciated. Sorry your "sister" had to leave so quickly, as far as I'm concerned she's welcome back anytime.