Clay needs Hawkeye - ASAP. Pliskova robbed against Sakkari.

Hawkeye on clau?

  • Yes

  • Hell yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Aussie Darcy

Aussie Darcy

Bionic Poster
This just happened and i'm sure it'll be a talking point.

Pliskova deep in the 3rd set against Sakkari. Hits a smash winner, the line judge calls it out, it's clearly in. Chair umpire hops down, can't find the mark, calls the line umpire up who now can't find the mark. The usually calm Pliskova absolutely livid, goes on the other side of the net to try and show. Tells Sakkari to show but Sakkari says she didn't see where it landed but she offers to replay the point. Pliskova asks for the tournament director who comes out but does nothing. TV replay then shows the viewers its clearly in.

Footage of the ball in here https://twitter.com/Ashish__TV/status/996733586597298176

Nothing happens and Sakkari gets the point so she has break point which she then converts. Goes on to serve out the match. Pliskova loses and provides an EPIC racquet smash.

Shakes Sakkari's hand then does a brilliant fakeout handshake to the umpire and then DESTROYS her racket against the umpires chair. Hits it so hard she does this to it.

DdUdSiyWkAA04p_.jpg


Footage here:

https://twitter.com/Ashish__TV/status/996734671625977856


Notice how shocked Sakkari is by Pliskova smashing the racket, takes a step back.

EPIC
 
Last edited:
QuadCam

QuadCam

Professional
That was a pretty lame racquet smash, actually. I was hoping to see a full freak out. It didn't even look like she broke her racquet, just tore through the plastic of the unpire stand.
 
QuadCam

QuadCam

Professional
That was a pretty lame racquet smash, actually. I was hoping to see a full freak out. It didn't even look like she broke her racquet, just tore through the plastic if the unit
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Steve0904 said:
Clay has needed hawkeye ever since hawkeye was a thing. If they have a dispute over the ballmark just use hawkeye then. You don't need to worry about margin of error. Nobody would argue with a machine anyway. Unless you whine about it like Federer I suppose ;).
Click to expand...

That works until HawkEye says out and you go check the mark and it's clearly in.

reaper said:
They show Hawkeye on the coverage.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's still a great tool for stats. But for calling lines on clay, it certainly isn't.
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
StANDAA said:
Clay doesn’t have hawkeye for the same reason smaller stadiums at big HC tournaments don’t have it. It’s too expensive.
Click to expand...

Nah, they have HawkEye on pretty much all clay tournaments. Especially the masters, they just don't use it for line calling cause it simply doesn't work well enough.
 
Terenigma

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Did you see how far the ball was in tho? Yeah maybe clay might make it SLIGHTLY less accurate than on hard or grass but its still way more accurate than the blind as f*** umpires if you can't see a clear imprint. I'm not even convinced by the hawkeye arguement for clay, like what about clay makes it worse for hawkeye? The lines cant be seen coz the tape is covered up? Are we not past that and can customise the tech to better work? I'm sure it can be used still.
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
StANDAA said:
Clay doesn’t have hawkeye for the same reason smaller stadiums at big HC tournaments don’t have it. It’s too expensive.
Click to expand...

Nah, they have HawkEye on pretty much all clay tournaments. Especially the masters, they just don't use it for line calling cause it simply doesn't work well enough.
 
Terenigma

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Adv. Edberg said:
Nah, they have HawkEye on pretty much all clay tournaments. Especially the masters, they just don't use it for line calling cause it simply doesn't work well enough.
Click to expand...

Then it should be used as a reference point when the umpires can't find the mark. There are ways to still use it or at least reference it. I don't claim to know how hawkeye is used but i'm pretty sure by now it should be scanning the lines even if it can't physically see the lines if they were covered in clay and be able to tell when a ball bounces in comparison to the lines. I refuse to believe it simply "cannot be used" and especially not when umpires are making mistakes like this.
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Aussie Darcy said:
This just happened and i'm sure it'll be a talking point.

Pliskova deep in the 3rd set against Sakkari. Hits a smash winner, the line judge calls it out, it's clearly in. Chair umpire hops down, can't find the mark, calls the line umpire up who now can't find the mark. The usually calm Pliskova absolutely livid, goes on the other side of the net to try and show. Tells Sakkari to show but Sakkari says she didn't see where it landed but she offers to replay the point. Pliskova asks for the tournament director who comes out but does nothing. TV replay then shows the viewers its clearly in.

Footage of the ball in here https://twitter.com/Ashish__TV/status/996733586597298176

Nothing happens and Sakkari gets the point so she has break point which she then converts. Goes on to serve out the match. Pliskova loses and provides an EPIC racquet smash.

Shakes Sakkari's hand then does a brilliant fakeout handshake to the umpire and then DESTROYS her racket against the umpires chair. Hits it so hard she does this to it.

DdUdSiyWkAA04p_.jpg


Footage here:

https://twitter.com/Ashish__TV/status/996734671625977856


Notice how shocked Sakkari is by Pliskova smashing the racket, takes a step back.

EPIC
Click to expand...
Salt will be rubbed into the wound when Pliskova gets fined for smashing her racquet. Why can't the supervisor have a monitor where he has access to Hawkeye so that he can adjudicate in these cases? The supervisors might as well not be there because they always side with the umpire, no matter what.
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Steve0904 said:
So how do you deal with these umps when they run out and point to the wrong mark? Or the right one but they make a clearly wrong call? The machine might not be perfect, but it's a machine. Most players that aren't complete hotheads will accept it and move on.
Click to expand...

HawkEye isn't perfect even on HC. But people have accepted it cause there isn't much else to compare to HawkEye, i.e a mark. But on clay HE doesn't work as well because of undulations caused by the clay moving around among other things.

If the umpire is unsure of the mark they should call for the line judge to point out the correct mark.

It's not perfect and mistakes will happen, but they are very rare. It's still a better system than HE.
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
kimguroo said:
I have a Conspiracy theory that ATP knows Hawkeye is not a perfect system and afraid to reveal + - differences at clay courts. If players see those margins, there will be more arguments and distrust the system and it will be a disaster.
Click to expand...
It is known that the deviation of the hawk eye is 3.6 mm.
 
Deon Sanders

Deon Sanders

Legend
Wont happen until "honest" and "humble" Ned finally retires

Have to give room for creative interpretation of in and out for his matches
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
kimguroo said:
I have a Conspiracy theory that ATP knows Hawkeye is not a perfect system and afraid to reveal + - differences at clay courts. If players see those margins, there will be more arguments and distrust the system and it will be a disaster.
Click to expand...

It is known that the deviation of the hawk eye is 3.6 mm.
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
kimguroo said:
I have a Conspiracy theory that ATP knows Hawkeye is not a perfect system and afraid to reveal + - differences at clay courts. If players see those margins, there will be more arguments and distrust the system and it will be a disaster.
Click to expand...

It is known that the deviation of the hawk eye is 3.6 mm.
 
T

TahoeTennis

Legend
As much as people think, one point does not a match make. While the call was horrible the reaction does warrant a penalty for smashing her racket against the empire share and seems like she was just a sore loser. You have to move on and have short term memory to play great tennis and can't dwell on a past point
 
T

TahoeTennis

Legend
As much as people think, one point does not a match make. While the call was horrible the reaction does warrant a penalty for smashing her racket against the empire share and seems like she was just a sore loser. You have to move on and have short term memory to play great tennis and can't dwell on a past point
 
boredone3456

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Just bad officiating. I'm really sick of hearing officials claim they cannot find the mark. This seems to happen more and more lately and I do not blame Pliskova for being angry. If the mark could not be identified by the chair and they do not use hawkeye for whatever reason they should have just replayed the point. Even Sakkari was willing to replay the point in this instance which, lets be real, she could have played stupid and not offered to replay the point at all. She tried to be nice in the situation.

However, the racquet smashing, well she probably will at least be fined for that. Directly striking the chair of the official, no matter how mad at them you are or how bad they are doing their job, is not ok. That would be like if my Boss upset me and I went into his office and kicked a hole in the wall or his desk. You just don't do that.
 
Enceladus

Enceladus

Legend
kimguroo said:
I have a Conspiracy theory that ATP knows Hawkeye is not a perfect system and afraid to reveal + - differences at clay courts. If players see those margins, there will be more arguments and distrust the system and it will be a disaster.
Click to expand...

It is known that the deviation of the hawk eye is 3.6 mm.
 
Mr.Lob

Mr.Lob

G.O.A.T.
DAMN! Pissedkova just put herself in the esteemed company of Johnny Mac, Jimbo Connors and Serena "I didn't say I'd kill you" Williams with that outburst. A few more whacks on that umpires chair and it would have come tumbling down! :eek:
 
tacou

tacou

G.O.A.T.
prairiegirl said:
I don't understand the logic behind not having it. The umpire runs out and points to a mark and there are hundreds of marks on the court in the same place. It's ridiculous and unprofessional. Don't they have Hawkeye at RG?
Click to expand...
"Get hawkeye. Everyone else has it."
"But the ball leaves marks in the dirt.."
"Tennis balls leave marks on everything. That's how the the physical world works. Get Hawkeye."
"Shhh shhh. Look at her go. She'll find it... Woops, wrong mark."
 
Sum Buddy Ells

Sum Buddy Ells

Hall of Fame
The clay-hawkeye debate will never be put to rest, no surprises there. The only thing new I learned from this incident is that Pliskova is quite capable of displaying strong, passionate emotion :eek: So not quite the genetic makeup of those like Kristen Stewart or octobrina10
 
Simon_the_furry

Simon_the_furry

Hall of Fame
qindarka said:
Not for smashing the racquet, but for doing it on the umpire's chair. I know there was no intention to actually hurt the umpire but it was still a physical threat.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could interpret it that way. I don't think she should be banned, though, as it posed no harm and is, IMO, up for interpretation as to whether it was a threat towards the umpire or not.
 
R

reaper

Legend
Tshooter said:
So what.

They’ll show you whatever they think you might find entertaining to get you to keep watching.
Click to expand...

I'm yet to see an example where Hawkeye contradicts the ball mark. It removes the issue of match officials using an incorrect mark or not finding a mark at all.
 
Tshooter

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
reaper said:
I'm yet to see an example where Hawkeye contradicts the ball mark. It removes the issue of match officials using an incorrect mark or not finding a mark at all.
Click to expand...

(1) I’ve not seen something = it doesn’t happen, is not persuasive;
(2) if Hawkeye never contradicts “the ball mark” then there is no reason for it as far as accuracy of the call is concerned;
(3) if you mean Hawkeye doesn’t contradict “the ball mark” you think is the correct mark compared to the one the chair thinks is the correct mark this is just a rephrase of the question whether Hawkeye is accurate. As for the accuracy should I rely on you or the company ?

“One thing that’s integral to our system is we measure the court, but we also measure the undulations in the ground,” Irwin [Hawkeye company director of tennis as of May 2016 article] “So when you play on clay, obviously the ground is constantly changing, so that would require a lot more work from our side. We would constantly have to recalibrate the system if it were to be used for officiating [on clay].“

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2016...ts-would-be-required-use-hawk-eye-clay/58722/
 
pame

pame

Hall of Fame
Adv. Edberg said:
Nah, they have HawkEye on pretty much all clay tournaments. Especially the masters, they just don't use it for line calling cause it simply doesn't work well enough.
Click to expand...
Can you provide the name of one clay tournament where hawkeye is used? I can't seem to find any
mmk said:
Says who, and for what scientific/engineering reason? It surely works better than the umpire did in this match, or in Goffin's match against Nadal at last year's Monte Carlo.
Click to expand...
Say the guys who run Hawkeye.. the reason is tied up with the number of times they'd have to redo the surface because clay is such a shifting surface.
 
Standaa

Standaa

G.O.A.T.
Adv. Edberg said:
Nah, they have HawkEye on pretty much all clay tournaments. Especially the masters, they just don't use it for line calling cause it simply doesn't work well enough.
Click to expand...

Why would they get a hawkeye for clay courts if it’s not going to be used and why doesn’t it work well enough?

I though they just decide not to purchase the system for clay courts cause you can see the mark there, unlike on HCs or grass courts where hawkeye’s necessary.
 
Last edited:
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
mmk said:
Says who, and for what scientific/engineering reason? It surely works better than the umpire did in this match, or in Goffin's match against Nadal at last year's Monte Carlo.
Click to expand...

There’s been plenty of articles of why it doesn’t work on clay. But basically, the clay is too dynamic.

And while HE wouldn’t make this big of an error it would’ve made 10 other errors in this match that the umpire didn’t do.

When the umpires are unsure about the mark they should simply ask the line judge to point it out for them.
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
pame said:
Can you provide the name of one clay tournament where hawkeye is used? I can't seem to find any
Click to expand...

Rome, Madrid, MC, FO etc. They just don’t use it for line calling because HE doesn’t do a very well job. It’s still good for stats.
 
tennis_pro

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Dimitrov was also robbed earlier today by no other than Carlos Bernardes. Got pretty angry too even though the call made no difference in the end.
 
Last edited:
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
StANDAA said:
Why would they get a hawkeye for clay courts if it’s not going to be used and why doesn’t it work well enough?

I though they just decide not to purchase the system for clay courts cause you can see the mark there, unlike on HCs or grass courts where hawkeye’s necessary.
Click to expand...

HE doesn’t do line calling very well on clay. But it’s still great for stats.
 
Adv. Edberg

Adv. Edberg

Legend
reaper said:
I'm yet to see an example where Hawkeye contradicts the ball mark. It removes the issue of match officials using an incorrect mark or not finding a mark at all.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen it a few times. Umpire went down and checked mark and called it in. The player agreed. And camera zoomed in on the mark and even then you could see the mark touching the line despite the low camera angle.

But Hawkeye called it just out.
 
onehandbh

onehandbh

G.O.A.T.
kimguroo said:
I have a Conspiracy theory that ATP knows Hawkeye is not a perfect system and afraid to reveal + - differences at clay courts. If players see those margins, there will be more arguments and distrust the system and it will be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Hawkeye is supposed to be accurate to 3.6mm

For sure there may situations on clay where the mark clearly show the ball was in or out but hawkeye gets it wrong.
 
sredna42

sredna42

Hall of Fame
qindarka said:
Unlucky to lose the point but I feel Pliskova should get banned for her reaction at the end.
Click to expand...
No, if anything the umpire should get fired for being incompetent at their job at best, or corrupt and taking bribes from illegal betting syndicates at worst.

These players do it hard, give it their all, sacrifice their lives, and only to get literally robbed by incompetency so astounding that it beggars belief, her reaction is not only completely human, but after the match when umpires get it this horribly wrong they should have the common fcuking decency to publicly apologize and acknowledge the mistake.

The Pliskova twins are usually so placid that you'd think they were dosed up on medication of some sort, so for one of them to rage you know it is genuine.

"hUrrdurr, sportsmanship, reputation of the sport, she must be banned and her career ruined" The ATP is doing just fine all on their own making the sport look like a farce with apparently blind umpires bloated with little emperor syndrome deciding matches like this.
 
Autodidactic player

Autodidactic player

Professional
sredna42 said:
No, if anything the umpire should get fired for being incompetent at their job at best, or corrupt and taking bribes from illegal betting syndicates at worst ...
Click to expand...

Of course, Pliskova should be fined. She needs to show more maturity and respect for her sport.

But an umpire who is too lazy (or corrupt) to get out of her chair and do her job should be banned for life. This call wasn't even close - obviously in - yet the umpire wouldn't even ask the line official to point out the mark. Inexcusable in my opinion! Umpires should not be above criticism.
 
mightyjeditribble

mightyjeditribble

Hall of Fame
That's interesting about the undulations.

You'd reckkon Hawkeye could be used to help the umpire identify the correct mark, however ... particularly if the equipment is already up for analysis purposes.

I guess this means that automatic line calling (as trialled in Milan) is not coming anytime soon to clay.

One thing I do wonder about with HawkEye, wonder whether anyone know - how big is the potential for human error? I mean, they need to calibrate the system before the tournament (and, at least on grass, at regular intervals as I understand). How foolproof is this? E.g., presumably (?) the system does not detect the lines themselves using cameras, but rather is calibrated to know where the lines are. Is it possible for this calibration to be slightly off, through human error? Would be interesting to know more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Open Stance
  • Poll
Is it time to start using Hawkeye on clay?
Replies
25
Views
2K
Wurm
Wurm
Return_Ace
Eurosport Commentators Are Why Fed is Against HawkEye ?
Replies
7
Views
1K
Return_Ace
Return_Ace
woodrow1029
ATP/WTA/ITF Challenging Rules Test
Replies
32
Views
4K
SweetH2O
SweetH2O
W
Itf/atp/wta Umpire's 2011 Examination Questions
Replies
27
Views
2K
woodrow1029
W
BreakPoint
How many thought Serena's last shot was actually in?
Replies
20
Views
2K
sdont
sdont
Top