Crucial point that FED cried about: Is this IN or is this OUT?
Disclaimer: I'm a Rafa fan.
The ball was out...pure and simply out.
BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.
There's clearly no space in between the ball and the baseline. How is that ball "pure and simply out?" This question also goes for all those who considered this ball out.
If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.
Who cares, the match is over.
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
Not true at all. With hawk-eye, they can zoom in on the ball in question. It's very hard to tell because we don't really know how precise the program was written, but judging by the PICTURE from hawkeye, the ball OBVIOUSLY was called IN because it hit the line, PERIOD.show us a shot taken down the line. not with the line behind the ball. the ball in this image would have to be 6 or 7 inches behind the baseline for us to see a space between the two. show a shot down the line and i'll show you the space....
i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday.
i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday. the ball that rafa challened in the first set breaker was clearly out and hawkeye called it in. rafa, roger, and everyone else was shocked that they continued further in the breaker.
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.
Actually according to Paul Hawkins who developed Hawk Eye the system has a margin of error of + or - 3.6 mm--it is not infallible.But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
from that camera angle and its image touching the line, the ball is clearly out.
Who cares, the match is over.
Actually the margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That is quite a lot considering the sidelines on a tennis court could be as thin as 25mm, which means an out ball could be shown by Hawk-Eye as touching 12% of the line.But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.
If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.
A very candid article, a little funny and presumptuous at times.
I found the technicalities of Hawk-eye much more interesting than the harping on Federer's whining.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/tennis/sfl-flspbricker11nbjul11,0,2493083.story
exactly! that's what i'm sayingquote:
But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.
Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.
Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.
Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?
Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?
Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.
quote:
But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.
Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.
Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.
Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?
Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?
Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.
I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.
to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.
I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.
to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.