Fed goes off on Hawkeye - again

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
I guess the usual fat wad of kronas to the tech team didn't do the trick this time around...:(
 
Am I reading the article wrong or he is actually implying that the technology should be used to its full advantage.

Doesn't sound like dissing it.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
The part where he says, 'I still see calls I don't understand' seems pretty clear. He still doesn't trust it.
It is a fact that Hawkeye is only accurate to a certain extent (I think it was something like a few mm) yet it is used for calls where the margins are much smaller than the potential error involved.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
It is a fact that Hawkeye is only accurate to a certain extent (I think it was something like a few mm) yet it is used for calls where the margins are much smaller than the potential error involved.
I know that - and it's 1mm. But when Fed says there are calls he 'doesn't understand' I think that's more than +/- 1mm - he's implying there are clear mistakes. IMHO.
 
The part where he says, 'I still see calls I don't understand' seems pretty clear. He still doesn't trust it.
IMO, Federer has acknowledged the fact that HE is useful and should be employed as much as possible.

He simply states the fact that the technology is not perfect and this shoud be considered..
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
I know that - and it's 1mm. But when Fed says there are calls he 'doesn't understand' I think that's more than +/- 1mm - he's implying there are clear mistakes. IMHO.
I too doubt it at times to be completely honest. The claims of +/-1mm under any condition do not convince me.

It would be interesting to see an experiment where they compare Hawk Eye to the ball marks on clay.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
The gist of what he said is that play should be stopped once it's too dark for hawkeye which I agree with. But I still think hawkeye is the way to go overall. Even if it makes errors it's probably better than human judgement most of the time and there will always be questions about human accuracy anyway. Nobody (except Federer apparently ;) ) bothers to question technology, certainly not in this context.
 
7

70sHollywood

Guest
Problem is, how messed up would the schedule be if they didn't carry on playing? (not related to Hawk Eye, but it's amazing how close they got last night to having to come back Monday, even with the weather being as great as it has been).

Maybe they could do something like in cricket, where both teams must agree to the use of the DRS for it to be used? Both players must agree to Hawk Eye being used. Also, both players must agree to stay on after it gets too dark to use. Then it's in the players hands.
 
Why does a guy who hates it use it? Also why if he doesn't trust it is he whining about games being called off if it is not available?
 
Last edited:

Krish872007

G.O.A.T.
Why does a guy who hates it use it? Also why if he doesn't trust it is he whining about games being called off if it is not available?
It's not his decision on whether hawkeye is used during matches or not. And the argument is that if it is being used in a match, it should be used throughout the match - so if it doesn't work at night, just suspend play - I think.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Why does a guy who hates it use it? Also why if he doesn't trust it is he whining about games being called off if it is not available?
Do you mean 'why does he challenge calls?' I don't see any other choice - he'd be insane to not challenge. Of course the fact that he sucks at it...
 

jiddy-p

Semi-Pro
He's right in that it's not accurate. We saw this in the Djokovic Tomic game. It was wrong by at least 2-3cm.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
This is Fed's presser

Tim Henman talks about it around the 3:55 mark
God, he looks awful in white. Where is that old pink Nike outfit picture where he carried the purse onto Central Court in front of everyone:rolleyes:?
 

ollinger

G.O.A.T.
Anyone who remembers Serena's infamous down-the-line USO shot that appeared to be a few inches inside the line and was called out will accept Hawkeye's margin of error.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
I think the title is misleading. His point is not about Hawkeye. It's about darkness. If the technology can't work, how will human eyes?
That's fine - but it's really both. He also says he sees Hawkeye verdicts he just 'doesn't understand'. Without coming out and saying the +/- 1mm is a crock of dog stuff, he's saying the +/- 1mm...
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
That's fine - but it's really both. He also says he sees Hawkeye verdicts he just 'doesn't understand'. Without coming out and saying the +/- 1mm is a crock of dog stuff, he's saying the +/- 1mm...
I agree with you on that point, because it's alike a more passive-aggressive way of saying that the human eye is better than Hawkeye. ;)

I would agree that now and then when a ball is shown to be in by a mm, it might actually be out by a fraction of a mm. That's still way better than what used to happen with line calls. So I do think in this case "Grampa" is being a bit grumbly. ;)
 

Zoolander

Hall of Fame
I
I think it's been stated that the ball skids too much on clay and can never be used there.

I would like to see a video on how it's calibrated/tested.
I remember seeing a video on here somewhere where they showed how the mark left on clay by a ball is actually marginally larger than the balls actual impact point. It might have been made by the hawkeye company pushing their tech by saying its unreliable to go just off the mark left?? Dont remember exactly.
 
This only means the most sophisticated court in the world is clay court: you don't need hawkeye on clay. Clay can call itself if the ball in or out. The humble clay beats hawkeye 10/10.
 

ARKustom93

Professional
He's right in that it's not accurate. We saw this in the Djokovic Tomic game. It was wrong by at least 2-3cm.
According to whom??

And after watching the clip(thx, jwjh), he's definitely not knocking Hawkeye per se, but rather commenting on it's limits. As for "not understanding some calls", IMO mostly a question of perception, based on what that particular shot felt like. Any adv. level player will understand what I'm talking about.
 

Kalin

Legend
Marks on clay are fine as long as the court is relatively smooth and the ball relatively slow.

Whenever a very hard, low-bouncing, skidding shot lands near a mangled base/sideline there is still confusion as to which exact mark it actually was (we saw it often in RG as people pointed at all kinds of marks that seemed to serve their purpose) and 2. which parts of the mark are 'fresh' and which aren't. Not so easy to tell on a roughened up clay service. Remember, seeing the mark as an overall spot is one thing, figuring out where it exactly starts (the crucial part) is another.

Hawkeye will be awesome when it's much faster. I think the problem now is that the ump has to actively call for a Hawkeye review for the process to be started, is that so?
 
Do you mean 'why does he challenge calls?' I don't see any other choice - he'd be insane to not challenge. Of course the fact that he sucks at it...
If you don't believe in a system then why use it? No player is forced to use any challenges=or is it just he believes in it when the calls go the way he wants & it sucks when they don't?
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Why does a guy who hates it use it? Also why if he doesn't trust it is he whining about games being called off if it is not available?
Here's what he said. Instead of making it into a personal thing about Federer, why not just examine what he said on it's own merit. It's not even his own match he was talking about.

If it is so dark that Hawkeye stops working, then matches should be called off at Wimbledon, Roger Federer said on Saturday.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
I


I remember seeing a video on here somewhere where they showed how the mark left on clay by a ball is actually marginally larger than the balls actual impact point. It might have been made by the hawkeye company pushing their tech by saying its unreliable to go just off the mark left?? Dont remember exactly.
This only means the most sophisticated court in the world is clay court: you don't need hawkeye on clay. Clay can call itself if the ball in or out. The humble clay beats hawkeye 10/10.
Then lets make all the tennis courts in the world clay and bugger off hawkeye! Rafa would love it!
If the mark on clay is not accurate, then all the more reason why HE should be used. A visual inspection is only fine if the ball is clearly in or out.
 
Here's what he said. Instead of making it into a personal thing about Federer, why not just examine what he said on it's own merit. It's not even his own match he was talking about.

If it is so dark that Hawkeye stops working, then matches should be called off at Wimbledon, Roger Federer said on Saturday.
You don't think he is saying it with an eye to self preservation? i still don't get it-he does nothing but moan about the system yet still uses it in matches & is perfectly happy with it when it works to his advantage.
 

Serve&Bash

Semi-Pro
You don't think he is saying it with an eye to self preservation? i still don't get it-he does nothing but moan about the system yet still uses it in matches & is perfectly happy with it when it works to his advantage.
Heh.A handful of comments about hawkeye (most of them jokingly like at the hit for haiti exhibition) over the last 7-8 years and Federer "does nothing but moan about the system". Federer has never started a serious campaign to remove hawkeye. In fact, if anything, these comments by show that he accepts hawkeye for what it is and pro tennis should make sure its available at all times when play is going on courts that are equipped with hawkeye cameras.

I agree with Fed on this. Its silly how they got hawkeye due to the history of controversial calls on the big stage, yet it is simply not available during the last hour or so when Wimbledon matches are going. Realistically, those are the times when you need hawkeye even more. I can't imagine how hard it must be to call lines in those evening hours before sunset.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
You don't think he is saying it with an eye to self preservation? i still don't get it-he does nothing but moan about the system yet still uses it in matches & is perfectly happy with it when it works to his advantage.
There you go again, taking it out on him. Just because you don't like someone does not mean that whatever he says should be mocked. You are just repeating what you said again rather than giving your opinion on what he said.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
The gist of what he said is that play should be stopped once it's too dark for hawkeye which I agree with. But I still think hawkeye is the way to go overall. Even if it makes errors it's probably better than human judgement most of the time and there will always be questions about human accuracy anyway. Nobody (except Federer apparently ;) ) bothers to question technology, certainly not in this context.
+1 Hawk eye is the best thing that happened to modern tennis.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
Federer is saying here that while this technology is not perfect, it's still better to use it, which is an extremely reasonable opinion. I don't know what's so controversial about that.
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
I don't agree they should halt play at night just because hawk-eye is not functional for that time of day. Only the top players have the luxury of using this technology. Hawk-eye should be seen as an enhancement to the game and thus used when possible - its not a dependency. A football match wouldn't stop being played if goal-line technology wasn't working would it?..
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I don't agree they should halt play at night just because hawk-eye is not functional for that time of day. Only the top players have the luxury of using this technology. Hawk-eye should be seen as an enhancement to the game and thus used when possible - its not a dependency. A football match wouldn't stop being played if goal-line technology wasn't working would it?..
Federer was not saying hawkeye should be the deciding factor there. What he was saying was if it is so dark that even hawkeye stops working, how do you expect human eyes to see properly.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Federer is saying here that while this technology is not perfect, it's still better to use it, which is an extremely reasonable opinion. I don't know what's so controversial about that.
What's unreasonable is not what was said, but WHO said it. Obviously if someone is a Fed-hater, then everything he says is seen with tinted glasses.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
I think they should get rid of Hawk-Eye. Or at least have only 1 challenge rather than 3. Sometimes there will be 10 challenges or more in one single set. It's ridiculous...

Tennis was just fine in the 80s and 90s without Hawk-Eye and it still will be today.
 
There you go again, taking it out on him. Just because you don't like someone does not mean that whatever he says should be mocked. You are just repeating what you said again rather than giving your opinion on what he said.
Except Fed is my favourite male player.
 
Top