Glaring ShotSpot failure during Agassi/Pavel match

[fantom]

Second game of the match, Pavel serving at 30-15. Pavel hit a ball to Agassi's BH side for a winner. Agassi clearly wasn't happy about the call.

They showed a ShotSpot replay and a high speed camera replay (which they almost never do in tandem), and the two were AT LEAST 6 inches different from one another. They both showed the ball being in, but I was kind of surprised to see ShotSpot being off by so much.

 

[tennisbody]

I’m really sorry for Pavel. Agassi don’t need this type of “help” to win matches, but if he does it is time to say good bye.

 

[BERDI4]

Many people rely too much on computers. I usually see differences between the replay and the tandem, but this one was too big.

 

[swedechris]

replay points ?

i feel like the sportmanship in the game i and in spports and society in general is not exactly on the increas so why not when in real doubt just relay the point . just get on with going back to a 'status quo' and both playeres ahave a chance to win the point , for real , in question .
amen// c

 

[ty slothrop]

Second game of the match, Pavel serving at 30-15. Pavel hit a ball to Agassi's BH side for a winner. Agassi clearly wasn't happy about the call.

They showed a ShotSpot replay and a high speed camera replay (which they almost never do in tandem), and the two were AT LEAST 6 inches different from one another. They both showed the ball being in, but I was kind of surprised to see ShotSpot being off by so much.

i thought the camera showed the ball out by at least several inches, while shotspot had it right in the center of the line. what made it even funnier is that pmac and cliffie had just talked about the new and improved version of shotspot being used at indian wells.

back to the drawing board, folks!

 

[gully]

I've got a good look at this on a HDD/DVD recorder that will freeze-frame perfectly. While the shotspot showing the ball landing flat on the line is clearly NOT correct, the super-slo-mo camera shot is also NOT perfectly conclusive. At the moment the ball is compressed (bouncing), it appears to be touching the outside half of the line, but since the angle is not perfect -- it's from about 15 degrees to the left of the line -- the camera can't confirm that the ball was in OR out.

So: what can we conclude? The technology sure ain't perfect, as shotspot is clearly incorrect. Agassi may have been right, he may have been wrong -- he was a long way away from the line, that's for sure. The ump was right not to overrule on the far side. The linesperson is in perfect position to make an unobstructed call and it was called out without hesitation. I think everyone did their jos like they were supposed to on this point, and there's no reason Andre can't question it.

I can't see how anybody can conclude that from this point that we should feel sorry for Pavel (the ball was called in!) or that Agassi needs "help" to win matches.

Pavel did get jobbed on a backhand down the line at 0-1, 30-30 in the second set on Agassi's serve, but again, it was on the far line and the umpire was right not to overrule. In that instance, the linesman blew it. (Agassi seemed to say something to the crowd after the game that suggested he thought the call may have been wrong -- but again, on the point, he was a long way away from the ball.) Pavel should have had a break point, and if he'd gotten it, it might have been a different match.

McEwen (sp?) later made a horrible call with Agassi serving at 4-3, 15-0, giving him an ace on a ball that was clearly out but called late, reasoning that he'd already called the score. WTF? Except for this, though, the chair ump did a good job, not overruling when unnecessary.

Final count: Pavel got jobbed on two points, Agassi one (a let serve called in that was way out), and maybe another -- the shot in question. The early one in the second set could have been a crucial point, the later one wasn't, but it was insulting -- and odd.

 

[tennisbody]

Final point : it is not importent how many bad calls were made during entire match but at what stage of the match they were made. Bad call on braek point is totally different from bad call at 15-0. I hope everybody knows what momentum means in tennis and how difficult is to keep your concentration if your partner is getting "gimmes" any time you have a chance to break him....

 

[polakosaur]

theres 2 things you must think about with shotspot as in scientific studies and such. Accuracy and preciseness, those two must be consistent for a scientific or in this case shotspot to be accurate. For example take a dart board and you throw 5 darts accuracy would be hitting the bulls eye(if your target was the bulls eye) 5 out of 5 timesor some other high precentage, while preciseness is how close the darts are near each other, say the bulleyes is 2 inches in diameter, precsie would be the darts all in the middle, rights next to each other in the bullseye, while not precise would be the darts scattered all around the 2 inch diameter bullseye.

With shotspot it must first pass the accuracy test to then be precise, but you can't even start to fathom preciseness with shotspot. Shotspot hasn't even passed the accuracy part.

My other suggestion is why not use high speed cameras that are situated on the lines, wouldn't that be easier. Why should we take a camera and take the digital equation plug them into a computer and get a animation of the ball, how about just use real camera instant replay. I'm sure theres a way to set up cameras so that they won't be obstructed, like putting them on the net post, or in the netpost, how about overhead cameras.

 

[rafael]

The line calls were dodgy in general. Both players were on the recieving side of some bad calls. Agassi was able to cope with it better than Pavel.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

I was gonna post this EXACT same thing but you beat me to it. This was after they were saying how much more accurate it was. It was blatantly off.

 

[BreakPoint]

There were SO MANY bad calls during that match that I was totally disgusted. How about the late out call on Andre's serve down the center line which the umpire refused to reverse because he had already called the score? What's up with that? Wouldn't you rather be correct about a call than to let the wrong score stand?

That one linesman really hoodwinked Pavel. He was the same guy that called Pavel's backhand DTL shot, which clearly landed smack on the line, out. That would have given Pavel a break point. Even PMac got exicited over that one, which he rarely does.

 

[fantom]

This was after they were saying how much more accurate it was.

I know. I thought that was hilarious. Cliff just finished saying something about a new camera that improved ShotSpot's accuracy and within 2 minutes this happened. heheheh

 

[Deuce]

ShotSpot is - and has been always - nothing more than a computer estimate.

The only reason it has received any credibility at all is due to U.S. television commentators - quite obviously 'in bed' with someone on the issue - lauding its performance as infallible - and a lot of very gullible people lapping it up.

 

[VamosRafa]

I’m really sorry for Pavel. Agassi don’t need this type of “help” to win matches, but if he does it is time to say good bye.

So that one point won Agassi the match? Unless I'm mistaken the final score was 6-3 6-4, for Agassi.

Hardly a Cliff-hanger match, so to speak.

So did that one point, in the second game of the match, lose it for Pavel???

Now if it was in a tiebreaker???????

 

[Camilio Pascual]

I want Shot Spot to be used. There is no denying it, it was off. There is also, apparently, a way to correct it. All the more reason to use it, let's use all means available at the court to get the call right. The chair should have exclusive say, imo, on when it is used and what the ultimate decision is. I don't want a "Challenge" scheme or a limited amount of requests, let the chair run the show. I'd hate to see a player run out of a finite number of challenges and we see a blatant call upheld because "There are no more challenges left." Get the call right by giving the chair the authority over all.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

I want Shot Spot to be used. There is no denying it, it was off. There is also, apparently, a way to correct it. All the more reason to use it, let's use all means available at the court to get the call right. The chair should have exclusive say, imo, on when it is used and what the ultimate decision is. I don't want a "Challenge" scheme or a limited amount of requests, let the chair run the show. I'd hate to see a player run out of a finite number of challenges and we see a blatant call upheld because "There are no more challenges left." Get the call right by giving the chair the authority over all.

Yeah, that's what would be best. The Chair gets control.

 

[BreakPoint]

I want Shot Spot to be used. There is no denying it, it was off. There is also, apparently, a way to correct it. All the more reason to use it, let's use all means available at the court to get the call right. The chair should have exclusive say, imo, on when it is used and what the ultimate decision is. I don't want a "Challenge" scheme or a limited amount of requests, let the chair run the show. I'd hate to see a player run out of a finite number of challenges and we see a blatant call upheld because "There are no more challenges left." Get the call right by giving the chair the authority over all.

I agree. No challenges. That would introduce another unnecessary strategic element into the game, as in, should I use my challenge now in the 1st set or should I save them in case we get into a 3rd set and the points are more crucial? And even if they have a fixed number of challenges per set, there are a lot more points played in a 7-6 set than in a 6-0 set. The technology should just be used to improve the accuracy of calls no matter when or how many times it's needed. The bottom line is to get the calls right so that bad calls cannot influence the result of a match. So if the umpire can have immediate access to Shot Spot replays, then he should use it as much as he needs at his discretion. So anytime there's a close or questionable call, he can review it on Shot Spot immediately and either stay with the original call or make an overrule. It should be up to the umpire and not the players on when to use Shot Spot.

 

[tennisbody]

With both players playing equal tennis on professional level one break point is enough to win a set, and two break points to win a match. I'm not saying that this call won match for Agassi, but changed momentum completely. Pavel was gaining advantage and had a chance for break, but was denied by simple bad call. Next two games were even until score was 4:3 Agassi on his serve. Again similar correction in favor of Agassi when one of his serves was clearly out but corrected by empire as good. The score is 5:3 and match over. Simple? To simple and that is my point.

 

[gully]

With both players playing equal tennis on professional level one break point is enough to win a set, and two break points to win a match. I'm not saying that this call won match for Agassi, but changed momentum completely. Pavel was gaining advantage and had a chance for break, but was denied by simple bad call. Next two games were even until score was 4:3 Agassi on his serve. Again similar correction in favor of Agassi when one of his serves was clearly out but corrected by empire as good. The score is 5:3 and match over. Simple? To simple and that is my point.

That overrule -- ridiculous as it was -- didn't make the score 5-3. Instead of the score being 4-3, 15-0, second serve as it should have been, the score was 4-3, 30-0, and Agassi held serve twice to close out the match.

If Pavel was "gaining the advantage," how was it he was the one who was broken in the set?

Don't forget that Agassi earned the break he got against Pavel's serve earlier in this set, and that Pavel went 0-5 on his own break point opportunities. THAT's what earned Agassi the match.

 

[The tennis guy]

As been discussed many times, shotspot as it is now will never be used for line call. It is an estimation that doesn't take consideration of wind and weird spin.

The infrered used in Master Cup in Germany a few years ago acutally showed where the balls landed.

 

[Young Siward]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Spotspot? Is it a version of Hawkeye or something?

 

[Deuce]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is Spotspot? Is it a version of Hawkeye or something?

Yes, it is. Same flawed thing.