Hawk Eye better than chair umpire on clay

Hokkaido

New User
One question, if Hawk-Eye isn't implemented properly in Roland Garros, how can they make these claims? Does anyone which kind of Hawk-Eye they're using to make the hawk-eye replay?

Only thing I can think of is they're using the regular TV footage as input for the Hawk-Eye system but if that's the case, the Hawk-Eye replay can't be as accurate as it usually is when using tailor-made cameras and angles. Am I missing something?
 
It was on match point so the match should have been over right there and then but because of the bad call she could have ended up losing. I’m glad that she eventually won and that the outcome didn’t change.
Yes,that would have been horrific had the Czech lost the match after that call, and I say that as someone who was big-time rooting for Sakkari. It was out by a pretty big margin, too! Was somewhat shocked at the call! Glad she ended up winning.
 

kevin qmto

Semi-Pro
I'm just glad Sakkari didn't win because then we'd have to listen to a media S*it storm for weeks talking about how she robbed her.
 

stachu

New User
Maybe if Pavluchenkova lost due to this mistake after 3 hour battle, it would finally push RG to implement hawk eye.
What a match that was.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
There are a million damn marks on the clay court. The deviant Dominik Koepfer spits on the court and then covers up the mark.
We are supposed to believe some old umpire is gonna hop off of his chair and be able to magically distinguish between marks?! Who are we kidding here?
The technology is there ... Embrace it. Don't be a Luddite.

But all's well that ends well.





 
Last edited:

sureshs

Bionic Poster
One question, if Hawk-Eye isn't implemented properly in Roland Garros, how can they make these claims? Does anyone which kind of Hawk-Eye they're using to make the hawk-eye replay?

Only thing I can think of is they're using the regular TV footage as input for the Hawk-Eye system but if that's the case, the Hawk-Eye replay can't be as accurate as it usually is when using tailor-made cameras and angles. Am I missing something?
HE uses its own network of cameras
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
I believe ball mark on clay is more accurate than Hawkeye, but you can’t help it if a stupid umpire can’t find the correct mark or interprets the mark wrongly. I would rather implement Hawkeye despite its margins of error to take away the human stupidity factor.
 

Searah

Semi-Pro
was very dangerous.. thinking you won could really have released all the tension..adrenaline..dropping your guard among other happy juices in your head.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
By the way this is why I am asking the question about how Hawkeye was used yesterday. There's no HE setup at Roland Garros so the HE replay was as good as made up wasn't it?
The graphics shown are certainly Hawkeye graphics. I’m just guessing that while the tournament does not use Hawkeye to make line calls, it does use it for added TV drama. Maybe they have some kind of agreement with the developer to use it for free as an advertisement. In my understanding, the system doesn’t work properly without the HE setup, so I don’t believe what you see is generated by TV cameras. Also Hawkeye graphics as far as I can tell are only used on PC and maybe Suzanne Lunglen courts.
 
One question, if Hawk-Eye isn't implemented properly in Roland Garros, how can they make these claims? Does anyone which kind of Hawk-Eye they're using to make the hawk-eye replay?

Only thing I can think of is they're using the regular TV footage as input for the Hawk-Eye system but if that's the case, the Hawk-Eye replay can't be as accurate as it usually is when using tailor-made cameras and angles. Am I missing something?
Exactly!
To suggest that "Hawk Eye" proved the umpire wrong is not correct.
 
Top