Hawk-eye vs. ball mark

FranzS

Rookie
I watched yesterday's match between Zverev and Sinner and Zvervebot was complaining about some hawk-eye close "non-calls" on a couple of Sinner's winners, since he thought the ball marks were outside the line.
Please take a look at the video below, from 7:45 to 7:57. It is clear that a ball might be IN despite leaving a mark which is completely outside the line. It's curious to realize such a thing, I have never thought about that before. Have you?
Afterthought: how are chair umpires supposed to take a consistent decision on clay courts? Shouldn't hawk-eye be used on clay courts too, for the sake of consistency?

 

Rovesciarete

Semi-Pro
Use it on every surface in every major competition to close in on the truth in an consistent manner. It also helps us stats guys :giggle:

Zverev strangely complained much but if we had the system on a regular basis players would in general create less fuss...
 

Bumbaliceps

Semi-Pro
There shouldn't even be a debate about what is the better solution, when you have Foxtenn who could simply and definitely end every umpiring mistake for good.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Use it on every surface in every major competition to close in on the truth in an consistent manner. It also helps us stats guys :giggle:

Zverev strangely complained much but if we had the system on a regular basis players would in general create less fuss...
Hawkeye calls are only correct on high bouncing vertical balls that provide a perfectly round shape for the camera. There is no way these 15cm long elliptical shapes can be more accurate than a linesman’s eye who sees exact where the ball bounced.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Hawkeye is the future of tennis. Clay mark is a corrupt system. Change it now!

bad thing about hawkeye is that it can be fixed. if some organizer had ton of money on certain match, he can make the call go one way or another based on his desire
 
Hawkeye calls are only correct on high bouncing vertical balls that provide a perfectly round shape for the camera. There is no way these 15cm long elliptical shapes can be more accurate than a linesman’s eye who sees exact where the ball bounced.
that's your opinion, elliptical is exactly why linesman was wrong all along
 

Kalin

Legend
Ban Hawkeye technology and slow motion replays on tv. Make umpire calls final. Players would never know. Viewers would never know. Problem solved.
Eh? Have you not been watching sports, especially in HD? Viewers always know and players, most of the time, do too. Protecting incompetent umpiring by handcuffing technology is not the answer. Most sports have already figured that out.

Ban slow motion replays? What is this, the 12th century? Come on now...
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Eh? Have you not been watching sports, especially in HD? Viewers always know and players, most of the time, do too. Protecting incompetent umpiring by handcuffing technology is not the answer. Most sports have already figured that out.

Ban slow motion replays? What is this, the 12th century? Come on now...
You guys have no sense of humor whatsoever.
 

Kalin

Legend
You guys have no sense of humor whatsoever.
Ah, missed the sarcasm, sorry. But, having read many serious attempts at defense of horrible umpiring throughout the years, I am quite sensitive to whitewashing of refereeing crimes :mad:
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Ah, missed the sarcasm, sorry. But, having read many serious attempts at defense of horrible umpiring throughout the years, I am quite sensitive to whitewashing of refereeing crimes :mad:
Fully understand your point of view and I’m all for using real time technology in tennis, though I think it has a couple of flaws that need to be, and can easily be, improved. Obviously my post was humorous even without a smiley at the end :)
 

demrle

Professional
Fully understand your point of view and I’m all for using real time technology in tennis, though I think it has a couple of flaws that need to be, and can easily be, improved. Obviously my post was humorous even without a smiley at the end :)
I was one of, if not the only idiot, that took your post seriously. The essence of it anyway. Why?

So a player gets a bad call. So? It's all a matter of convention anyway:

1) These things tend to balance themself out in the long run anyway.
2) Umpires make mistakes, while players are perfect and never do, oh wait... (and yet, the players acting like entitled brats, as if that statement were true). There's no problem, as long as those umpire mistakes are not tendencious. And they're not.
3) Since we're not "handcuffing technology" let's replace the players as well. I'm sure there is, or soon will be, a robot able to play tennis more precisely/monotonously/dependably than a human. Or even Djokovic. Who needs UEs when we have technology.

The game is good as it is. Controversy makes it more initeresting. Tradition should count for something. Anything.

Controversial take? Good.
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
Hawk-eye is better than the human eye and i agree that consistency is needed. It also removes any arguements from players and keeps the game flowing coz god help me, i love watching tennis but noone has the time or eye capcity to watch three 4+ hour matches a day during a slam because of controversial shots.

Also, linespeople won't get better. The human eye has a limit, the hawk-eye technology does not. They can make changes to the system every single day and make it better and better to account for any such issues like sliding on clay or heavy spin. The only real reason to keep it as the human eye is to create more controversial entertainment that certain people seem to enjoy. I don't. I believe sport related incidents should be accurate to benefit the better player. I hate the idea of a player getting robbed of a potential win because of a bad call and using hawk-eye also entirely rules out any potential bias.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
I was one of, if not the only idiot, that took your post seriously. The essence of it anyway. Why?

So a player gets a bad call. So? It's all a matter of convention anyway:

1) These things tend to balance themself out in the long run anyway.
2) Umpires make mistakes, while players are perfect and never do, oh wait... (and yet, the players acting like entitled brats, as if that statement were true). There's no problem, as long as those umpire mistakes are not tendencious. And they're not.
3) Since we're not "handcuffing technology" let's replace the players as well. I'm sure there is, or soon will be, a robot able to play tennis more precisely/monotonously/dependably than a human. Or even Djokovic. Who needs UEs when we have technology.

The game is good as it is. Controversy makes it more initeresting. Tradition should count for something. Anything.

Controversial take? Good.
I don’t know if you watch football, but bad calls are very common, and they do affect the outcome of a match directly. Penalties not given because referee failed to see the handball, or red card given for a cynical foul that actually was just a player acting. It was so bad that a few years ago, the bundesliga banned slow motion replays in stadiums because spectators were going nuts at the mistakes and there were real worries for violence. I found that outrageous because they would hide the truth from spectators because it could lead to violence. Since then, VAR was introduced but all it does is slow down the game and the most stubborn referees will not even acknowledge VAR “suggestions”. So what about tennis? I think the technology should be used but in the correct way. There is no need to remove the linesmen (I’m also an old fashioned guy) but also they should not wait for a player to challenge a bad call. The umpire on his screen should have all the info, and whenever there is a bad call, he should reverse it automatically.
 

demrle

Professional
I don’t know if you watch football, but bad calls are very common, and they do affect the outcome of a match directly. Penalties not given because referee failed to see the handball, or red card given for a cynical foul that actually was just a player acting. It was so bad that a few years ago, the bundesliga banned slow motion replays in stadiums because spectators were going nuts at the mistakes and there were real worries for violence. I found that outrageous because they would hide the truth from spectators because it could lead to violence. Since then, VAR was introduced but all it does is slow down the game and the most stubborn referees will not even acknowledge VAR “suggestions”. So what about tennis? I think the technology should be used but in the correct way. There is no need to remove the linesmen (I’m also an old fashioned guy) but also they should not wait for a player to challenge a bad call. The umpire on his screen should have all the info, and whenever there is a bad call, he should reverse it automatically.
Yes, I watch football, or soccer - to be precise. Or I at least used to, to be even more precise, and pretty passionately at that. And while I admit to having lost interest for soccer even prior to these developments you describe, had that not happened, the introduction of VAR would have sealed the deal for me, for sure. I mean, when I first saw the referee stopping the game and calling for VAR, I honestly thought it was a joke. Soccer is such a simplistic and boring sport as it is (and again, I was a avid follower for about 20 years), and VAR is aimed at killing one of the two most appealing aspects of it, "controversial entertainment" (as @Terenigma eloquently put it), while "collaterally" killing the other, its "dynamicity". I'm sure that soccer will be just fine, as it is so deeply engrained in so many societies, that they can do just about anything they want and get away with it, but that is beside the point.

Ever since I've stopped following soccer, or a couple of years before that, I've started following football, the American one. I don't know if you're familiar with the NFL, but they're using VAR-like video review system for decades now, and it works great, in my mind at least. But here's the thing. It's a very different sport to soccer, they have stoppages in play anyway, so they can allow themselves to have reviews without influencing the flow of the game that much.

Coming back to tennis, I find it much more similar to NFL than to soccer, in terms of game flow. Halting play for a review a couple of times per set is no big issue. I see zero problems with keeping it just the way it is. Switching to the solution you are suggesting wouldn't "disturb" me much :), I guess, but I find even that unnecessary. If we are being honest, there's been little to no call-related controversy, ever since hawk-eye was introduced. I would even deliberately leave it up to the players to decide when they want to challenge a call*. And if the players are too hesitant to use challenges cause they find them too scarce, then raise the number of challenges per set to, let's say, five and problems solved. As I already said, the players bring the ultimate human factor to the game anyway and are not perfect either. Yet nobody suggests replacing them by technology, and I don't even think that this comparison is much of a caricature. I think that tradition in tennis is an important aspect, that the game is good as it is and should not be tinkered with.

* I can't find an excerpt-footage of it now, but I remember Rafa challenging his own serve in the AO 2012 final against Novak. Rafa's serve had been called in by the linesmen and Novak had hit a clean winner off of it. The call stood in that instance, so Novak won the point, but let's analyze the following hypothetical situation. Rafa serves an out ball, which is falsely called in and hit a return-winner of by Novak. Now, if automatically reversed by the referee using the live hawk-eye, it's a second serve for Rafa. But if it is left to Novak to decide, whether to challenge or not, he would, of course, choose not to, as he wins the point with the return. Which means that Rafa needs to challenge the serve, in order not to lose the point. And I would even argue, that it's completely fine to charge Rafa with that responsibility, as he's been, generally speaking, the beneficiary of the wrong call to begin with. So I just think that this makes for an interesting dynamic sometimes, which I would miss.

And oh BTW, who are you calling an old-fashioned guy!? :happydevil:

Here's a funny watch, somewhat related to the topic:

 

Arak

Hall of Fame
It’s not ball shape, it’s the contact area
That’s probably what is claimed to be, but I don’t think that’s a realistic thing. It’s more likely a flaw in the technology as the contact area should not exceed the size of the ball in my uneducated opinion.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
Does Hawkeye make wrong calls? Yes. I just witnessed one during Novak and Anderson match in Vienna. The serve was obviously out but was called in and of course the umpire cannot overrule it. Now is it more accurate than the human eye? Of course it is. It just lacks the brains of a human that can decide a ball is out by the mark it left on the court.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I watched yesterday's match between Zverev and Sinner and Zvervebot was complaining about some hawk-eye close "non-calls" on a couple of Sinner's winners, since he thought the ball marks were outside the line.
Please take a look at the video below, from 7:45 to 7:57. It is clear that a ball might be IN despite leaving a mark which is completely outside the line. It's curious to realize such a thing, I have never thought about that before. Have you?
Afterthought: how are chair umpires supposed to take a consistent decision on clay courts? Shouldn't hawk-eye be used on clay courts too, for the sake of consistency?
Too right it should.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
Maybe I'm just being cynical, but I've long suspected that the reluctance to introduce Hawk-Eye on clay is because it has a wider margin of error than claimed.

When you have a visible mark on the surface, but the system says otherwise, then that's going to completely ruin the integrity of the process.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
i prefer ball marks. especially on hard courts. you still get great ball mark on hard courts. it is better. i use it in league matches.
 
Top