Hawkeye/Shotspot flunk out

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
What's more wrong. The machine, the lines people or the chairsman? I remember in Wimby they had to change a lines person because they were making some bad calls (albeit they were overruled by the chairman).

I think the shotspot/hawkeye etc. is accurate enough.
 

Max G.

Legend
bamboo said:
They are obviously wrong sometimes so this is the right choice.
AngeloDS said:
What's more wrong. The machine, the lines people or the chairsman? I remember in Wimby they had to change a lines person because they were making some bad calls (albeit they were overruled by the chairman).

I think the shotspot/hawkeye etc. is accurate enough.
And I say neither of you know what you're talking about...

Watching the TV, we have NO idea of how accurate or inaccurate it is.

To bamboo - I haven't seen it be obviously wrong, in the Grand Slam tournaments I've watched. I have no idea how, watching the TV, you could ever get a good enough view of the ball to say that it's "obviously wrong" or not. You can't, and there just aren't enough calls on which shotspot is used to make anything close to a good sample.

Especially since, if properly used, the umpire could eliminate shotspot readings that he knew were error-prone - I would guess that shotspot could inform him if a camera was blocked or something.

To AngeloDS - again, how the heck do you know that it's accurate? Do you just believe what the manufacturers say? How on earth do you know that shotspot is indeed more accurate than the linespeople, or that it's even accurate enough?

The tests that were done were designed to do exactly that - find out whether it's accurate enough. It failed, for now.


I'll repeat - they tested the accuracy of shotspot. IT WAS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH.

Before the tests were done, I said that if shotspot showed itself to be sufficiently precise, then it should be used; and if it wasn't, then it shouldn't. The tests were done. Shotspot turned out to be less accurate than expected. Thus, it shouldn't be used.

Accuracy is the main reason to introduce shotspot - if the tests show that it's not accurate, how can you even support introducing it? There's simply no advantage besides pretty pictures.

On this matter, I am going to trust the committee that did the tests, simply because there's really no other way for me to judge. (On that note, it would be interesting to see the procedure and data from the tests, out of curiosity...)
 
Max G. said:
...On that note, it would be interesting to see the procedure and data from the tests, out of curiosity...
one has to assume for the system to be testable, you would need a more accurate system to compare. Why not use that system instead?

Especialy if they do that stupid 3 challengers a match thing.
 

Babblelot

Professional
Max G. said:
Before the tests were done, I said that if shotspot showed itself to be sufficiently precise, then it should be used...
Assume for now that shotspot is sufficiently precise.

Does anyone know how it would be implemented? I know Johnny Mac keeps talking about a system in which a player gets 1 challenge a set. IMO, however, I don't see why, say, rules involving challenging calls at the USO should be any different than those at Roland Garros, where players are at liberty to challenge virtually every close call, and the chair umpire comes down from his perch and points to the spot on the clay, which invariably is followed by a discussion over which mark in the clay is correct.

I would think the technology provided by shotspot would allow not only the chair and the television audience to see where the ball landed, but it could be displayed on the huge monitors on the feature courts as well, so that the players and fans in attendance can see, too. Moreover, even using RG rules, the fact that the chair umpire can watch the replay from his perch is time saving relative to the umpire coming down from his chair and inspecting the spot on the court.

So, back to my question: does anyone know how shotspot would be implemented assuming it gets the green light?
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Babblelot said:
I don't see why, say, rules involving challenging calls at the USO should be any different than those at Roland Garros, where players are at liberty to challenge virtually every close call, and the chair umpire comes down from his perch and points to the spot on the clay, which invariably is followed by a discussion over which mark in the clay is correct.
Chair umpire doesn't have to come down to check the mark every time a player challenges call at RG.

Babblelot said:
I would think the technology provided by shotspot would allow not only the chair and the television audience to see where the ball landed, but it could be displayed on the huge monitors on the feature courts as well, so that the players and fans in attendance can see, too. Moreover, even using RG rules, the fact that the chair umpire can watch the replay from his perch is time saving relative to the umpire coming down from his chair and inspecting the spot on the court.
Shot spot never shows the ball actually landed, it shows a projection of where the ball COULD BE landed. Besides 3 cameras minimum, other factors like wind, court slope are entered in the computer. However, swirling wind, uneven slope, weird spin from the ball factors cannot be considered by the computer system. Shot spot is a modeling system, which will never be perfect just like the linesperson.
 

Babblelot

Professional
The tennis guy said:
Chair umpire doesn't have to come down to check the mark every time a player challenges call at RG.
You're absolutely right. IIRC, in all the matches I attended this year at RG, the chair ump argued his case from the chair exactly twice.

Anyway, my question--does anyone know how it would be implemented?--assumed that shotspot (or hawkeye) was sufficiently precise. You obviously don't know the answer to the question, so don't waste your time responding.

Thanks.
 
i said this before long time ago. We have had many posts about this. shotspot or hawkeye or whatever is not that accuarte. I saw a ball out by an inch call in. a ball that was clearly in was called out.
The best camera replay is the Mac Cam where they actually see the ball hitting the ground.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Babblelot said:
You're absolutely right. IIRC, in all the matches I attended this year at RG, the chair ump argued his case from the chair exactly twice.

Anyway, my question--does anyone know how it would be implemented?--assumed that shotspot (or hawkeye) was sufficiently precise. You obviously don't know the answer to the question, so don't waste your time responding.

Thanks.
They haven't got to that second step yet. First it has to be accurate enough, then the question is how to implement.
 

bamboo

Rookie
Max G. said:
And I say neither of you know what you're talking about...

Watching the TV, we have NO idea of how accurate or inaccurate it is.

To bamboo - I haven't seen it be obviously wrong, in the Grand Slam tournaments I've watched. I have no idea how, watching the TV, you could ever get a good enough view of the ball to say that it's "obviously wrong" or not. You can't, and there just aren't enough calls on which shotspot is used to make anything close to a good sample.

Especially since, if properly used, the umpire could eliminate shotspot readings that he knew were error-prone - I would guess that shotspot could inform him if a camera was blocked or something.

To AngeloDS - again, how the heck do you know that it's accurate? Do you just believe what the manufacturers say? How on earth do you know that shotspot is indeed more accurate than the linespeople, or that it's even accurate enough?

The tests that were done were designed to do exactly that - find out whether it's accurate enough. It failed, for now.


I'll repeat - they tested the accuracy of shotspot. IT WAS NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH.

Before the tests were done, I said that if shotspot showed itself to be sufficiently precise, then it should be used; and if it wasn't, then it shouldn't. The tests were done. Shotspot turned out to be less accurate than expected. Thus, it shouldn't be used.

Accuracy is the main reason to introduce shotspot - if the tests show that it's not accurate, how can you even support introducing it? There's simply no advantage besides pretty pictures.

On this matter, I am going to trust the committee that did the tests, simply because there's really no other way for me to judge. (On that note, it would be interesting to see the procedure and data from the tests, out of curiosity...)
Whenever it disagrees with Cyclops, it's wrong. The electric eye has been tested against the MacCam and is used for other applications. I've seen it disagree with Cyclops a half-dozen times and its flacks claimed Cyclops must be wrong. Tr.net says Hawkeye's accurate 86% of the time, much less than a decent human official.
 

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
I never said it was 100% accurate, I said it was accurate enough. I also proposed the question as to what has been more accurate as of late. Lines people, chairman or hawkeye/shotspot.

I also propose another question, do you feel that lines people and chairmans and such should be as rigerously tested as the hawkeye/shotspot? To ensure such.

Do you feel a good portion of those people would pass? More than 75%?

Per se the test went like this, they were given videos of hard calls. They see it, and given 5 seconds to say if it was in or out. Then it will replay from different angles in slow-motion (high speed cameras) to show if it was in or out.

or if it was done via computer and they had a head thing to see first perspective, the person has to call it.
 
where are people pulling these statistics from [the tester not the poster]. 75% accurate does that mean the linesman get it right 75% of the time in a match or does the linesman call the ball right for 75% of close calls?
 

Deuce

Banned
AngeloDS said:
I never said it was 100% accurate, I said it was accurate enough. I also proposed the question as to what has been more accurate as of late. Lines people, chairman or hawkeye/shotspot.
Well, obviously it is NOT accurate enough. If it was, they wouldn't have scrapped it.

As to what has been more accurate of late - linespeople, umpire, or ShotSpot... Well, how do you define 'accurate'? Do you define 'accurate' as being where the TV commentators say the ball landed, or where the ball actually landed? The TV commentators are notorious for questioning linespeople and umpires - especially linespeople. But they NEVER question ShotSpot. Doesn't that seem at least somewhat suspicious? Everything indicates that the commentators were told/paid to promote ShotSpot as if it is perfect. This, combined with the commentators questioning linespeople (which they were perhaps also told to do more of lately, in order to help market ShotSpot) has lead to the TV viewer being given a blatantly unbalanced perspective in favor of Shotspot.
 

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
Stop beating around the bush.

We've seen chairsmen make late calls. We've seen linespeople have to change due to their bad calls. We've seen chairsmen make bad calls that decided matches. Even atrocious calls where it was clearly within the lines.

WTT Philip vs Mac was a good example imo. Two of his serves were clearly out, though no one called it other than Philip. He only called it on one, was late on the other. But they were both out.

I think ShotSpot/HawkEye has a heck of a better chance of "guessing" than we do. That's why I believe it should be introduced. It's all mathematical, and takes in factors, like the ball being compressed and such when it hits the ground.

Even though it may not be 100% perfect, I feel it's accurate enough and by that I mean it's better at guessing than us when it comes to crucial and certain points.

Do you think a person could make a call where the ball was compressed on the ground? I doubt the naked eye can see that.

Look at Roddicks serve, in slow motion the ball is not perfectly round when he hits it, nor is it perfectly round when it leaves his racquet. It wabbles it stretches wide, and compresses, stretches wide and compresses. You can't see that with the naked eye, only with physics and mathimatical equations can you get that as well as looking at it in slow motion. The naked eye CANNOT see this very well.
 

D-man

Banned
IMNSHO, I don't think shotspot could *possibly* be worse than the way it is now with linespersons. too bad i was looking forward to the added dimension it would bring.
 

Deuce

Banned
Angelo wrote:
"Even though it may not be 100% perfect, I feel it's accurate enough and by that I mean it's better at guessing than us when it comes to crucial and certain points."

Well, once again, others, who are obviously more familiar with ShotSpot's weaknesses than are you, obviously feel that it IS NOT accurate enough to be used.

The fact that you offer up a World Team Tennis match as evidence, Angelo, indicates the clear weakness of both your perspective, and of your position.

The last two posters are blatant examples of those fooled by the marketing of ShotSpot.

For the past two years or so, in virtually every televised tournament, we have had the commentators habitually tell us - usually without proof - that A) linespeople are imperfect and often make mistakes, and that B) ShotSpot is perfect and NEVER makes mistakes. Unfortunately, too many people simply choose to believe what they're told in lieu of actually thinking about the details and implications of what they're being told.

The only thing that would actually and without argument provide a more accurate rendition of where the ball struck than would the human eye would be a high speed camera like Mac-Cam. This is an actual replay of the actual ball striking the actual surface... not a computerized, animated guess, which is all ShotSpot is.
 

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
Well, once again, others, who are obviously more familiar with ShotSpot's weaknesses than are you, obviously feel that it IS NOT accurate enough to be used.
So, as we've seen Linespeople and Chairspeople are not accurate. So we should not use them? That's what you're saying by your logic.

What should we use then? If we can't trust people, and we can't trust technology. What can we use?

Stop beating around the bush, as I've said earlier.
 
Something else I have been wondering about hawkeye, is if it creates a calculation on every single ball.

I have noticed that sometime the tv will show a hawkeye result so that the commentator can explain it. But then minutes later when there is a contentious line call there is no showing of hawkeye result.

Most of the Australian commentators ... actually everyone except Jim Courier talk about hawkeye as if it is never wrong, its like the thought never even enters their head. Jim courier is the only one who I have noticed that regularly says "hawkeye's result is not the same result I saw from the video [something along those lines]".

This is also something that the are not showing anymore, they never show hawkeye results and video results. A while back they used to do it.
 

divito

Rookie
What boggles my mind is that with the extensive advancement of technology that has taken place, we are unable to develop a sufficient system in which to make accurate calls that surely influence the outcome a game can take. I'm sure some people will tell me that I have to develop it. Well, give me the resources and the scientific minds to contemplate something and I would gladly.
 
divito said:
What boggles my mind is that with the extensive advancement of technology that has taken place, we are unable to develop a sufficient system in which to make accurate calls
What a ridiculous comment. So in your opinion, with the curent technology, what should we have solved and what should we not have solved?.
 

Babblelot

Professional
The tennis guy said:
They haven't got to that second step yet. First it has to be accurate enough, then the question is how to implement.
Pretty idiotic, considering the USTA's decision not to implement some form of electronic line calling just came this week.

Consider the mass confussion had they given it the green light. :confused:
 

fastdunn

Legend
AngeloDS said:
I never said it was 100% accurate, I said it was accurate enough. .
The key here is that the error (from interpolation) varies
depending on the location where the ball lands on and
other factors like noisey in the images.

The fact that the error ratio is not consistent concerns
me in order to use it intennis match.
If the hawk eye/shot spot can also calculates accurate error estimations
on each replay, it might be usable.
If error estimation is too big on some call, for example, umpire can call it
"unusable".
There is no magic here. It's an image processing technique.

If anybody knows contacts for this hawk eye/shot spot developer,
I would like to discuss it with their engineers/scientists.....
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
AngeloDS said:
So, as we've seen Linespeople and Chairspeople are not accurate. So we should not use them? That's what you're saying by your logic.

What should we use then? If we can't trust people, and we can't trust technology. What can we use?

Stop beating around the bush, as I've said earlier.
The point is, if neither linespeople nor shotspot are accurate, why do you replace inaccurate linespeople with another inaccurate shotspot?
 

Max G.

Legend
AngeloDS said:
So, as we've seen Linespeople and Chairspeople are not accurate. So we should not use them? That's what you're saying by your logic.

What should we use then? If we can't trust people, and we can't trust technology. What can we use?

Stop beating around the bush, as I've said earlier.
We should use the one that is MORE accurate. Which, according to the tests that were done, turned out NOT TO BE SHOTSPOT.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
Deuce said:
The only thing that would actually and without argument provide a more accurate rendition of where the ball struck than would the human eye would be a high speed camera like Mac-Cam. This is an actual replay of the actual ball striking the actual surface... not a computerized, animated guess, which is all ShotSpot is.
Yes. And, from what I've learned, the Mac-Cam is thought to be too expensive ... at the moment.

I always preferred the Mac-Cam, myself. Maybe now that ShotSpot & Hawkeye have been (somewhat) discredited, we'll see some more broadcasts using the Mac-Cam...?

(One can always hope.)

- KK
 

divito

Rookie
Ok Hitter, I think the most effective logical thing to use is a more advanced Mac-Cam and something along the lines of a pressured, sensitive line for the court. Of course I'm not a programmer or engineer, but I think something like that would of course be expensive and thus be used only in Center Court etc... I don't think my comment was at all absurd, simply expressing the frustration I've had in understanding what the problem is.
 

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
The tennis guy said:
The point is, if neither linespeople nor shotspot are accurate, why do you replace inaccurate linespeople with another inaccurate shotspot?
So you're saying we should of let that innacurate linesperson in Wimby keep calling a lot of the shots that were in -- out? Instead of replacing the person? They did replace the person at Wimby, though.

But according to you, we should of let that person stay in. And keep calling bad calls. Instead of replacing them with someone who is a little more accurate than the original linesperson. Not 100% accurate, but clearly more accurate in calls and such than the original linesperson.
 

Max G.

Legend
AngeloDS said:
So you're saying we should of let that innacurate linesperson in Wimby keep calling a lot of the shots that were in -- out? Instead of replacing the person? They did replace the person at Wimby, though.

But according to you, we should of let that person stay in. And keep calling bad calls. Instead of replacing them with someone who is a little more accurate than the original linesperson. Not 100% accurate, but clearly more accurate in calls and such than the original linesperson.
One concern is the following - if a given linesperson is making bad calls, he can be removed. If shotspot, due to (whatever flaws in its programming made it fail the test) starts consistently giving bad calls, what can you do about it? Nothing.

Reboot it? ;-)
 

Deuce

Banned
The other - and I, personally believe PRIMARY - consideration of implementing some sort of electronic/video line calling system is that the removal of the human element will significantly alter the dynamic of each pro match. For that reason alone, I say stick with people.

Life isn't perfect. Players aren't perfect. Officials aren't perfect. Why disrupt the continuity? Just because it CAN be done? It seems that the main purpose of implementing "the latest technology" as a line calling system is so that we, as humans, can pat ourselves on the back and be proud that we've come up with something so close to absolute perfection.

But even if every line call is made with perfect precision... it runs the very real risk of significantly changing the game - and not necessarily for the better, in the whole scheme of things...
 

Max G.

Legend
Deuce said:
The other - and I, personally believe PRIMARY - consideration of implementing some sort of electronic/video line calling system is that the removal of the human element will significantly alter the dynamic of each pro match. For that reason alone, I say stick with people.

Life isn't perfect. Players aren't perfect. Officials aren't perfect. Why disrupt the continuity? Just because it CAN be done? It seems that the main purpose of implementing "the latest technology" as a line calling system is so that we, as humans, can pat ourselves on the back and be proud that we've come up with something so close to absolute perfection.

But even if every line call is made with perfect precision... it runs the very real risk of significantly changing the game - and not necessarily for the better, in the whole scheme of things...
Hehe. Well, I'll disagree with you on that point - the main purpose of implementing the new technology would be to stop umpires from cheating players out of the points that they should have won but didn't because of incorrect calls. It is downright unfair to the players if we don't enforce the rules of the game (i.e. calling balls correctly). There isn't a single situation I can think of where I would rather have an incorrect call made than a correct one.

It's like checking the mark on clay. I'd like to see it implemented and used in the same fashion. (When/if it becomes close to as accurate as a mark on clay, that is)


But hey, at the moment it's a moot point since shotspot isn't accurate anyway. ;-) We'll probably end up having that discussion when (or IF) shotspot ever gets improved enough for it to be used.
 

Deuce

Banned
Why is it so important to get every call perfect? Doing so would take a significant and interesting element out of the game.

Think of how much other sports would change if they went the electronic route. Baseball, for instance, having an electronic strike zone - because, after all, it's "not fair" for pitches to be called strikes if they're not in the strike zone.

Bad calls are part of every sport - just as much as are errors by the players. And how players react to bad calls is part of the make up, or ingredients, of a game/match. To implement electronic, 'perfect' officiating would be to totally remove this element, and thus radically alter the dynamic of the games/matches. It seems that those in favor of these electronic means are not giving consideration to ALL of the implications and consequences of such a move - they see only the 'positives', while completely ignoring the negatives.
 

AngeloDS

Hall of Fame
Tennis has some set rules, and there are defininite lines. The rules say even if a HAIR were to touch the line, it would be in. How do you know if a hair touches the line? You can't see it, you can only guestimate such. How do you also see compression when it hits the ground? You can't, and the balls don't land perfectly round on the ground. It takes mathematics to know such. If you had the calculations and variables, you could guestimate much better than a human or a human eye.

As we've seen with Philippoussis and McEnroe's match in WTT. On one of the serves ShotSpot guestimated that Philippoussis got barely a hair. McEnroe didn't even argue, he waned to see it for himself -- and he did. He was quite sad about it. But he moved on.

You can't see that with the human eye. You have to calculate such, due to the fact the size of the ball, the compression when it hits the ground, and much more.

Look at the match today with Venus -- we could of seen Schnyder win if she could of challenged that last possible ace at Ad Schnyder 6-5.

You don't care about bad calls? Please, you act like you've never played Tennis and if you did, you enjoyed having bad calls called against you.
 

Max G.

Legend
Deuce said:
Why is it so important to get every call perfect?
Because if a player hits a winner that just catches the line, he deserves to win the point. If a player hits a ball out, he deserves to lose the point. It's that simple.

Doing so would take a significant and interesting element out of the game.
What element is that, watching players get cheated out of points they earned? Is watching players respond to being cheated that crucial?

Think of how much other sports would change if they went the electronic route. Baseball, for instance, having an electronic strike zone - because, after all, it's "not fair" for pitches to be called strikes if they're not in the strike zone.
I have no idea about how other sports would change, since I play tennis and not those other sports.

Bad calls are part of every sport - just as much as are errors by the players. And how players react to bad calls is part of the make up, or ingredients, of a game/match. To implement electronic, 'perfect' officiating would be to totally remove this element, and thus radically alter the dynamic of the games/matches. It seems that those in favor of these electronic means are not giving consideration to ALL of the implications and consequences of such a move - they see only the 'positives', while completely ignoring the negatives.
Negatives - we see fewer mental meltdowns because of bad calls? Seems to me that that's a positive and not a negative. It's certainly annoying to me when a bad call disrupts the flow of the game, and as far as I can tell that lowers the quality of the tennis.

Well, I suppose if it ever gets accurate enough to be used, we'll be able to see whether it has a negative or positive impact - it'll certainly be adopted by the US Open and the US Open series far before the other Grand Slams and the european tournaments adopt it, so we'll get a chance to see firsthand whether it changes the game apart from removing the bad calls. (This is, of course, if it ever becomes accurate enough to be used - which at the moment is quite the question mark.)
 

Deuce

Banned
I thought you were more perceptive than that, Max.

Do you honestly think that the only reaction that possibly inaccurate line calls cause are 'meltdowns' by the players?? That's a rather incomplete, simplistic and naive view of the situation.

You wrote:
"Is watching players respond to being cheated that crucial?"

Yes, absolutely. It is part of the game, and has been since forever. By removing this element, it will change the game significantly - and not for the better in my view. It will hom0genize the game in the same way that refusing to permit players to question any calls would. Really, I don't think you or others who share your position really realize how much this would change the game - both for fans, as well as for the players.

Now, if a player receives what he/she deems a bad call, not only do we, the viewer, see the character of the player revealed (this could be what you refer to as a 'meltdown', or the player could remain very calm and focussed, or anything in between those two extremes), but we also see how well - or unwell - the player handles the situation - and that can change the momentum of the match. Why would anyone knowingly remove a vital element of tennis? These elements add flavor. By contrast, your way - with every call being perfect - would result in much less of the players' different personalities and characters being revealed. Already, pro tennis today lacks the wonderful diversity and contrast of characters which populated the game in the 70s and 80s... and perfect line calls would make the players all that much more the same. They would all basically be robotic clones on the court if a significant part of the impetus to provoke their different feelings and emotions is taken away. And that, quite simply, would not be good for the game.
 

Max G.

Legend
I suppose we'll disagree on that then.

When I'm watching a tennis match, I want to see a TENNIS match. The players could have character or not have character, but that's all pretty much secondary. I'll take a good match betweeen two completely boring characterless players over a bad match between colorful ones anyday.

Yes, I'm certainly disappointed in the lack of diversity - namely, the fact that there isn't a single serve-volleyer near the top of the game and that so few of the serve-volleyers left in the top 100 ever get far enough to be shown on TV, and that most players play similar baseline styles. I don't think that has much to do with the "character" of the players or whether linespeople make mistakes. (Or at least, I can't think of a connection between the prevalence of baseliners and what is used to make line calls...)

Or do you think that adding in shotspot will somehow change the strokes and strategies of the players?

I suppose the difference between our viewpoints comes from what we each consider to be "the game." I view the game as being what goes on between the two players, and the ball - the serves, the groundstrokes, the volleys, the fitness and the strategies and the tactics. We do have to, unfortunately, put up with things from outside the game interfering with what goes on between the players - there's no way to take the crowd out of it completely, no way to make the line calls perfect, no way to eliminate from the competition the multitude of random factors from the outside that are bound to interfere since this takes place in the real world and not some idealization. But, though perfection is clearly impossible, in my opinion it should be brought a close as possible to a game of skill and not luck.

I'd tend to consider things like rowdy crowds or bad line calls "interferences from outside 'the game'", whereas you'd consider them an integral part of the game.

To each his own, I suppose. We'll see how this plays out - if anything, if your analysis is correct, then the US tournaments which will be the first to implement it will also be the first to drop it if it decreases the attendance because the tennis becomes more boring.

(Though the way I see it, it'll be used pretty much the same way as checking marks on clay is used... and that doesn't seem to be all that bad ;))

(and of course, this all hinges on it being accurate, which at the moment it's apparently not)
 
Its a moot point at the moment since the system is shown to be less accurate. But, I think any sport which decides to not choose a proven, more accurate system of adjudicating rules over a less accurate system [assuming all other areas practical and does not change the tempo of the game] is giving the sport a bad image.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
I'm with Deuce ... and Max. Actually, I'm in-between you two.

I am a stickler for the Rules being followed. (See foot faults.) But I (usually) enjoyed the flavor brought to the game by the "characters" of the '70s and '80s.

I thought Jimbo and Mac too frequently crossed the line ... but I LOVED their fire ... right up to that line. (My problem is The Line is about as elusive as "good art." I know when it is In or Out of "what is good." But I cannot define "it".)

I like the "idea" of the challenge because it would make the game more accurate. I disagree that this would make all the players "clones".

I like the flavor introduced by the different players' personalities. I think we'd see more aout these personalities as they choose when and how to employe their challenges to calls.

I look forward to an improved system ... but I can wait.

- KK
 
Top