Instant Replay Camera on Madrid Clay

Visionary

Hall of Fame
Zverev has not only pointed out that some umpires lack the knowledge of rules of tennis when Rafa returned Zverev's wide service that was called late by the Spaniard, but he also has uncovered the weaknesses of modern technology in pro tennis. One of Thiem's service balls landed somewhat flatly pass the service line which the instant replay shown on the screen unclearly; yet, assertively awarded to Thiem's serve. Zverev marked the ball that was not far from the umpire who refused to get down his chair to see. After a couple other balls that landed similarly close to the line that Sasha questioned but the umpire refused to take a close look at, it was obvious that some aspects of the pro matches are out of the living hands, eyes and brains as the modern technology decides our (the pro players and their fans) faith. Should we revolt against the trend (especially on clay) and have our officials to take closer look at or not?
 

Arak

Legend
The mark, provided it‘s the right one, does not lie. The real bounce slow motion footage does not lie. As proven in Zverev matches against Thiem and Nadal, the mark on clay and slow motion footage coincide 100%. The problem is the software interpretation that is at fault. I don’t want to even imagine what kind of erratic decisions Hawkeye has been taking along the years, since unlike real bounce, it doesn’t even show you a real life image. I think real bounce should be adopted in all competitions, but with the footage reviewed by the umpire not the software.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Zverev has not only pointed out that some umpires lack the knowledge of rules of tennis when Rafa returned Zverev's wide service that was called late by the Spaniard,
Au contraire, you are the one pointing out your lack of knoweldge of the rules of tennis.

On hard and grass you do have to call the ball faster. But on clay, because the ball lefts a mark, players have always had the possibility to check the mark before calling the ball. So Nadal called the ball correctly, and the umpire was on point. Zverev's lack of knoweldge of the rules of tennis was exposed.
 
Last edited:
1.jpg


Here is the primary issue with Hawk-eye for me.

The blue part is the actual contact point of the ball with the ground and in a real life situation that's what the clay mark is going to look like.

The red part is the shadow of the ball, that adds up to the blue part.
The ball flattens out a little bit on contact with the ground and the Hawk-eye picks-up the shadow rather than the surface of the ball that touched the ground. (and the shadow becomes larger, the faster the speed of the ball is before touching ground).

So on very close calls, the Hawk-eye mark and the real clay mark can look different for sure, which Zverev pointed out.
 
Last edited:

canta_Brian

Hall of Fame
Using the technology on clay only shows how inaccurate the technology is. That’s why Hawkeye hasn’t been used in clay. They don’t want it’s failings to be shown up.

Still better than human eye though.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
1.jpg


Here is the primary issue with Hawk-eye for me.

So on very close calls, the Hawk-eye mark and the real clay mark can look different for sure, which Zverev pointed out.
You are talking about the Hawk-eye, when in Madrid they did not use it. Zverev pointed out nothing about the Hawk-eye. In Madrid they did not use Hawk-Eye they used FOXTENN technology, which is different from the traditional Hawk-eye.

“Traditional systems make an estimate of the ball’s bounce, therefore they do not take into account the changes undergone by the court”, explained Javier Simón, CEO of FOXTENN. “By contrast, the FOXTENN technology visualises the actual image of the bounce and is not affected by the constant micro-variations of the clay”, concluded Simón.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
And no, checking the mark is obsolete. There have been many problems with that (remember the Goffin-Nadal match in Montecarlo?).

Modern technology is more reliable than the umpire eye (unless the umpire reviews the point on a screen rather than live).

I agree. Either we use the technology fully or we don't. No mark checking on the clay by umpires.
 

Visionary

Hall of Fame
Au contraire, you are the one pointing out your lack of knoweldge of the rules of tennis.

On hard and grass you do have to call the ball faster. But on clay, because the ball lefts a mark, players have always had the possibility to check the mark before calling the ball. So Nadal called the ball correctly, and the umpire was on point. Zverev's lack of knoweldge of the rules of tennis was exposed.
Out of context and off topic but for the sake of arguement, you do realize how late Rafa called that ball after his return on Zverev's service:unsure:
 

Visionary

Hall of Fame
Do hawkeye calls always have preeminence, so physical marks on the ground are irrelevant?
Seems Madrid clay is ruled by technology but as mentioned above it's Foxtenn dictatorship instead of the hawkeye. The ATP Masters in Madrid's has obviously had some irrelevant umpires.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Seems Madrid clay is ruled by technology but as mentioned above it's Foxtenn dictatorship instead of the hawkeye. The ATP Masters in Madrid's has obviously had some irrelevant umpires.
Madrid has always been the tournament of transgressions.
Blue clay, provocative ball girls, and now this.
Why can’t they be normal?
 

cha cha

Professional
1.jpg


Here is the primary issue with Hawk-eye for me.

The blue part is the actual contact point of the ball with the ground and in a real life situation that's what the clay mark is going to look like.

The red part is the shadow of the ball, that adds up to the blue part.
The ball flattens out a little bit on contact with the ground and the Hawk-eye picks-up the shadow rather than the surface of the ball that touched the ground. (and the shadow becomes larger, the faster the speed of the ball is before touching ground).

So on very close calls, the Hawk-eye mark and the real clay mark can look different for sure, which Zverev pointed out.
How do you spend 6 years discussing tennis on a forum and never see a clay court mark?
The ball flattens a ton and rolls on clay. All contact.
On properly flat hits, I regularly see marks that are 10+ centimetres long on clay.
 

Visionary

Hall of Fame
How do you spend 6 years discussing tennis on a forum and never see a clay court mark?
The ball flattens a ton and rolls on clay. All contact.
On properly flat hits, I regularly see marks that are 10+ centimetres long on clay
The mark depends on how the ball is hit prior to landing.
 

Mark-Touch

Legend
How do you spend 6 years discussing tennis on a forum and never see a clay court mark?
The ball flattens a ton and rolls on clay. All contact.
On properly flat hits, I regularly see marks that are 10+ centimetres long on clay.
It doesn't matter if a ball mark is 10+ centimeters or 2 centimeters long!
Think about it.

Take a 10+ centimeter ball mark with the ball starting its bounce 10+ centimeters
inside the court.
Now lets track the 10+ centimeter mark.
The end of the ball mark is 2 centimeters outside the court (past the line).
What would any chair umpire call that bounce?
IN of course.

Take a 10+ centimeter ball mark with the ball starting its bounce 1 centimeter
inside the court (ie. on the line).
Now lets track the 10+ centimeter mark.
The end of the ball mark is 11 centimeters outside the court.
What would any chair umpire call that bounce?
IN of course.
 

Jason Swerve

Hall of Fame
1.jpg


Here is the primary issue with Hawk-eye for me.

The blue part is the actual contact point of the ball with the ground and in a real life situation that's what the clay mark is going to look like.

The red part is the shadow of the ball, that adds up to the blue part.
The ball flattens out a little bit on contact with the ground and the Hawk-eye picks-up the shadow rather than the surface of the ball that touched the ground. (and the shadow becomes larger, the faster the speed of the ball is before touching ground).

So on very close calls, the Hawk-eye mark and the real clay mark can look different for sure, which Zverev pointed out.
You all still aren't getting the rules.

It's not the 'shadow' that's displayed. It's the entire width of the ball at the moment of impact. The contact 'point' isn't what's officially checked in these systems, because the contact 'point' is but one element of an in-ball by the official guidelines. Any part of the ball that's within bounds, even a hair, renders the ball 'in' as soon as the ball has made contact. The ball does not have to be 'on the line' to be in.

The problem here is you people are used to giving every single thing the ever-fallible eye test, and so you expect the ball to 'be' in or out just because it 'looks' in or out from the pixels of your TV screen. That's an extremely dangerous game to play. Beliefs like yours are why tennis is still one of the only sports that refuses to grow up and remove as much random probability as possible from its scoring.
 

cha cha

Professional
It doesn't matter if a ball mark is 10+ centimeters or 2 centimeters long!
Think about it.

Take a 10+ centimeter ball mark with the ball starting its bounce 10+ centimeters
inside the court.
Now lets track the 10+ centimeter mark.
The end of the ball mark is 2 centimeters outside the court (past the line).
What would any chair umpire call that bounce?
IN of course.

Take a 10+ centimeter ball mark with the ball starting its bounce 1 centimeter
inside the court (ie. on the line).
Now lets track the 10+ centimeter mark.
The end of the ball mark is 11 centimeters outside the court.
What would any chair umpire call that bounce?
IN of course.
That is precisely what I am saying.
I can hardly believe that there are people on a specifically tennis forum who believe that a tennis ball only deflates a little on impact and hawk eye presents any shadows of a ball. It presents the reality of a hard hit tennis ball on impact. The ball literally rolls and deflates to twice its original size. Any of it touching the line meaning it is in. And yet there will forever be people claiming that they saw the bounce with their own eyes and interpreted it better than the camera.

What I enjoy the most is people who claim a splash.
A splash is a speciality which can only be seen at those ancient places where we still paint the lines using chalk before each match. The roll and deflation of the ball then takes out a tiny bit of the painted line. An undoubtedly clear contact should the bounce be replayed in slow motion. But where I live, the seasoned players have invented the institution of a ball landing so close to the line that the impact wave takes out a bit of the line creating the splash phenomenon. Splash is an out call.
It is even better in volleyball due to the larger ball with more splashing potential. Ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Top