interesting interpretation of replay rules

dmastous

Professional
Just watching the Li/Sharapove match, and in the middle of the first set Li hit a cross court forehand that Sharapova barely got to and when she did returned half heartedly (and out), apparently thinking the ball Li hit was out. There was no line call, but the umpire over ruled and called the ball out, wide. Li walked up and argued eventually asking for a replay. The replay showed the ball on the line and in. The umpire then took the point away and said Li should replay the point.
:confused: ??????:confused:
Seems to me the point was already over when the umpire over ruled the line call. Sharapova's return (however hit) was out and Li had won the point. It was not influenced by a linesperson calling it out. She just played a lazy shot, probably thinking the ball was out. Now, because the umpire inserted herself into the point, incorrectly, Li has to replay the point????
Now Li eventually won the replayed point. And no-one argued about the call, but it seems to me the point shouldn't have been replayed.
 

Deuce

Banned
Let's not get into this again, Max.
It's not a replay. It's not replaying any actual happening - it's merely providing an estimate of what it has 'calculated' has happened.
Video, on the other hand, replays what actually happened. It records the happening, and can show it again, or replay it.
Big difference.
 

Max G.

Legend
Deuce said:
Let's not get into this again, Max.
It's not a replay. It's not replaying any actual happening
Sure it is. It's replaying where the ball landed, to as much precision as it can.

- it's merely providing an estimate of what it has 'calculated' has happened.
And this estimate is called a "replay."

Video, on the other hand, replays what actually happened. It records the happening, and can show it again, or replay it.
Big difference.
And ShotSpot records what is happening as well - it merely uses a different format.

In my mind, the question isn't whether it's replay or not, the question is whether it's an accurate replay or an inaccurate replay.

Seems to me that by trying to deny it the term "replay," you're doing exactly what you're accusing us all of doing - trying to put a different spin on it by changing the terminology ;)

Eh, either way, replay or not, the question in my mind is whether it's accurate or not...
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
Deuce said:
Let's not get into this again, Max.
It's not a replay. It's not replaying any actual happening - it's merely providing an estimate of what it has 'calculated' has happened.
Video, on the other hand, replays what actually happened. It records the happening, and can show it again, or replay it.
Big difference.

Video is an representation of data.

HawkEye/ShotSpot is also an representation of data. I heard HawkEye/ShotSpot record the ball location (I think thru video?) from different position of the court simultaneously and continously (edit: with high sampling frequence too). Then combine the data from all the camera and generate the 3D location of the ball. So, I think it is a more advance form of video replay.
 

Deuce

Banned
No, Max - I'm using the term "replay" exactly as it has been defined over the past several decades.

You and the ATP are the ones trying to change the definition of 'replay' to fit the HawkEye agenda, and thus 'legitimize' it through use of the word 'replay', which everyone associates with something very different than a mere computer generated animated estimate.

Next, you'll be telling me that a painting is a photograph...
 

Max G.

Legend
Deuce said:
No, Max - I'm using the term "replay" exactly as it has been defined over the past several decades.

You and the ATP are the ones trying to change the definition of 'replay' to fit the HawkEye agenda, and thus 'legitimize' it through use of the word 'replay', which everyone associates with something very different than a mere computer generated animated estimate.

Next, you'll be telling me that a painting is a photograph...
No, a painting isn't a photograph, but they are both "images" which attempt to represent something. The question isn't whether this particular image is a painting, a photograph, a digital photograph, or a hologram; the question is whether it's accurate or not. (Or at least to me it is - you seem like you'd reject ShotSpot even if it was accurate, and accept video evidence even if it was inaccurate. That might be a wrong impression, correct me if it is...)
 

FuZz_Da_AcE

Rookie
Deuce said:
HawkEye/ShotSpot is NOT a replay.
It is an animated computer generated estimate.
obviously it is not a replay, a replay is a screening of a previous event. however, hawkeye is more accurate then a replay, and therefore is a great addition to the game.

And that brings up post 100!
 

Deuce

Banned
Max G. said:
No, a painting isn't a photograph, but they are both "images" which attempt to represent something. The question isn't whether this particular image is a painting, a photograph, a digital photograph, or a hologram; the question is whether it's accurate or not. (Or at least to me it is - you seem like you'd reject ShotSpot even if it was accurate, and accept video evidence even if it was inaccurate. That might be a wrong impression, correct me if it is...)
Consider yourself corrected. You should know better than to resort to that weak tactic, Max.

Frankly, I reject the entire notion of any sort of machine and/or electronically aided line calling, and wish they would stay with the human animal calling the lines.

That said, even if it were proven beyond a doubt that HawkEye was 100% accurate 100% of the time (which is apparently very far from the current reality of HawkEye), I would acknowledge its accuracy - but would still feel that there is no place for it in the game.

I understand that both the ATP and WTA want to increase the exposure - and thus the popularity - of tennis, which will, of course, inherently increase the ATP's and WTA's profits. I further understand that HawkEye is a tool by which they are choosing to market the game. It's colorful, animated, and different - and by marketing it as 'a vast improvement' over the human eye, they hope that it will bring more fans to the sport. This is the same marketing philosophy that racquet companies use, of course, in their attempts to convince us that different is 'better'.

I am not a fan of the 'ends justify the means' philosophy, finding it quite dangerous. In my view, they are trying to 'sell' tennis for the wrong reasons - hoping that outside novelties will sell the game, rather than the actual game selling itself.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
FuZz_Da_AcE said:
obviously it is not a replay, a replay is a screening of a previous event. however, hawkeye is more accurate then a replay, and therefore is a great addition to the game.

And that brings up post 100!
It is a replay, just not a VIDEO replay.
 

mucat

Hall of Fame
Max G. said:
No, a painting isn't a photograph, but they are both "images" which attempt to represent something. The question isn't whether this particular image is a painting, a photograph, a digital photograph, or a hologram; the question is whether it's accurate or not. (Or at least to me it is - you seem like you'd reject ShotSpot even if it was accurate, and accept video evidence even if it was inaccurate. That might be a wrong impression, correct me if it is...)

I might add they are all pictures. In the stone age, people draw pictures of events in caves. Now, we have still cameras and just take pictures of events with a single click, and it is more accurate. Video cameras can take moving pictures of events. However, those are 2D images. HawkEye/ShotSpot use multiple video camera to triangulate the 3D position of the ball.
 

mr2union

New User
Go back to the original post here in this thread. I thought about the exact same thing when the empire said re-play the point after Hawkeye confirmed the "in" call. The line judge called the shot good correctly, Sharapova wasn't able to get to the ball, Li won the point. Then the empire over-ruled. The empire stood corrected and Li got penalized to re-play the point??? It made no sense at all. The empire should be fined for making ridiculous over-ruling.

If the line judge had called it out and the empire over-ruled the call, then Li should re-play the point. But it wasn't the case.

IMO, with Hawkeye implemented, I think the empire should not over-rule any call in the future. The players should be 100% responsible for over-ruling with their challenge opportunities. If they exhausted the challenges, then it is their own fault.
 

Max G.

Legend
mr2union said:
IMO, with Hawkeye implemented, I think the empire should not over-rule any call in the future. The players should be 100% responsible for over-ruling with their challenge opportunities. If they exhausted the challenges, then it is their own fault.
And this is exactly what I don't want. Players should NOT be responsible for the line calls. That's why we have umpires.
 
Top