Is it time to start using Hawkeye on clay?

[Open Stance]

So watching the Italian Open this week one thing that looks so antiquated is the process of checking the mark on disputed calls. We all know the drill....close call....umpire climbs out of the chair to find the mark...inspects it from 3 different angles and then either holds his/her finger up or hand out flat...player who the call goes against gets pissed because the umpire sees the mark touching the line when player sees a space or even worse, checks the wrong mark...then we see the Hawkeye replay on TV which contradicts the call of the chair umpire.

So is checking the mark still the way to go on clay or is it finally time to bring in Hawkeye?

 

[Open Stance]

One of the historical arguments against using Hawkeye is that it must be recalibrated after every match whereas on hardcourt it only has to be calibrated once before the tournament and once per day on grass. Not sure if that has improved in recent years.

 

[Raul_SJ]

Hello? What year is this?

We love scientific advancement. Technology is our friend.
The technology must be embraced, developed and employed.

Down with Luddism!

 

[JaoSousa]

So watching the Italian Open this week one thing that looks so antiquated is the process of checking the mark on disputed calls. We all know the drill....close call....umpire climbs out of the chair to find the mark...inspects it from 3 different angles and then either holds his/her finger up or hand out flat...player who the call goes against gets pissed because the umpire sees the mark touching the line when player sees a space or even worse, checks the wrong mark...then we see the Hawkeye replay on TV which contradicts the call of the chair umpire.

So is checking the mark still the way to go on clay or is it finally time to bring in Hawkeye?

THERE IS NO SPACE!

 

[Jonesy]

The only minus is it will have less drama.

 

[FRV3]

Yes. Makes no sense not to use it.

 

[King No1e]

No.

The time was 15 years ago when they started using Hawkeye in the first place.
Now they should just update to Hawkeye calling. Even if (I'm hoping, even if it's not likely) the pandemic subsides enough to return us to normal in a few years, Hawkeye calling is one of those changes we shouldn't reverse. Bad calls suck for everyone involved.

 

[Raul_SJ]

No.

The time was 15 years ago when they started using Hawkeye in the first place.
Now they should just update to Hawkeye calling. Even if (I'm hoping, even if it's not likely) the pandemic subsides enough to return us to normal in a few years, Hawkeye calling is one of those changes we shouldn't reverse. Bad calls suck for everyone involved.

Hawkeye live worked flawlessly at Cincy and USO proving that it can work anywhere.
Your post is gibberish. Do you want to move forward or not?

 

[MeatTornado]

Hawkeye live worked flawlessly at Cincy and USO proving that it can work anywhere.

I'm not sure how those events proved that it works on clay.

 

[davced1]

Hawk-eye is not perfect by any means and has a margin for error of 3,6 mm on average according to Wikipedia. On clay there will be instances where hawk-eye calls out but there is no space between the actual mark and the line hence the ball is in and hawk-eye was wrong.

 

[Raul_SJ]

Hawk-eye is not perfect by any means and has a margin for error of 3,6 mm on average according to Wikipedia. On clay there will be instances where hawk-eye calls out but there is no space between the actual mark and the line hence the ball is in and hawk-eye was wrong.

There is nothing more ludicrous than an hapless umpire jumping out of his chair and pretending he can locate a small mark on a clay court. Sometimes they are feet away from the correct spot. This is just not a reliable system.

Enough already. We need to move forward and employ the machine and improve the technology as we go along. It is reminiscent of Luddites destroying loom machines and making the same silly "appeal to tradition" argument.

​

A famous mistake occurred during the 2009 match between Rafael Nadal and Robin Soderling. “[…] Soderling circled a mark several feet from the actual landing spot of the shot [by Nadal] in question then went ballistic when the chair umpire could not show him the correct mark and ruled Nadal’s shot to be good.”​

​

In a match between Karolina Pliskova against Maria Sakkari, Karolina became incensed with an unbelievably bad call. Pliskova hit an overhead which was shown on replay to be clearly inside the line. This time, the umpire, who couldn’t even find a mark, declared it out. That was yet another example in a long line of incidents when umpires on clay courts got it badly wrong.​

​

In 2017, during a Goffin-Nadal semi-final match in Monte Carlo, umpire Cedric Mourier called one of Goffin’s shots out. Replay showed it to be in. Keshav Gopalan wrote: “It’s truly sad that such incidents are happening in a day and age when the technology is available to prevent it, only for it to not be used.”​

​

 

[davced1]

There is nothing more ludicrous than an hapless umpire jumping out of his chair and pretending he can locate a small mark on a clay court. Sometimes they are feet away from the correct spot.

Enough already. It is reminiscent of Luddites destroying loom machines and making the same silly "appeal to tradition" argument. We need to move forward and go with the technology.

​

A famous mistake occurred during the 2009 match between Rafael Nadal and Robin Soderling. “[…] Soderling circled a mark several feet from the actual landing spot of the shot [by Nadal] in question then went ballistic when the chair umpire could not show him the correct mark and ruled Nadal’s shot to be good.”​

​

In a match between Karolina Pliskova against Maria Sakkari, Karolina became incensed with an unbelievably bad call. Pliskova hit an overhead which was shown on replay to be clearly inside the line. This time, the umpire, who couldn’t even find a mark, declared it out. That was yet another example in a long line of incidents when umpires on clay courts got it badly wrong.​

​

In 2017, during a Goffin-Nadal semi-final match in Monte Carlo, umpire Cedric Mourier called one of Goffin’s shots out. Replay showed it to be in. Keshav Gopalan wrote: “It’s truly sad that such incidents are happening in a day and age when the technology is available to prevent it, only for it to not be used.”​

​

There are pros and cons with both and maybe the solution is that when there is a mark that is not in doubt then go with the mark if hawk-eye calls that ball out.

 

[Cortana]

The Hawk-Eye system has a 2.2mm margin of error, with some research claiming the system can be as much as 10mm off.
Why? The ball may move too quickly to be properly captured on camera as all cameras have a finite frame-speed.

No way hawkeye is more accurate than the human eye from close inspection.

 

[Raul_SJ]

There are pros and cons with both and maybe the solution is that when there is a mark that is not in doubt then go with the mark if hawk-eye calls that ball out.

If not using the machine, best to just let the call stand. The current method of inspecting marks on a court with a million other marks is laughable.

Umpire: It is this mark here. I saw it. I am sure.
Joker: No! What ARE U TALKING ABOUT? It is that mark over there.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307691753508605954

 

[Tennease]

Foxtenn technology is more accurate than hawkeye.

http://www.foxtenn.com/in&out

 

[Kalin]

The Hawk-Eye system has a 2.2mm margin of error, with some research claiming the system can be as much as 10mm off.
Why? The ball may move too quickly to be properly captured on camera as all cameras have a finite frame-speed.

No way hawkeye is more accurate than the human eye from close inspection.

Possibly, but at least it is consistent. Every different ump sees marks differently; and that's provided they're looking at the correct mark.

And... ball touching line vs 'there is space!' is clear enough and in theory should be no argument. And yet we see arguments all the time, why? Everyone who has played on clay knows not all marks are created equal. Sometimes the ball clearly brushes the line but the mark somehow appears detached from the line by a couple of milimetres and sometimes the ball creates such a splash of clay that the mark ends up looking bigger than the actual contact spot and you can easily claim the mark touches the line where it was pretty clear the ball was a centimetre out. Hawkeye will remove all these variables.

 

[Born_to_slice]

If not using the machine, best to just let the call stand. The current method of inspecting marks on a court with a million other marks is laughable.

Umpire: It is this mark here. I saw it. I am sure.
Joker: No! What ARE U TALKING ABOUT? It is that mark over there.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1307691753508605954

And that ball landed right in front of umpire's chair. That guy is either completely incompetent or he's screwing with Djokovic on purpose.

 

[chrisb]

Hawk eye should replace all umps except chair case closed

 

[SonnyT]

Typical Latin inefficiency!

 

[Open Stance]

Foxtenn technology is more accurate than hawkeye.

http://www.foxtenn.com/in&out

We've seen Foxtenn used at some of the smaller tournaments and it makes sense that an actual image of the ball hitting the surface is more accurate than a projection of the ball trajectory as used in Hawkeye. Can Foxtenn be used realtime (like Hawkeye Live) or only to review challenged line calls?

 

[guitarra]

It was time 3 years ago. Now it’s too late. But better late than never I guess.

 

[SonnyT]

If Hawkeye were a French-originated technology, you can bet it'd be used at RG, and at clay tournaments throughout the world.

 

[TennisaGoGo]

We've seen Foxtenn used at some of the smaller tournaments and it makes sense that an actual image of the ball hitting the surface is more accurate than a projection of the ball trajectory as used in Hawkeye. Can Foxtenn be used realtime (like Hawkeye Live) or only to review challenged line calls?

I’ve been to foxtenn tournaments, it was slower and the image didn’t look that great. The ball is going to compress and merge with the line. And there’s a bit of fuzz on the ball. Sometimes you just have to make a call.

Nothings going to be perfect. At least Hawkeye is unbiased. And two millimeters is close enough for a 100mph ball coming from 70 feet away. Sorry in advance for the mixed measuring units.

 

[bjsnider]

The chair made a stunning number of mistakes in the Djokovic/Ruud match, but I would think this is somewhat fixable by some periodic training to brush up on skills.

 

[RF-18]

Hawk-eye is not perfect by any means and has a margin for error of 3,6 mm on average according to Wikipedia. On clay there will be instances where hawk-eye calls out but there is no space between the actual mark and the line hence the ball is in and hawk-eye was wrong.

This is one of the issues with it. Discussions over hawk-eye being incorrect will instead happen on the court between ump and players. I can already see it. Player challenges, hawk eye says it's in, the opponent is in disbelief telling the umpire "look at the mark there is space, hawk eye is wrong" etc etc.

 

[Wurm]

It has calibration issues with the surface, however, it's really simple: hawkeye to identify the correct mark, umpire's eyes to check the mark.