Real bounce exposing the corrupt mark system on clay

Real Bounce is here to stay on clay?


  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .

socallefty

Legend
RealBounce makes sense. Of course, the FO organizers won’t adopt it in that case as their competence matches that of the USTA and AELTC. We need the PTPA to step in and fight for RealBounce on behalf of fans.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
The mark on clay is exposing the corrupt real bounce system. Let’s be clear about it, real bounce is extremely accurate but the software interpretation of the footage sucks. The decision should be left to the umpire after reviewing the slow motion replay.
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
Why not do both? Real bounce is a great indicator and in the case of extremely close calls the ump can go down and check the mark for a space. This cancels out umps picking wrong marks and also cancels technological inaccuracies. Reviewing the bounce footage could also help.
 

Adv. Edberg

Hall of Fame
Either the technology is accurate enough to use or it is not. If it is, just use the technology and keep human error out of it. If it is not, just keep using umpires. I think the technology is ready and should be used.
Better to stick with the umpire cause it was clearly wrong a few times during Zverev/Thiem match.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
The mark is rubbish. Some umpires seem like they agree with it because the player complained a lot.

Much prefer the real bounce system.
 

socallefty

Legend
Better to stick with the umpire cause it was clearly wrong a few times during Zverev/Thiem match.
How do you know it was clearly wrong? Because a head case like Zverev keeps complaining. Realbounce shows the video in slow motion where you can see the ball bounce and it is not a simulation like Hawkeye. You can see that the ball skids a bit and rolls when it bounces and therefore, the mark left on clay can sometimes be deceptive if it is very close to the line. With the naked eye, we often spot where the ball leaves the ground and not where it contacts the ground - if it rolls and skids a bit, it is easy for a human to be misled.
 

cha cha

Professional
Right, the problem is not the sight. The problem is the world that tries to hurt the poor little him. 10+ times I watched that mental giant whining about a call today, playing his dearest friend. 10+ times. All of them, he was absolutely sure that if he whines hard enough, he will make the computer change its mind.
 

cha cha

Professional
By the way, the number of challenges is not limited now? I was a bit sleepy during the match, but it definitely did not feel like he was challenging 3 times a set.
 

El_Yotamo

Hall of Fame
deGrasse is a complete __hole.
Science has been proven to be wrong hundreds if not thousands of times over the course of history!
I dunno who you are or what you want, but if you're going to quote my signature in a thread in such an unrelated and otherwise hostile fashion you're probably not any better than whatever it is you claim to detest...
 

Jason Swerve

Hall of Fame
I prefer watching the umpire check the mark, and discussion between the umpire and player about the mark.
Technology should be banned from all clay events.
The fact that people are agreeing with you. Thanks for showing us who plays/bets on tennis and who only posts about it.
 

RyanRF

Professional
Unpopular opinion here, but I think accuracy is overrated.

More important is impartiality and speed of the call. Overrules, challenges, and checking marks all causes unnecessary drama. When the players know the robot's call is final, there's much less b*tching.

Video review should be at the umpire's discretion for the edge cases like double bounce, net touches, etc.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
The Real Bounce video was wrong or its interpretation was?
As we discussed in another thread, the interpretation sucks big time. The video however is so amazingly detailed it would make life of any umpire much easier, if they would let them do the interpretation themselves. I also believe most of the contentious point are related to the ball skidding over but not touching the line. The software calls it in. In my opinion, a decision should be adopted that a ball is evaluated at the time it just starts to compress, not while it’s still flying and a hair or two touch the line. There is a clear point when the ball touches the ground and starts to compress, and another point when the ball decompresses completely and starts to bounce. Only between these two points should the ball be evaluated.
 

Visionary

Professional
Video review should be at the umpire's discretion for the edge cases like double bounce, net touches, etc.
No! What should be "at the umpire's discretion" is the official's decision to overruled the flawed instant replay call when the player (Zverev's call for the umpire to get down and see) asks.
 

Jason Swerve

Hall of Fame
If you bet on tennis you may want to remove the variables.
If you watch tennis just for the tennis itself you will probably enjoy the variables.
If you treat tennis like wrestling and enjoy seeing people screwed over, I can get that rationale.
 

NADALalot

Hall of Fame
If you treat tennis like wrestling and enjoy seeing people screwed over, I can get that rationale.
Nadal doesn't seem to have a problem with the ball mark system, and when something bothers him he lets the umpire know about it.
Plus I don't like ending traditions, and many players would agree tradition is good to uphold.
Its not worth ending a tradition just to make things more convenient....
I was disappointed when Wimbledon got a roof. The rain delays are not a bad thing, and the tournament almost always finishes on time anyway.
 
Last edited:

Arak

Hall of Fame
Nadal doesn't seem to have a problem with the ball mark system, and when something bothers him he lets the umpire know about it.
Plus I don't like ending traditions, and many players would agree tradition is good to uphold.
Its not worth ending a tradition just to make things more convenient....
I was disappointed when Wimbledon got a roof. The rain delays are not a bad thing, and the tournament almost always finishes on time anyway.
At the end of the day, it’s not about accuracy, but about what people are happy with. If the players, the umpires, and the spectators are satisfied with the system employed, then it should be good.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
You say that as the Graf fan.
Not really. With Real Bounce, I can see clearly where the ball has landed. If the software algorithms tell me the ball is in, while I see with my own eyes that it’s out, I don’t have much confidence in how the system is implemented. As simple as that.
With the Hawkeye system, we don’t see real life video, so we kind of have to trust the system even though we know it’s not 100% accurate.
 

cha cha

Professional
Christ, is there a debate out here that does not get r*****ed in 10 posts?
You saw wrong, Zverev saw wrong. The computer did not see it wrong.
Here is some more whining from ours truly.
.
None of the balls is out. It is a camera working at god knows how many FPS interpreted by a computer versus our biased eyesight. Of course, we are wrong and it is not.
 

cha cha

Professional
Now I am fairly sure that there will be 5 people claiming the second ball is out and 5 claiming that it touches.
That is why the computer is correct and we are not. It does not hate nor worship Zverev.
 

Jason Swerve

Hall of Fame
Not really. With Real Bounce, I can see clearly where the ball has landed. If the software algorithms tell me the ball is in, while I see with my own eyes that it’s out, I don’t have much confidence in how the system is implemented. As simple as that.
With the Hawkeye system, we don’t see real life video, so we kind of have to trust the system even though we know it’s not 100% accurate.
I don't buy it. You saw real life video with the Graf case and denied any error even though it was officially declared to be an error. You said yourself that accuracy is less important than what the people want, anyway.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
I don't buy it. You saw real life video with the Graf case and denied any error even though it was officially declared to be an error. You said yourself that accuracy is less important than what the people want, anyway.
Now that is a straw man argument ;)
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
He has smartly pointed to the shortcomings of the system and constructively suggested the umpire should step in.
Never thought I’d read/hear Zed described as doing anything “smartly.” Guess there’s a first for everything.
 

Visionary

Professional
Now I am fairly sure that there will be 5 people claiming the second ball is out and 5 claiming that it touches.
That is why the computer is correct and we are not. It does not hate nor worship Zverev.
This isn't about 5 plus 5 people, Zverev or computer really. This is about the power of the umpire that sits on his balls unable to get up. I hope you can get that.
 

cha cha

Professional
Yes, of course. Let us have a computer checking the bounce and then the umpire go there and double check every second ball. That will be devillishly attractive to watch.
 

Visionary

Professional
Yes, of course. Let us have a compouter checking the bounce and then the umpire go there and double check every second ball. That will be devillishly attractive to watch.
Or, we can have the "compouter" tell us when the ball is in or out even if it is the same kinda clay print down in front of the irrelevant umpire :(

Do you really think that "every second ball" is the problem???
 

cha cha

Professional
Of course we can. That is the whole point of the system. In fact, I am fairly sure that the upires are instructed not to go and question the real bounce calls.
You are still working with the same theory. That is that Zverev was hard done yesterday. First by the computer, now by the umpire.
And that is simply a lie. Zverev was dead wrong an all of his claims yesterday. Matter of fact, I will go ahead and say that he has been wrong in every dispute that he has ever had on a tennis court. : - )
 
Top