Real bounce exposing the corrupt mark system on clay
- Thread starter Jonesy
- Start date
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
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.
Technology should be banned from all clay events.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
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.
N
Nuclear Warhead Sinner
Guest
Slowtwitcher
Legend
Mark is life.
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.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
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.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The mark on clay can be so badly interpreted by the umpire, it's not even funny.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
RealBounce is worse than the umpire though.
Adv. Edberg
Legend
Better to stick with the umpire cause it was clearly wrong a few times during Zverev/Thiem match.
Mark-Touch
Legend
The Real Bounce video was wrong or its interpretation was?
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.
Much prefer the real bounce system.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
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.
D
Deleted member 629564
Guest
"When I play on clay my eyesight is strong. And I definitely have the strongest eyesight on Tour."
Sascha Humblerev
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.
El_Yotamo
Hall of Fame
Yup, it's unlimited on the clay, even now with the real bounce system
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
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.
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.
Exactly!
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.
And graciously. Do not forget about graciously. A true ambassador for good sportsmanship.
Just the other day I was thinking how we should make tennis matches drag out even more slowly. And bam, there we go.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
If you treat tennis like wrestling and enjoy seeing people screwed over, I can get that rationale.
D
Deleted member 770948
Guest
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 by a moderator:
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.
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.
MadariKatu
Hall of Fame
Do you mean he'd put his eyesight in there?
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.
baseline.tennis.com
.
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.
You saw wrong, Zverev saw wrong. The computer did not see it wrong.
Here is some more whining from ours truly.
Players rip into FOXTENN challenge system
Players in Acapulco have been unhappy with the new replay method, to say the least.
baseline.tennis.com
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.
Jason Swerve
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
Legend
Never thought I’d read/hear Zed described as doing anything “smartly.” Guess there’s a first for everything.
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.
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???
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. : - )
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. : - )
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
tennis tom
Legend
The umpires are NOT allowed to come down and check the marks when the camera system is in use on clay.
Yes, of course, by misinterpreting my comment. Whatever system is used has to be trusted by the players, umpires, and the spectators. If they think the system is not correct, it’s a never ending story of complaints and bickering. I’m not saying accuracy is not important, in the contrary. What I’m saying is, players have to be convinced the system is accurate, and at least on clay, they actually see with their own eyes whenever the system makes a mistake.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
And I still don't side with this. Right is right. You say you trust your eyes and the players to go by what they believe, and look at what happened in '99. Your eyes were wrong, the officials' eyes were wrong, and Graf lied. Only Hingis was right. And only Hingis was shafted. The officials apologized. And people like you still don't want to hear it.
A machine forgets all of these trifles. Traditions like these exist for no logical reasons other than 'feel-good' comforts. Anyone who wants this sport to be taken seriously in the major debates of its own community (e.g.: 'GOAT' debates) compared to other sports should start by removing these obvious, blatant holes from the scoring that an elementary schooler by now could've fixed. The little kid would say, "Use the machine! It's better than people's eyes!" But the thick adults can't move on from their hackneyed 'traditions'.
tennis tom
Legend
I watched the match on TV and the many replays of the call that Zerev was complaining about--the replays and the Tennis Channel announcers and my eyes confirmed the real-time camera got it right and Zerev got it wrong--which often happens at all levels of tennis when self-interest, subjectivity and the heat of the moment are in play.
You still do not understand one thing.
Sascha Zverev does not lack faith in the system. Sascha Zverev lacks faith that a close call can go against Sascha Zverev.
That is all that happened yesterday. The calls were correct. The umpire knew it, the commentators knew, even his bestie Thiem knew it. Had it been otherwise. he would have valiantly stepped in and donated the points, where some of the calls were right under his feet.
Sascha Zverev does not lack faith in the system. Sascha Zverev lacks faith that a close call can go against Sascha Zverev.
That is all that happened yesterday. The calls were correct. The umpire knew it, the commentators knew, even his bestie Thiem knew it. Had it been otherwise. he would have valiantly stepped in and donated the points, where some of the calls were right under his feet.
The question is-Do you really think that "every second ball" is the problem? Can you understand that question???
What is the whole point of the system?
I think that many of us here can see that "upires" are trained to sit on their balls.
I really don't think that that is my "theory" but if you can actually read that in my posts, do let me know.
I think that now it is you and me
What is a "lie" here is that you are actually paying attention.
What the OP has brought forward to the forum is an excellent topic; we owe it to that person and to the whole board. But sorry if I am under a wrong impression/ ethical code here.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Thank you for using sense. The term is 'an objective third-party'. There's a reason people liked Hawkeye over not having it, whether it erred or didn't. It provided relative peace of mind, for the most part.
