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 mark on clay can be so badly interpreted by the umpire, it's not even funny.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.
The mark on clay can be so badly interpreted by the umpire, it's not even funny.
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.
The Real Bounce video was wrong or its interpretation was?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.Better to stick with the umpire cause it was clearly wrong a few times during Zverev/Thiem match.
"When I play on clay my eyesight is strong. And I definitely have the strongest eyesight on Tour."The only thing wrong was Zverev's attitude. The system is a computer. It works just fine. And it most definitely was not wrong in this particular match.
Yup, it's unlimited on the clay, even now with the real bounce systemBy 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.
The fact that people are agreeing with you. Thanks for showing us who plays/bets on tennis and who only posts about it.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.
If you bet on tennis you may want to remove the variables.The fact that people are agreeing with you. Thanks for showing us who plays/bets on tennis and who only posts about it.
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.The Real Bounce video was wrong or its interpretation was?
Exactly!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.
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.Video review should be at the umpire's discretion for the edge cases like double bounce, net touches, etc.
And graciously. Do not forget about graciously. A true ambassador for good sportsmanship.He has smartly pointed to the shortcomings of the system and constructively suggested the umpire should step in.
Just the other day I was thinking how we should make tennis matches drag out even more slowly. And bam, there we go.Yup, it's unlimited on the clay, even now with the real bounce system
If you treat tennis like wrestling and enjoy seeing people screwed over, I can get that rationale.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.
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.If you treat tennis like wrestling and enjoy seeing people screwed over, I can get that rationale.
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.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.
You say that as the Graf fan.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.
Then there we have it.Nadal doesn't seem to have a problem with the ball mark system
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.You say that as the Graf fan.
Do you mean he'd put his eyesight in there?"When I play on clay my eyesight is strong. And I definitely have the strongest eyesight on Tour."
Sascha Humblerev
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.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.
Now that is a straw man argumentI 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.
He has smartly pointed to the shortcomings of the system and constructively suggested the umpire should step in.
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.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.
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 umpireYes, 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.
You said yourself that accuracy is less important than what the people want, anyway.
Now that is a straw man argument
Do any of you even try?At the end of the day, it’s not about accuracy, but about what people are happy with
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.Do any of you even try?
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.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.
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.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.
The question is-Do you really think that "every second ball" is the problem? Can you understand that question???Of course we can.
What is the whole point of the system?That 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.In fact, I am fairly sure that the upires are instructed not to go and question the real bounce calls.
I really don't think that that is my "theory" but if you can actually read that in my posts, do let me know.You are still working with the same theory. That is that Zverev was hard done yesterday.
I think that now it is you and meFirst by the computer, now by the umpire.
What is a "lie" here is that you are actually paying attention.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. : - )
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.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.