Shot Spot Vs Clay court mark

dmastous

Professional
There have been a number instances where ESPN's shot spot has dissagreed with the umpire or linespeople's interepretation of the mark on the court.
Anyone want to give an opinion as to which is right? (aside from ESPN sucks).
I want to say that shot spot is more acurate because I think there may be a couple marks to choose from. Where as I'm guessing that shot spot tracks the ball in it's flight and records it's landing spot. But shot spot is a graphical representation of the spot so it may be fallible as well.
Which do you think can be trusted more? Should they start using it on clay instead of coming out to check a mark?
 

Tchocky

Hall of Fame
I prefer "Shot Spot". It's not 100% percent but I'll take technology over my opponent's opinion.
 

ta11geese3

Semi-Pro
The commentators keep saying how they sometimes choose the wrong mark. I would go with shot spot + the commentators- they have video replay, at the least.
 

JRstriker12

Hall of Fame
I am betting shot spot would be the better call. It's too easy for the opponenet to pick out the wrong ball mark on purpose or for the ref to confuse ball marks.
 

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
until using shot spot isn't such a gimmick and turns a match into a "should i challenge/shouldn't i challenge" jumbo-screen sideshow, i'll take the old school, checking the mark method. it ain't 100% . . . but what in life is?
 

sotua

Rookie
Tchocky said:
I prefer "Shot Spot". It's not 100% percent but I'll take technology over my opponent's opinion.
The chair ump will check the mark if you challenge it. He'll make the ruling, not your opponent.

I work in computers, and I'd rather use the mark than shotspot on clay ;). On HC, you've got nothing else.
 

dubsplayer

Semi-Pro
I hate shot spot and I see no reason for it on clay. Plus, I like seeing the umpire get out of the chair to check the mark, especially if it's Mohamed. :)
 

dmastous

Professional
dubsplayer said:
I hate shot spot and I see no reason for it on clay. Plus, I like seeing the umpire get out of the chair to check the mark, especially if it's Mohamed. :)
Just out of curiosity, why do you hate shot spot?
Because it's an ESPN marketing tool?
Because you have reason to believe it's not accurate?
What makes you think the umpire is going to look at the right mark when he or she gets over to look at it?
I don't know the technical aspects of shot spot, but, as I said initially, I think it is tracking the ball's path the entire point. Can that be said of the umpire? Maybe peripherally, but the umpire has other things to keep track of besides the path of the ball with each shot. I'm sure the do watch the ball during the point, but then look at the linesperson for the call, the ball kids, the players to keep order on the court. Once you take you eye off the landing spot can you go back to that exact same spot?
 

tnig469

Semi-Pro
Nothing can really give you the EXACT point...the just checking the mark on clay isnt really bad...sometimes it has bad calls but overalll its better than nothing...they will prolly NEVER have shot spot in clay tournaments which is kinda good and kinda bad...but its better than just sayin the ball landed HERE on the hardcourts...hopefully shot spot will be put to use in all tournaments and clay can retain its marking system...lines ppl DO a good job...its proven that they r more CORRECT than INCORRECT
 

dubsplayer

Semi-Pro
dmastous said:
Just out of curiosity, why do you hate shot spot?
Because it's an ESPN marketing tool?
Because you have reason to believe it's not accurate?
What makes you think the umpire is going to look at the right mark when he or she gets over to look at it?
I don't know the technical aspects of shot spot, but, as I said initially, I think it is tracking the ball's path the entire point. Can that be said of the umpire? Maybe peripherally, but the umpire has other things to keep track of besides the path of the ball with each shot. I'm sure the do watch the ball during the point, but then look at the linesperson for the call, the ball kids, the players to keep order on the court. Once you take you eye off the landing spot can you go back to that exact same spot?

First, I'm not convinced it's as accurate as they say. Second, I like the human element of having linespeople have to make the decision if a ball is in or out. I like when the players argue (particularily in spanish accents ;-)) a call with the umpire. It adds a level of excitement to matches that you don't have when a machine is making the decision. Third, I hate how it is used on hard courts with the challenge system. If they are going to use it, the players should be able to ask for Shot Spot anytime they feel a call is wrong, like they can on clay. Why should they be limited just because a computer is checking the mark versus an umpire? On clay a player can get the umpire out of the chair to check marks as many times as they want even if they are wrong every time. Why should it any different on a hard court? And why should a player lose a challenge if he is wrong? I also think having Shot Spot will stop the umpire from making an overrule on a bad call with out a challenge from a player, even on a ball the umpire knows was clearly called wrong, as happens all the time on courts without Shot Spot.

It's all a gimmick, imo, to get the people who don't watch tennis to watch which won't happen anyway.

And it's not fair to lowly ranked players who battle out on outer courts for precious prize money and ranking points and don't have the advantage of having Shot Spot and where a "bad call" can make a really big difference - while the players who always get to play on Center and the show courts won't lose a match (or at least won't think they did) because of a "bad call."

I was there in Miami and saw it used in person, listening to stupid people scream "Shot Spot" every time there was a close call. Hated it.
 

Max G.

Legend
I like Shotspot, but I agree with dubsplayer that the implementation is horrific.

IMO it should be used the same way that marks on clay are checked - the umpire can check or not check, it's up to him. It doesn't take any longer to check a mark on clay than to look at shotspot.

I don't mind the fact that it's only available on some courts - it's better to have good line calls in one place than in no places.
 

FEDEXP

Professional
I think they are doing fine at Roland Garros without Shotspot; of course you'd never come to that conclusion listening to ESPN announcers.
 
I'm a big fan of Spot Shot on the other surfaces, but I like the human factor involved in checking marks on clay. (But I wouldn't think that checking marks is anything close to as accurate as Spot Shot....)
 

jhhachamp

Hall of Fame
dubsplayer said:
Third, I hate how it is used on hard courts with the challenge system. If they are going to use it, the players should be able to ask for Shot Spot anytime they feel a call is wrong, like they can on clay. Why should they be limited just because a computer is checking the mark versus an umpire? On clay a player can get the umpire out of the chair to check marks as many times as they want even if they are wrong every time. Why should it any different on a hard court? And why should a player lose a challenge if he is wrong?
dubsplayer said:
I was there in Miami and saw it used in person, listening to stupid people scream "Shot Spot" every time there was a close call. Hated it.
In the first quote, you are arguing that you don't like the way it is implemented, that you think players should have unlimited challenges. I think this is the best way to do it as well, but not if it takes longer to check shot spot than to check a mark on clay.

Your second quote seems like a contradiction of the opinion you stated in that first quote however. You say you want unlimited challenges, but then you complain that they challenge all the time. Please clarify.
 

dubsplayer

Semi-Pro
It takes about 10 seconds to check with Shot Spot except that they make a big deal out of it saying "Players X has decided to challenge," and then they put it up on the big screen, and then the call is made, and then the people in the stadium oooooh and ahhhhh, then the umpire says how many, few challenges Player X has left, blah, blah, blah.....

I didn't say the players challenged all the time, I said that the stoopid fans in the stands screamed SHOT SPOT SHOT SPOT every time it looked liked a close call (which from most seats high up in a big stadium it is impossible to judge.)
 

dmastous

Professional
dubsplayer said:
First, I'm not convinced it's as accurate as they say.
dubsplayer said:
It's all a gimmick, imo, to get the people who don't watch tennis to watch which won't happen anyway.
So is your contention that there is no attempt to accuratly show the spot? That it's hoax? Or do you feel there was an honest attempt to make it work, but they've simply failed to make it work?
Frankly, I doubt it will do anything to bring fringe fans into tennis. In fact one of the things that tend to draw fringe fans is the train wreck factor. Seeing normally staid, calm players loose their temper and start making a stink over bad calls is what brings those people in.
 

dubsplayer

Semi-Pro
No that is not my contention. I 'm just not convinced it's as accurate as they say it is. Since a ball can be in or out by the teeniest of fractions, it is possible, is it not that shot spot showing a ball landing in/out by the slightest bit may be off.
 

skip1969

G.O.A.T.
dubsplayer said:
First, I'm not convinced it's as accurate as they say. Second, I like the human element of having linespeople have to make the decision if a ball is in or out. I like when the players argue (particularily in spanish accents ;-)) a call with the umpire. It adds a level of excitement to matches that you don't have when a machine is making the decision. Third, I hate how it is used on hard courts with the challenge system. If they are going to use it, the players should be able to ask for Shot Spot anytime they feel a call is wrong, like they can on clay. Why should they be limited just because a computer is checking the mark versus an umpire? On clay a player can get the umpire out of the chair to check marks as many times as they want even if they are wrong every time. Why should it any different on a hard court? And why should a player lose a challenge if he is wrong? I also think having Shot Spot will stop the umpire from making an overrule on a bad call with out a challenge from a player, even on a ball the umpire knows was clearly called wrong, as happens all the time on courts without Shot Spot.

It's all a gimmick, imo, to get the people who don't watch tennis to watch which won't happen anyway.

And it's not fair to lowly ranked players who battle out on outer courts for precious prize money and ranking points and don't have the advantage of having Shot Spot and where a "bad call" can make a really big difference - while the players who always get to play on Center and the show courts won't lose a match (or at least won't think they did) because of a "bad call."

I was there in Miami and saw it used in person, listening to stupid people scream "Shot Spot" every time there was a close call. Hated it.
dubsplayer, you're my hero. very well said.
 
i have gone back and forth with this in my head and still cant decide.....interesting arguments on both side.
What i am curious about is why shot spot always shows a circular to slightly elliptical spot...when we all have seen balls slide 3-4 inches as it bounces....perhaps shot spot gives us an initial spot...but not the complete spot? this would be relevant on shots that are on the outside of the lines and are sliding in.
 
another thing....as i watch nadal and mathieu play....i can recall several time when a ball is called out....and the benefiting player immediatly goes over and rubs outthe spot so its unidentifiable. Is this allowed? Obviously there is no point in asking teh ump to check the spot now.......once in this match i beleive they reversed the callafter mathieu crossed out the spot (ball was called out initially), i am assuming this reverse is either the ump saying he could see it from where he was sitting...or that by rubbing it out...you are admitting it must have been in and want to erase the spot
 

dmastous

Professional
sameermd said:
i have gone back and forth with this in my head and still cant decide.....interesting arguments on both side.
What i am curious about is why shot spot always shows a circular to slightly elliptical spot...when we all have seen balls slide 3-4 inches as it bounces....perhaps shot spot gives us an initial spot...but not the complete spot? this would be relevant on shots that are on the outside of the lines and are sliding in.
I thought about that myself, but I've come to the conclusion that the only relevant spot is where it hits. So what if it's enlongated, you don't need that extra area anyway.
My hope is that shot spot does account for the flattening out of the ball, and doesn't just assume the normal, in flight, area. For instance a lob coming down and bouncing on the baseline.
 

Max G.

Legend
sameermd said:
another thing....as i watch nadal and mathieu play....i can recall several time when a ball is called out....and the benefiting player immediatly goes over and rubs outthe spot so its unidentifiable. Is this allowed? Obviously there is no point in asking teh ump to check the spot now.......once in this match i beleive they reversed the callafter mathieu crossed out the spot (ball was called out initially), i am assuming this reverse is either the ump saying he could see it from where he was sitting...or that by rubbing it out...you are admitting it must have been in and want to erase the spot
The couple of times that I saw it done in that match, it meant that the player was conceding that the call should be against him. In all of the cases that the player erased the spot his opponent was given the point.
 

Max G.

Legend
sameermd said:
i have gone back and forth with this in my head and still cant decide.....interesting arguments on both side.
What i am curious about is why shot spot always shows a circular to slightly elliptical spot...when we all have seen balls slide 3-4 inches as it bounces....perhaps shot spot gives us an initial spot...but not the complete spot? this would be relevant on shots that are on the outside of the lines and are sliding in.
It's certainly supposed to give the complete spot, including compensating for the ball deforming and sliding. Not sure whether it actually does that, haven't looked at it recently.
 

ma2t

Rookie
Yesterday, I think it was Carillo who said that they were using fewer cameras at RG than at other events and that Shot Spot was NOT accurate enough at RG for officiating purposes but that it normally is.
 

FEDEXP

Professional
Well since "they" are running things over at Roland Garros I guess they can choose to do what they like. I like the way things are, at least on clay.
 

K!ck5w3rvE

Hall of Fame
We should try to preserve some of the old methods of the game if they are of similar effectiveness to the new methods.
 

Melissa

Rookie
I play all my matches on Har Tru. It is pretty easy to tell a seconds old ball mark from one that is minutes old. Yes. It is possible for two marks to have occurred within seconds of each other in the same spot. But about as likely as winning the lottery.
A player can pick the wrong mark to circle. But if the ump comes down and checks it she will know if it is the correct mark. Players learn quickly not to chance the dreaded finger wave from her indicating she does not accept that mark.
 

Newberry

Rookie
I heard the commentators say several times that the shot spot was not agreeing with the calls each time because of the way it was setup at the FO.
They were not using as many cameras to track the balls position as what they would normally use (for whatever reason).

As many "technical" people that there are in the world I think shotspot adds a nice element to watching the matches and just might get a few more folks to tune in.
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
The Shot Spot inaccuracy at Roland Garros was explained on ESPN to-day. Normally there are 10 Shot Spot cameras at a tournament. At RG there is only one camera, so there are bound to be inaccuraciesl. The umpire/linespeson here knows best.
 

dmastous

Professional
K!ck5w3rvE said:
We should try to preserve some of the old methods of the game if they are of similar effectiveness to the new methods.
The point is that an implementation of some kind of lines calling system (shot spot of whatever) may be better than checking a mark. I've seen too many times where a player will indicate a different mark, or the umpire looks at the wrong one. Checking the mark is, to me, a flawed system.
It's better than no system, like on hard courts where a call like the one in the Serena Williams/Caprioti match can happen, but if a better, more accurate system can be in place, why not put in place?
 

D-Bomb

Rookie
Well I've been a skeptic of shot spot as of late, since it isn't an actually image but an accurate estimate of the shot. I know it's supposedly incredibly accurate, but sometimes I just get the doubt that the technology is perfect. Clay marks are always perfect, even considering the doubt of the marks. I always feel safer seeing the umpire come out and check the mark him/herself. But, to the statement above, I totally agree. Something is way better than nothing. I disagree with the above statement in that I honestly haven't seen many times where the umpire looks at the wrong mark, considering that it's almost impossible as a fan to do that, unless I'm totally missing something.
 

kabob

Hall of Fame
I don't know if it's been mentioned already, but the commentators have already said that Shot Spot at this year's French Open is less accurate because the French only allowed a few cameras to be set up unlike the full array they had in the Miami Masters since they were only using it for entertainment value. So that right there proves the mark will be more accurate.
 
Top