Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MasterTS, Jul 10, 2007.
Crucial point that FED cried about: Is this IN or is this OUT?
If the ball and the line have NO space in between them, then the ball is considered IN.
OUT! The umpire called it out too..... At that precision, barely the fuzz of the ball may be touching the line. To call that IN is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: I'm a Rafa fan.
The ball was out...pure and simply out.
BTW, I'm downloading this match ATM, since I missed watching it. I heard the spoiler of who won from a friend; it kind of ruined things a little bit since the match was so close, lol.
There's clearly no space in between the ball and the baseline. How is that ball "pure and simply out?" This question also goes for all those who considered this ball out.
You will enjoy it--regardless of the outcome. Pretty good drama and emtion throughout. Enjoy!!!
Nobody knows for sure. SO I just got back from London. I had to conduct a few interviews. The grass itself, or as the French call it, l'herbe, was the only one with anything quotable. I knew something was up when he referred me to the chalk because, ''the chalk would know best''.
But the chalk was silent. Ghost white, in fact.
So I hit up the grass again (no, not literally). Herb admitted, though still very young and designed to be hearty, he was still recovering from the onslaught. He contends that the Spanish kid hits the ball with such weight, his shots have a deeper and larger impact on the grass. SO the ball was probably in, despite what Federer's superhuman eyes saw. The grass went on to say that he prefers the way Bjorkman, Pozzi and the senior guys hit the ball. Particularly enjoyed Nastase and Hingis' considerate and gentle brand of tennis.
So there you have it. The ball probably hit some line. The grass felt pain. The grass is rooting for players other than Rafa next year.
End of interview.
okay hawkeye is good. but to the last 1000th of a millimeter. nope.
that was out.
show us a shot taken down the line. not with the line behind the ball. the ball in this image would have to be 6 or 7 inches behind the baseline for us to see a space between the two. show a shot down the line and i'll show you the space....
From the angle of the photo, Hawkeye was wrong. But we would need to see it from a different angle to tell for sure.
Looks out to me.
Who cares, the match is over.
If what is shown by this hawkeye system is the outer circumference of the ball, then the part of the ball actually touching the ground, ie the footprint, has to be of a smaller circumference than the outer circumference. In that case, the ball is out because the footprint can't be touching the chalk.
Hawkeye has to be tracking the maximum circumference of the ball; no way it can track the footprint. So there must be this flaw in hawkeye.
But Hawkeye has an error margin of 1mm, so.. it could go either way. Correct?
good point. very good point. and the fed won--so there is no crying fowl....
you'd need a high speed camera looking on the baseline from the side to tell.
My first reaction was that it was out; was really surprised that Hawkeye called it in...looking at the slow mo replays (not hawkeye) I'm fairly convinced it was out.
i honestly don't think hawkeye was in top form on sunday. the ball that rafa challened in the first set breaker was clearly out and hawkeye called it in. rafa, roger, and everyone else was shocked that they continued further in the breaker.
Looking at the actual image of the ball again, the ball looks out, but you can't say for sure exactly when that image was taken; it may have been taken a milli-micro-second after the ball had bounced, but when it bounced the ball bounced on part of the line. So it's not possible to tell for sure by looking at just the image.
Not true at all. With hawk-eye, they can zoom in on the ball in question. It's very hard to tell because we don't really know how precise the program was written, but judging by the PICTURE from hawkeye, the ball OBVIOUSLY was called IN because it hit the line, PERIOD.
Hawk-eye isn't a person, it's a program.
precisely. i wonder if the calibration of the cameras was off...do they calibrate it before every match, or just once in the tournament?
It's in, but just. It looks out to the eye, but I trust Hawkeye
Looks to be a good centimeter out to me.
Zoom in and look at that shadow.
Judging by Federer's reaction, I'm sure it's debatable. But if you go by the picture of that shot taken by Hawk-eye, which was probably shown on the JumboTron, I'm sure all the Nadal fans would have gone nuts if that ball was called out. According to that picture, there's no space in between the ball and the line...
I also want to dl the match - can you give me a link for it?
IMO - hawkeye is there for a reason and if it says in - you just have to live with it.
Actually according to Paul Hawkins who developed Hawk Eye the system has a margin of error of + or - 3.6 mm--it is not infallible.
from that camera angle and its image touching the line, the ball is clearly out.
^ the picture from hawk-eye is a still picture, while the image behind it is of the ball in motion. at that moment in time, the ball already passed the baseline.
Actually Nadal got jacked on a call just like that in Dubai against Youhzny. The ball looked clearly out, but Youhzny challenged and hawkeye saw the ball in. Nadal was livid. I think hawkeye is good for the game but on calls like that, I think it's sort of BS.
A single stray thread of felt touched the line.
5th set 1st game, Fed serving at 15-0. Nadal hits a shot on Feds right sideline. He challenged it and Hawkeye showed it was out by a mm. IT looked to clip the edge of the line. I think hawkeye may have made a mistake there due to its 3mm margin for error.
Nadal also got ripped off on another call earlier. Fed hit a nothing shot that landed on Nadal's left sideline, half way up the sideline. Nadal Had an easy put away on it. It was called out incorrectly. Fed challenged, it was in and point was replayed with Fed getting a first serve.
As I mentioned, there were a number of really strange calls by Hawkeye in the final. I suspect the system may have been calibrated wrongly or not calibrated properly. It has otherwise been proven fairly reliable thus far.
99% out = 100% in....it was in.
"It matters not for this game, but the future games it will."
If 100 out of 100 line judges call a ball out, which in this case I think all 100 would have, then the ball is out. It's as simple as that. Hawk-Eye should not be allowed to exceed the limits of human vision. If no human can possibly see it in, then it's out. This is real tennis played by real human beings, and NOT a computerized tennis video game.
If you were calling your own lines, is there anyone that would have called that shot in? I doubt it.
The margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That's more than enough for Hawk-Eye to show the edge of the ball touching the outside edge of the the line and calling a ball in when it was in fact out. They need to reprogram Hawk-Eye so that if the ball is in by less than 3mm, then it shows the ball graphic as not touching the line and calls the shot out.
Actually the margin of error for Hawk-Eye is 3mm. That is quite a lot considering the sidelines on a tennis court could be as thin as 25mm, which means an out ball could be shown by Hawk-Eye as touching 12% of the line.
In the above pic, it looks like the ball is only touching less than 1% of the line.
It was out, and i agree with Fed, they should not use hawkeye. Leave it up to the officials.
The rules state that if ANY part of the ball is touching the line the ball is IN. So even if its only the "fuzz" thats still part of the ball, therefore.. IN.
Article - The last word on Federer's Hawk-eye whining controversy.
A very candid article, a little funny and presumptuous at times.
I found the technicalities of Hawk-eye much more interesting than the harping on Federer's whining.
Idiot who wrote this article.
First of all the Hawk-Eye system is NOT always right. It has an accuracy of 3 millimeters, so the decision of which Fed was complaining that could have been 3 millimiters very well, so the ball was indeed probably out.
Second of all the way Fed played in this final isn't his "maxed out" game as this guy writes. Has he ever heared anything about dayform???!
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Hawk-Eye Line call explained.pdf
Haha, the writer really is funny. lol.
Read his future predictions, on Bartoli, Krajicek etc. He's so outspoken.
Excellent, that's just an excellent article.
The key is that after the bounce, the "rolling" or skidding gives the impression that its "out", but the fact is that is has "traveled" a bit after it bounced.
But on the other computer was the picture of the Hawk-Eye camera free-framing the ball at the moment it touched the line. It was flush on the line. Not seven-eighths out. Not half-out, half-in. Flush.
Then why not show the video if Hawkins is so sure the system is fool proof.
Also the Hawkinsinnivation link doesn't quote the margin of error to be 3.6mm. It said the AVERAGE margin of error is 3.6mm. That means some errors are less than the 3.6mm average and some are more than 3.6mm. Since the machine is inherently imperfect how does Hawkins know that the call that gave Federer so much anguish wasn't an error that was greater than the 3.6mm average. What if it was 10mm, a clear 1cm out.
Why doesn't Hawkins tell us what the maximum recorded error was from all the tests? Is he hiding something like some tests record error margins of
say 20mm which is clearly out?
Also how is the margin of error determined without a CORRECT reeading to compare it to? Why don't we see the correct reading?
Edit: There are too many unanswered questions for me.
exactly! that's what i'm saying
I am glad that finally someone understands statistics.
When the margin of error is 3.6mm, it's only statistically speaking that most errors are within 3.6mm. and some of the errors are bigger than that. and there are even chances that the error in one instance is way bigger than that.
to use a flawed system(hawkeye) to supposedly "correct" another flawed system(linemen) is so very flawed mathematically.
it looks out even from this angle. imagine how "out" it would look from the other side.
In one of Vic Braden's books, he says the testing, using high speed cameras proves the human eye can't capture an event such as the ball actually landing, the event lasts roughly half as long as it takes the eye to register it.
So margin of error is not just a machine/mechanical issue, Federer could be wrong too, right?
Man, Fed goes once to 5 sets in a GS final and all kinds of wannabe experts start crawling out of the woodwork criticizing him or predicting his demise. Goodness forbids he actually loses a GS final apart from RG, someone will claim he's the biggest failure in history...
(JWin, don't mean you but the author of this and the other article quoted on these pages)
It is OK if the system is much better most of the time.
People wear glasses, don't they? It improves vision, but doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy. Should they stop wearing glasses? (or do laser surgery or whatever).
A computer can give wrong results, if there is a hardware or software bug (e.g., the notorious Pentium floating point bug). But no one has stopped using computers because of that small probability of error.
When you transfer a file, there are multiple levels of error detection and coding, from the lowest communication level to the highest level at the file contents themselves. There is still a very small probability that the file downloaded was not exactly the same. But it is much better than a human copying the file by hand.
Separate names with a comma.