Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MisterM, Feb 12, 2012.
instead of using lines people and having players challenge wrong calls all the time?
sorry wrong section
Because linesman are part of the sport.
And IIRC, Hawkeye doesn't factor in factors like wind.
No...and it has no reason to. Wherever Hawkeye would measure a gust of wind wouldn't necessarily be the same as a gust of wind in the local vicinity of the tennis ball so it would just mess things up. Hawkeye, as far as I know, only bases its judgements on high-speed cameras filming the ball and calculating the trajectory the ball takes. Then an algorithm is used to calculate if there are any points where the ball touches the line.
Maybe when Nadal and Djokovic are playing....they take 30 sec or more between points....meanwhile Hawkeye could play on balls that are questionable.
Still it is too time consuming and won't fit the non time wasters.
do you really think hawkeye needs so long with this video they show everytime?
i bet they can show it faster. this video is just to amuse the people and show the result in an understandable exciting way
Good question. I think the problem with hawkeye calling lines would be the delay. It takes 5 or so seconds to boot and analyze a specific shot. In this case, a point would continue a few more shots until the system would award the point. Eventually computers will be able to discern between in and out balls in long quick paced rallies in a rapid fashion.
This. It would probably throw off the momentum of the match.
Hawkeye needs to be more advanced before it can relied on for every point. It needs to be quicker, like a linesperson's call. Hawkeye has to react like a beep on the court.
It isn't needed for every point. The vast majority of points end with an obvious error or winner.
I recall a commentator saying that one of their multi-million dollar friends who played tennis was investing in technology that can be used to sensor the entire court. He said it would be done on his own personal court, so maybe this technology isn't far off. The problem will be the same problem we face now, laying off the lines people. Never a popular decision, maybe it will be after the horrific performance of this AO though.
I have deviced an improvement on Hawkeye and tested it out on my local courts.
The cost is fractional compared to HE and the results are instant/realtime and always perfect. No calculations or projections. It uses burglar alarms to detect when a ball goes out.
I just need a catchy name, and then i can start marketing it.
Maybe they can use hawkeye to grade line judges.
I honestly think they could hawkeye *not every point, but the close ones* use hawkeye more frequently and fluently.
I think they put that stupid ball hitting the line animation for the crowd, I honestly think it would be a faster decision if they didn't have to play that cheesy animation. I would love to see in the future every point being monitored, but only ones that get notified (either through an electronic beep/tone) would be the close ones whereas the other points would be called by linesmen. I think moving on from having people physically touch the net to call *lets* has made things much easier on everyone and has been long over due when they introduced it. The only reason why they won't progress with hawkeye points is either technology or the tradition of the role of linesmen. I would love to see the abolishment of the ball line animation and have the result of the point be announced through an electronic tone that automatically reads when the ball touches the line. I think that would speed things up, and we could finally move past the whole number of challenges notion where I think the NFL challenge system really had an influence on that.
I love the progression and refinements of everything that could benefit from it. A carbon filter that just sifts the superfluous motions. I hate the notion of having something be traditional if there is nothing else holding it there, other than the fact that its history is the only thing establishing it. For me, I love changes, they make the world evolve.
Or maybe leave it the way it is now and call balls that land 98% out (according to hawkeye on a challenge) be called out.
I heard this commentator too. I cannot remember which it was, but I did hear it. Pat Cash maybe, but not sure.
Pat Cash or John McEnroe.
It gets factored in to the line umpire's evaluation grades.
Electronic courts where line judges aren't needed and the tramlines/service box changes colour when a serve is out - maybe in 10-20 years?
At one time so were long pants and wooden racquets.
I wonder how much of the current "delay" associated with Hawk-eye is actually man-made? I found this in a 2006 article on the US Open:
"If the player chooses to consult the replay (each player is allowed two challenges per set), an animated image of the ball hitting the court zooms into focus on giant screens around the stadium. The effect is so entertaining that tennis officials have actually asked the Hawk-Eye technicians to delay showing instant replays for a few extra seconds to allow suspense and excitement to build."
I really find it hard to believe that affordable computing power doesn't exist which will allow almost real-time reporting of Hawk-eye results. I wouldn't be shocked to find that a portion of the delay is actually associated with generating the graphic which is showed to the TV audience and crowd.
"Tennis Officials" would not ask for a delay in showing instant replays. Tournament Directors and TV Network people may ask for something like that. If anything, the officials would want it to be quicker. And, yes, in the Hawkeye review booth, it is known long before the image pops up on the screen whether the ball is in or out.
Here is the actual reason for the delay. The player has to ask for the challenge. The chair umpire then announces the challenge. The Hawkeye personnel makes sure that they have the shot captured correctly. If the ball hit the net, the shot needs to be re-calibrated by the Hawkeye personnel (takes a couple of seconds). There is a chair umpire in the review booth that needs to verify that the correct shot is being shown, then the review official needs to communicate to the operator of the video board and TV network that the shot is ready to be sent to the board. Then the video comes up. That's why the delay.
I think when the author of the article wrote "tennis officials" he wasn't referring to lines-people and umpires but rather to tournament directors and other muckety-mucks.
I understand that is how the current process works but I think the technology exists to automate the procedures you mention. All the above is happening in a matter of seconds as it is and there are several human interactions which would be removed if the system ran in real-time. You could still have an umpire there to rule on any shot that hawk-eye missed, however, in watching a lot of tennis I can't remember seeing a time when hawk-eye was unable to be used to satisfy a challenged call. Please don't bother hunting down youtube evidence that such an event has occurred because I'm sure it has. I understand that there will likely never be a 100% accurate automated system in our lifetimes but I'd settle for one that is more accurate than the current one.
I agree that the technology is probably there, but I don't think it is with Hawkeye. I think they are constantly working to develop a system that is even faster deciding, and more accurate than Hawkeye.
What would be the proposal? Having something put into the program so that immediately when Hawkeye makes an out determination, a buzzer goes off in the stadium signalling that the ball is out? I don't think so, because Hawkeye makes its determination based on the trajectory of the ball off of the racket, not a decision based on where the ball lands. If the ball hits the net, it throws off Hawkeye's call.
I think we have to wait for the next type of technology to come out before we see tennis tested without line umpires.
Separate names with a comma.