Why no hawkeye at French Open?

[Terry Tibbs]

I thought most tournaments now had done away with lines people and are using hawk eye. Why arent they doing this at the French Open? Using hawk eye rather than having this rigmarole of the umpire having to get out of their chair to examine marks on the court would surely be much more efficient, time saving and accurate?

 

[kevin qmto]

Because tradition!

And yes it’s as stupid as it sounds.

 

[boredone3456]

Clay in general often does not use hawk eye because the ball leaves a mark upon the bounce. Tournaments believe this is sufficient on clay still. Roland Garros still trusts the line judges and chair to make correct calls based on the marks. I believe currently they are reviewing the idea of using hawk-eye on clay. But at the moment they are still going by the bounce marks.

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Because tradition!

And yes it’s as stupid as it sounds.

It really is dumb that we are still doing this whole examining marks when we have the technology now for that not to be necessary

 

[Rafa4LifeEver]

For the umpteenth time, Hawkeye is not trustworthy or reliable on a surface that constantly changes its elevation at various points relative to their surrounding points multiple times throughout a match.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Clay in general often does not use hawk eye because the ball leaves a mark upon the bounce. Tournaments believe this is sufficient on clay still. Roland Garros still trusts the line judges and chair to make correct calls based on the marks. I believe currently they are reviewing the idea of using hawk-eye on clay. But at the moment they are still going by the bounce marks.

For the umpteenth time, Hawkeye is not trustworthy or reliable on a surface that constantly changes its elevation at various points relative to their surrounding points multiple times throughout a match.

Madrid Masters played on clay and has hawk-eye, no?

 

[Spin Diesel]

 

[Terry Tibbs]

Clay in general often does not use hawk eye because the ball leaves a mark upon the bounce. Tournaments believe this is sufficient on clay still. Roland Garros still trusts the line judges and chair to make correct calls based on the marks. I believe currently they are reviewing the idea of using hawk-eye on clay. But at the moment they are still going by the bounce marks.

yes I know but when we now have the technology for this to be no longer necessary I dont understand why they are still sticking with it. Makes no sense. Hawkeye saves time, money and is more accurate. Not only is it unnecessary delay for the umpire to come and check the mark, but can they be 100% sure they are checking the right mark etc? Hawkeye eliminates this. Its a nonsense not to use it.

 

[TripleATeam]

Crushed brick also expands and contracts, making it less reliable than hard courts. As clay also has the imprint that the ball leaves on impact, the tournament thinks the technology still isn't precise enough to outdo the mark that's left behind. I'd say it's so tough to be sure on some calls that perhaps Hawkeye should be employed in cases the imprint is ambiguous or for challenges to the umpire's call (as there are infrequently times that the umpire assesses the wrong mark).

 

[Airspun]

Because tradition!

And yes it’s as stupid as it sounds.

you just described religion to a T

 

[duaneeo]

For the umpteenth time, Hawkeye is not trustworthy or reliable on a surface that constantly changes its elevation at various points relative to their surrounding points multiple times throughout a match.

The technology is even less reliable in windy/swirling conditions.

 

[Mark-Touch]

yes I know but when we now have the technology for this to be no longer necessary I dont understand why they are still sticking with it. Makes no sense. Hawkeye saves time, money and is more accurate. Not only is it unnecessary delay for the umpire to come and check the mark, but can they be 100% sure they are checking the right mark etc? Hawkeye eliminates this. Its a nonsense not to use it.

No it's not.
Especially on a surface such as clay where its elevation changes constantly during a match.
No technology can replace the human eye standing over the mark.

You are arguing that because it takes a few more seconds to check the mark in person,
we should use a technology that won't be as accurate to save time.

 

[Mark-Touch]

The technology is even less reliable in windy/swirling conditions.

Exactly, the technology hasn't and never will be able to factor in a gust of wind that kicks up
any time during the flight of the ball.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Because it’s still 1923 in France, Give them time.

 

[TTMR]

Clay in general often does not use hawk eye because the ball leaves a mark upon the bounce. Tournaments believe this is sufficient on clay still. Roland Garros still trusts the line judges and chair to make correct calls based on the marks. I believe currently they are reviewing the idea of using hawk-eye on clay. But at the moment they are still going by the bounce mark

Then they should rake the court after every point (or shot), otherwise the ump could be looking at the wrong mark or the player could point to the wrong mark to examine.

 

[Benf15harp]

Hawklies

 

[jga111]

For the umpteenth time, Hawkeye is not trustworthy or reliable on a surface that constantly changes its elevation at various points relative to their surrounding points multiple times throughout a match.

but if we landed on the moon…

 

[Mark-Touch]

Hawklies

More on this.
We've just come through three years of lies piled on top of lies piled on top of lies.
People, don't question them though. How could authorities possibly lie?

So Hawkeye is introduced some 20 years ago. People are told it is accurate and just accept it on
good faith. I would wager you could count the number of lay people in the world who understand how the system works
on one hand.

And that's just understanding how it works. That's not accepting it is accurate all the time.

 

[Mainad]

Hawkeye is the least inaccurate method for determining line calls.