Is this Hawk-Eye, asking for a black eye?
Posted by tennisplanet on October 31, 2007
There have been at least a dozen, publicised cases of blotched calls, this year, with the one at the Wimbledon final, the most glaring and conspicuous.
With the technology at, where it is today, these jokers cannot determine for sure if the ball is on or not? And you can drive a mini car on the moon, remotely from earth?
It needs to be put to a test, once and for all. And I cannot think of a better suggestion, than what Nadal came up with, when he was screwed by Hawk-Eye, in his match against Youzhny, early in the year.
Turn it on clay, and then determine how bad it is. Either dump the whole system, lock, stock and barrel, or replace it with a fool proof system that has the confidence of players, umpires and fans alike.
How freaking tough is it, to determine if the ball is in and out, accurately, in this day and age? It would have been done yesterday, if all the revenue depended on it. It’s just not a priority for the organizers, and players are happy, embracing it as a lesser evil.
It probably will take couple more of those Wimbledon calls, for the uproar to start, to get these jokers to move.
If you are so confident, show us on clay.
Jenny said
Good God TP – this is a scary image on Halloween night!
I like the HawkEye principle, not in it’s current form though. Far too many worrying anomolies to make it trustworthy, and I was beginning to worry about my eyesight, God knows what the players were feeling, technical gamesmanship!? I saw the Nadal/Youzhny debacle and the Wimbledon travesty. I agree with Nadal and you TP, put it on the clay.
michael said
The Hawk-Eye is o.k., but if “the margin is just a few millimeters, maybe there should be a clause that allows for that point to be replayed” (quote TP).
Good idea you had after the Wimbledon final 2007, TP!!
This way the machine could not claim more performance than it really has (which is still a lot more than man’s eyes can see)!
Here’s another idea: Not the players, the chair umpire calls the Hawk-Eye!
The players should neither be burdened with nor involved in the decision, whether the point is good or not. They can still discuss with the umpire …
I wrote this in July and my opinion has not changed yet!
Eva said
TP, good call. If Hawkeye is making mistakes, and then that call is the “final” call, a machine made call, we are in trouble. Yes, it can and does make mistakes, and then it comes to the infallibility of a pope. I am not Catholic, and no insult to anyone, but no man, or woman, pope queen, or whoever, is infallible. So how come we make a machine infllalible.
Also there haev been ridiculous instances when umpires have shrugged and said they don’t really know whether the ball was in or not. And Fed’s complaints at Wimbledon were justified; you know that he is not the whiny sort, but at this level of play, it must be truly upsetting to lose points on good shots. What does a player do then? Try to adjust? But that can’t be done, because thisis not adjustment about strategy, it is about the confidence of the player in his shots. No one can fool around with that.
I have noted Fed hit into the net, or beyond the baseline with his forehand a few times, as though he were calibrating the shots. And he was, because they came in for him usually after that.
So, something should be done! Players could speak up, or umpires and linespeople, too. It’s not enough that the audience likes it if it is not correct.