PDA

View Full Version : What is the purpose of shotspot?...


Ms Tracy Austin
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:02 PM
... if they are not going to use it to decide calls. I just got through watching a match I tivo'd from last night on ESPN2 with horrendous line-calls where shotspot showed the truth.

What gives :confused:

pla
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:05 PM
I think it's under test right now.

njnetswill
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:07 PM
It's for the viewers only. No one on the actual court uses shotspot.

Pengwin
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:08 PM
They shouldn't use it really, it's only destructive.

maccardel
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Mr. Austin, why u asking us, ask Ms. Austin.

justine&coria
Aug 16th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Well, Hawkeye/Shotspot are not 100% accurate !!

So here comes another question : what is the purpose of Hawkeye, if it's not 100% accurate ?? I mean, why not (for TV) just showing the replay instead of a technology that can be wrong ? And it's not told on TV that these technologies can be wrong : to people, it just shows the truth.

Hawkeye/Shotspot can sometimes be really confusing!

And I remember a match, I don't remember exactly when it was : but, in that match, everytime Hawkeye showed there was a bad call against a player (cheered by the commentators etc.), the TV used Hawkeye to show it, and for his opponent, nothing was done, no Hawkeye, especially on some important contentious calls, when this guy was right. (I hope, you understand what I mean).
So at the end, we had the feeling that a player (the one the commentators supported) was cheated, especially since he lost, even if it wasn't really the case.

vwfan
Aug 16th, 2005, 09:59 PM
It gives commentators something else to talk about. :rolleyes:

Andrew..
Aug 16th, 2005, 10:01 PM
It's biggest problem is accuracy. In reality, it's margin of error is far larger than it was originally reported.

Volcana
Aug 16th, 2005, 10:04 PM
... if they are not going to use it to decide calls. I just got through watching a match I tivo'd from last night on ESPN2 with horrendous line-calls where shotspot showed the truth.

What gives :confused:shotspot DOESN'T show 'the truth'. It shows a computer generated composite of four cameras. They tested it for the US Open and detemined it could be off by 3/16ths of an inch. Doesn't seem like a lot, but it's certainly not enouh more accurate than the human eye to rely on.

As for it's 'purpose', that's to get more people to watch tennis on TV so ESPN can charge more for ad time. Nothing else.

TonyP
Aug 16th, 2005, 10:29 PM
I think shotspot is very much needed and the fact that it is not going to be used soon is going to be very bad for tennis.

The idea that it is not accurate is being perpitrated by people with a vested interest in not putting it in. Because they would have to pay for it.

maccardel
Aug 16th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Shot spot is not needed in tennis because it could interrupt matches and the rythmn of those matches with a player questioning every call.

caseyl45
Aug 16th, 2005, 11:08 PM
I think shotspot is very much needed and the fact that it is not going to be used soon is going to be very bad for tennis.

The idea that it is not accurate is being perpitrated by people with a vested interest in not putting it in. Because they would have to pay for it.

The decision that it was not accurate enough to be used in match situations was determined by the ITF and the USTA. If you read some of the posts on tennis.com or some of the other tennis websites that have written about it, you will read that it is believed to be no more accurate than the human eye.
As far as Shot Spot/Hawkeye is concerned, I have some concerns about the accuracy of the system. I remember at the French Open in 2004, that often players would contest calls, and the decision the umpires made -- and they checked the marks! -- were often in contrast to what the replays showed.
If some system can be proven to be more accurate than the linespeople, the fine, use it. Until then, I think what's bad for tennis is not that these systems aren't being used. It's that ESPN and the other TV stations aren't being upfront about the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of what they're showing viewers.

VS Fan
Aug 16th, 2005, 11:41 PM
Well, I have seen MANY human line calls that were off by FAR more than 3/16 inch.
I have seen them, incredibley as much as SIX inches. (Just looking at the LIVE replay, not the computer simulation.)

Personally I do not believe a human can even call a shot that is only 3/16 inch in or 3/16 inch out, OR right on the edge of the line!!! The damn line itself has to be at least 2 or more inches wide to show so well on the TV. The damn ball is about 2 inches in diameter. If shot spot is this accurate, by all means let's use it. The number of challenges, of course should be limited.

So if implemented, some balls that are 3/16 inch out might be called good, but at least balls that are from 1-6 inches in or out will not be missed!!

If this system is determined to be off by 3/16 inch, just make the overule standard 1/2 inch. People need to just think clearly.

Ms Tracy Austin
Aug 17th, 2005, 04:42 AM
Well back in the day when wooden rackets were used, the human eye could call shots pretty accurately, and maybe in the 80's too? But as hard as people hit the ball today, come on, you can't tell me that technology isn't better than the human eye. I like the way they do it in World Team Tennis, where you get three calls to argue. I think that would help the game today but to each his own. :)