PDA

View Full Version : Should the clay tournys use hawk eye technology


urock34
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:11 AM
well now that hawk eye exist should the french open and other clay tournys adopt to the new system now that wimbledon has decided to use it. we all know that the mark can be clear , but sometimes the mark is hard to find among others and it takes some time for the umpire to walk out with some discrepency between the player and call out the linesman and all when they could just be like here the ball was in it was out u no. or is it just a waste of money?

switz
Apr 26th, 2007, 04:42 AM
no. a big part of the character of clay is the umpire getting down and checking the mark. Sure there is still some room for error but in my opinion it's not much greater than with hawkeye :o

thomas.chung
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:05 AM
considering how some of the biggest mistake in the line calling of tennis happened on... ironically clay, I think we should. Take Martina Hingis for example.

TomasUli
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:11 AM
yes, it should. Umpires are not always willing to check the lines... and it's quite often that they check the wrong mark.

LoveFifteen
Apr 26th, 2007, 05:24 AM
I would love Hawkeye on clay ... though the lack of hawkeye brought us one of the most dramatic matches of all time! French Open 1999 final ... Marti :sad:

Bruno71
Apr 26th, 2007, 06:45 AM
I bet clay events are too scared to use it. I wouldn't even be surprised if Hawkeye was hesitant...the mark can prove Hawkeye incorrect, should that happen. But, they did have it at the ATP tourney in Monte Carlo for TV and Hawkeye seemed to be spot on every time.

SAEKeithSerena
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:24 AM
I definitely think they should be implemented at ALL the Grand Slam tournaments.

jazar
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:36 AM
it isnt really needed on clay. plus it means the umpires get more exercise and more involved in the match if they have to get down and check a line instead of just pushing a button. really not having it prevents the umpires from getting fat

Rome
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:50 AM
it isnt really needed on clay. plus it means the umpires get more exercise and more involved in the match if they have to get down and check a line instead of just pushing a button. really not having it prevents the umpires from getting fat

Please! They need hawk eye so the players are not cheated. Umpires cheat are did you not see the Jen and Serena match at the 2004 US Open ? So I would say hell yeah they need Hawk eye on clay and any Major event

jazar
Apr 26th, 2007, 07:54 AM
Please! They need hawk eye so the players are not cheated. Umpires cheat are did you not see the Jen and Serena match at the 2004 US Open ? So I would say hell yeah they need Hawk eye on clay and any Major event

i'm not aware that was on a clay court

Erika_Angel
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:04 AM
it isnt really needed on clay. plus it means the umpires get more exercise and more involved in the match if they have to get down and check a line instead of just pushing a button. really not having it prevents the umpires from getting fat

:tape:

Yes :rolleyes: We should really base using Hawkeye on whether or not the umpires will get fat or not ...

Harvs
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:08 AM
It would be great!

Direwolf
Apr 26th, 2007, 08:50 AM
I think that there should also be a camera who should just focus on the players...and record their every move....
so that..
players who put up their hand and dont talk about it would get caught...

aussie_fan
Apr 26th, 2007, 09:42 AM
Yeah, i think they should. There's more chance of getting the decision right with hawkeye then the umpire comin down from the chair, i'm always curious to know if it's the right ball mark or not.

santhuruu
Apr 26th, 2007, 09:53 AM
Yes I do think there should come hawk eye on every kind of surface:)

matthias
Apr 26th, 2007, 10:52 AM
no, on clay it is useless imo
they can safe the money for other stuff

Dorcas Monjimbo
Apr 26th, 2007, 11:51 AM
The ball mark on clay is distinct but there is always room for error. I'd love it if the hawk eye technology could be used too here.

timafi
Apr 26th, 2007, 12:57 PM
no because the marks are there
and you can always call on the Umpire to get off his arse to check it:wavey:

Kim's_fan_4ever
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:01 PM
no, on clay it is useless imo
they can safe the money for other stuff

Exactly my thoughts. It would be a complete waste of money which could be spend on other things.
Oh and I don't understand those who are saying that umpires cheat, we can see the mark and if there are some doubts which mark is it they always ask the lineman to come, so... :shrug:

VeeTennisFan
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:03 PM
Yes

A'DAM
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:06 PM
I hope that by 2010 it will be used on every tournament ( AND NOT JUST ON CENTER COURT WHICH IS STUPID) :wavey:

Erika_Angel
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:13 PM
Soon we might not even have umpires or linesmen.

We'll just have the two players and some ball kids and the computer will automatically shout 'OUT!' if the ball lands outside the line, or sound a big siren or something :p

Imagine that! :scared:

sapir1434
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:16 PM
I don't they really need it on clay, but if they used it at the AO, then they should use it at the RG and the other GS

Monica_Rules
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:20 PM
No, what a waste of money.

Just check the marks.

calabar
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:36 PM
This is a no-brainer! Of course they should use it at EVERY professional tournament. What is the point of having the technology and not put it to its intended use? Besides, checking a mark on the clay is NOT fool-proof.

I say apply technology universally.

TheBoiledEgg
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:40 PM
Hawk-eye is not as close as the mark on clay is.

Knizzle
Apr 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Yes there should be hawkeye, I think I've seen hawkeye on a clay court before in a match with Nadal where his opponents ball was called good by the mark on the ground, but hawkeye said it was out. Nadal was pissed because he thought he knew for sure it was out, but by the mark it was in.

urock34
Apr 27th, 2007, 12:54 AM
ummm how do i make this a poll?