Tennis Forum banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,977 Posts
NO way its fine how it is right now
It's not fine when umpires aren't even looking at the right mark to base their call on. If Hawkeye can't be instituted with a minimum amount of error, then there needs to be super slow-mo instituted to ensure umpires are looking at the correct mark. The umpiring was very bad at this year's FO simply because the chair umpires were looking at the wrong mark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,487 Posts
On clay I'd go with umps getting down their chairs and if they're not sure what's the mark, call in the lines people to tell which is the accurate mark and then the ump rules in or out. Hawkeye with its computer generated stuff ain't gonna cut it. Foxtenn is way better, but still there is the problem of a mark that can be clearly seen by the player and if it's a very close call, umps eyes are better than any techno gizmo (pending that they're looking at the right mark). So tech should get involved some way in deciding what is the true mark that should be inspected and then ump rules on it.
 

·
La nuit je mens
Joined
·
87,479 Posts
Hawkeye should be left aside asap. If it can't take wind into consideration well enough, it has no business in a outdoor sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,808 Posts
I would take it even further. Live-hawkeye should be present in all wta and slam tournaments next year at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paradoxymoron

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,347 Posts
Those saying marks are good enough should watch the "Foxtenn on Clay" video posted in this thread, it does a good job explaining how marks can be unreliable or inaccurate. Even if the umpire chooses the correct mark, the mark could be smaller or larger than the actual landing of the ball, or it might not even mark the surface properly. So it's very possible for wrong calls to frequently occur in this system, and we can't sit here and pretend that umpires can do some sort of real-time physics calculations in their head to somehow account for this. It's more of an art than a science.

Considering that Hawkeye does a good job allowing us to have calls down to within a few millimetres on all other surfaces, it just doesn't make sense for us to accept a way higher level of variability on clay forever. Foxtenn already seemed to work quite well in Rio this year, so hopefully they'll have it up and running at more tournaments soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,107 Posts
This has been discussed at nauseam.
On clay Hawkeye is not as accurate. The real mark is better.
It would cause actually more controversy as sometimes we’d get contradictory results from Hawkeye vs checking the mark, which would cause many people questioning about Hawkeye in general, and this is the reason I think it never was implemented.
Hawkeye is not perfect by any means but it’s Ok enough for hardcourts.

Cameras can be used though in other cases such as double bounces, net touching and other potentially controversial situations.

Stop trying Hawkeye on clay to happen. It is not going to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
It would cause actually more controversy as sometimes we’d get contradictory results from Hawkeye vs checking the mark, which would cause many people questioning about Hawkeye in general, and this is the reason I think it never was implemented.
Hawkeye is not perfect by any means but it’s Ok enough for hardcourts.
Hawkeye presumes that the surface is perfectly level, without any dips and without any hills of fine clay that have been moved around bye the feet. That is why there are some different calls from hawkeye and the marks (assuming hawkeye has been well calibrated by qualified technicians. At some small events, it's not.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Hawkeye presumes that the surface is perfectly level, without any dips and without any hills of fine clay that have been moved around bye the feet. That is why there are some different calls from hawkeye and the marks (assuming hawkeye has been well calibrated by qualified technicians. At some small events, it's not.)
Which is why Foxtenn's tech is a better choice than Hawkeye.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,868 Posts
Which is why Foxtenn's tech is a better choice than Hawkeye.
I agree. There is no doubt in the players mind when they see a closeup of the ball bounce, which hawkeye doesn't show as clearly, leaving some to doubt the call sometimes.
Just because the wrong mark can be chosen by the umpire is a good reason to get the technology for clay courts. And aren't we fed-up to see the chair umpire get down from the chair so many times every match, wasting one minute or more every time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,977 Posts
I agree. There is no doubt in the players mind when they see a closeup of the ball bounce, which hawkeye doesn't show as clearly, leaving some to doubt the call sometimes.
Just because the wrong mark can be chosen by the umpire is a good reason to get the technology for clay courts. And aren't we fed-up to see the chair umpire get down from the chair so many times every match, wasting one minute or more every time.
Especially when the umpire says the mark is touching the line, and the player says they can see space between the mark on the line. When two people with eyes can't even agree if a mark is touching or not, it's time for a change. Foxtenn technology could very well be the answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
It's not fine when umpires aren't even looking at the right mark to base their call on. If Hawkeye can't be instituted with a minimum amount of error, then there needs to be super slow-mo instituted to ensure umpires are looking at the correct mark. The umpiring was very bad at this year's FO simply because the chair umpires were looking at the wrong mark.
I gave my opinion on the topic not going to get in a debate with you but I stand by my point of not needing Hawkeye its not even 100% right anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
absolutely. Any electronic system is way more consistent then the human person.
Players can concentrate on the game rather than calling the lines like we do on the playgrounds rediculous.
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top