Could there be an as yet unseen flaw with Hawk-Eye?..Consider the following possibility.?
How would Hawk-Eye designate a serve as either in,or out,if the ball lands on the service line but is adjacent to the middle court service line?(the T section).Without any thinly drawn through lines how can Hawk-Eye show if the ball is close enough to be in,or either called out,for being wide? There are no thin lines drawn to show the continuation of the width of the middle line through to the back of the cross court service line.
I reckon it would be a very interesting scenario if a player challenged an umpires call because of this anomaly becoming apparent.Just imagine the players rage if this happened during Match Point?
So far I don’t think this Hawk-Eye situation has ever occurred.
"BRING IT ON!!!!!!!"
I think that Hawk-eye is a fantastic innovation to tennis.
But the other night in one of the mens game…I think Djockovic challenged a call in the Quarter Final against Hewwit and the ball was in by 1 SINGLE MILLIMETER!
the bad this about that is that surley, there must be some margin of error in the Hark-eye system, no computer is perfect.
it may have been in by a couple of millimeters but then again, it may have been OUT by a couple of millimeters….thats the thing that people also have to understand. just because it says its in doesnt mean it is.
I remember a couple of years ago when they new hawk eye was braught into the australian cricket on ch. 9….the commentators said that there was up to a 3mm margin of error.
sometimes the hawk eye will get it spot on…but it can be out sometimes.
Yes, umpires have overruled linesman’s decision then players have challenged the chair umpires decision and hawk eye has shown that the linesman was correct….devistating for the chair umpire
as for match point….well, i wouldnt like to see a player win because of a computer prediction
February 8th, 2010 at 4:06 am
In tennis, when you serve, the ball has to be aimed in the right court, and even if the ball touches the section where the service line and the middle court line meet, it would be considered in. The lines surrounding the court that the service is supposed to be aimed in are considered part of that court.
References :
February 8th, 2010 at 4:30 am
I think that Hawk-eye is a fantastic innovation to tennis.
But the other night in one of the mens game…I think Djockovic challenged a call in the Quarter Final against Hewwit and the ball was in by 1 SINGLE MILLIMETER!
the bad this about that is that surley, there must be some margin of error in the Hark-eye system, no computer is perfect.
it may have been in by a couple of millimeters but then again, it may have been OUT by a couple of millimeters….thats the thing that people also have to understand. just because it says its in doesnt mean it is.
I remember a couple of years ago when they new hawk eye was braught into the australian cricket on ch. 9….the commentators said that there was up to a 3mm margin of error.
sometimes the hawk eye will get it spot on…but it can be out sometimes.
Yes, umpires have overruled linesman’s decision then players have challenged the chair umpires decision and hawk eye has shown that the linesman was correct….devistating for the chair umpire
as for match point….well, i wouldnt like to see a player win because of a computer prediction
References :