McEnroe's "You can't be serious" Was the ball in?
Paul
be serious" in 1981.
I know this seems like an obvious question, but who was right about
the call -- McEnroe or the umpire?
Presumably, modern technology has settled this question.
Thanks,
Paul Epstein
uly...@mscomm.com
W. match, the BBC did a segment on this very subject.
Mac's contention was "Chalk flew up!" and therefore, the ball was in.
The BBC utilized some kind of technology which seemed quite accurate,
based on ball speed, enhanced film and enlarging the frame. Then they
superimposed a kind of Hawkeye technology and concluded....
The ball was out. McEnroe was mistaken.
However, if I recall, they said their methodolgy was only 97%
accurate, whereas Hawkeye is supposedly almost foolproof.
jdeluise
> However, if I recall, they said their methodolgy was only 97%
> accurate, whereas Hawkeye is supposedly almost foolproof.
Well, that's what the salesman would lead us to believe....
DavidW
> whereas Hawkeye is supposedly almost foolproof.
???? Where did you get that?
We've seen it make mistakes.
Whisper
Well, the rule is if ball touches the line it's in & there was chalk
everywhere. How could there be chalk if it didn't hit the line?
topspin
Chalk on grass spreads as it is walked on by the players and hit by
the ball. The linesperson can see the true line because they are
looking along it. Therefore the ball can hit a patch of chalk and
still be beyond the true baseline, which is almost certainly what
happened.
Iceberg
I was going to say Hawkeye is billed as having something like 95%
accurary or 5mm, I believe. Only a saleman would ever say it was
'foolproof'.
Fan
by as much as 6 inches. The problem with these players is that without
Hawkeye they would argue, throw tantrums trying to win the point or
upset the opponent with their tantrums.
McEnroe would argue over calls and throw tantrums mostly when he was
losing. He usually managed to distract his opponent and win a match he
would have lost.
How many slams would McEnroe have to his credit with Hawkeye and
without drugs?
Yama
: 95% accuracy is very good. Some players challenge balls that are out
Sadly (or fortunately?), HawkEye does not really reduce arguments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff6_UTPDO9s
Mac would have found new ways to whine.
Fan
Roddick and his tantrums are stupid and self-destructive. He appears
to use his tantrums to excuse losing the match and he usually loses.
McEnroe’s tantrums are just the opposite. They help him win matches he
should have lost.
Roddick is stupid and pathetic while McEnroe is sneaky and calculating
Iceberg
good scientific evidence there then.
felangey
Lol, yeah. What they don't say in the sales pitch is that "quite often the
Hawkeye operator will apply the technology to the completely wrong
mark/rally". Some of the calls we get are laughable...but for now I guess it
is the lesser of two evils. You would think there would be the technology
today to exact a 100% accurate system.
drew
I would say 95% accuracy is pretty good. It just illustrates how we
will believe
a machine but not a person. Certainly the machine will not
discriminate and I
think that players like McEnroe were sick enough to believe they were
not only
getting bad calls but being treated unfairly.
With the margin for error being what it is I conclude that the
linespeople are very
good at what they do. The challenge system is good. It still uses
people to make
the calls. Of course to believe that the machine is right when it
paints the edge of the ball
one millimeter away from the line or one millimeter touching....that
is just wrong. In cases
such as these, the machine could be wrong and it could be right.
You're no closer to the truth
but you do get closure.
drew
Some say that was the case with the Ljubicic/Murray call where the
ball was clearly out
and Hawkeye called it in. They say Hawkeye was applied to the wrong
stroke. I don't
understand how this could happen.
Anybody care to attempt an explanation??
Iceberg
Dave says Nadal has only ever won a match because of cheating!
Iceberg
I doubt they want to give an explanation, as it would show a fault in
the technology. A bit like when they tried to cover-up that speed
cameras were inaccurate.
drew
> > Some say that was the case with the Ljubicic/Murray call where the
> > ball was clearly out
> > and Hawkeye called it in. They say Hawkeye was applied to the wrong
> > stroke. I don't
> > understand how this could happen.
>
> > Anybody care to attempt an explanation??
>
> I doubt they want to give an explanation, as it would show a fault in
> the technology. A bit like when they tried to cover-up that speed
> cameras were inaccurate
My guess is that only a few people really know the technical details
of the system
and the people in charge of explaining the system to the public/press
don't understand
the explanation themselves. Rather than face the unpleasant task of
fielding a bunch
of follow up questions that they can't answer, they remain silent.
Or maybe they don't want to publicize the fact that the Hawkeye system
is not perfectly
accurate or precise...that operator error is a possibility...that
calibration problems may
exist...that there is no quality assurance standard established for
the system to be declared
operational or unacceptable.
I'm just guessing here.
Patrick Kehoe
Well, the system would have to have a fairly good quality
(simulational) assurance, if even only to have moved from product
development into commercial development and marketing... though I
agree, the 'final margins' which are the 'determinative margins' with
respect to adjudicating an actual tennis match 'correctly' is where
all the unknowns really amount to something... at the most precise
differentiations (those millimeter calls one way or the other) is
really the OPERATIVE proofing of the system, what makes the system
WORTH HAVING and it is EXACTLY TO THIS POINT that the producers of the
technology are 'fuzzy' :)))))
And that's the affront really, the hard pill to swallow... AND YET...
given the margins of errors the system ADMITS to/ self defines for
usage of the product, well, as you and I and other have said
previously, at LEAST there is point to point closure... the person
reacts to a call, challenges and a more or less instantaneous
'verdict' is rendered... except here the 'evidence' (the mark on the
court), the trace marking is itself the verdict of action, the crime
in and of itself as a virtual reinactment... sort of an interesting
philisophical multi-inversion of non-reality as reality traced by an
approximation of reality there...
P
P
uly...@mscomm.com
"What? Where did you get that."
Um... the inclusion of the word "supposedly" makes the statement have
a sarcastic, ironic tinge to it.
Yama
: Roddick and his tantrums are stupid and self-destructive. He appears
: to use his tantrums to excuse losing the match and he usually loses.
No argument there.
: McEnroe?s tantrums are just the opposite. They help him win matches he
: should have lost.
: Roddick is stupid and pathetic while McEnroe is sneaky and calculating
Argument there. No doubt Mac's tantrums sometimes had the described effect -
and many of his peers thought they were simply gamesmanship. But Mac tended
to throw tantrums at earlier rounds, against lesser opponents. Not so much
in the big matches...
John P
"We've seen it make mistakes."
Um, no. Maybe you in your own mind's eye think you've seen it make
mistakes, but "we" on the whole have not seen it make mistakes (in part
because we don't see as well as Hawkeye).
John P
"Well, [Hawkeye being foolproof] is what the salesman would lead us to
believe."
and what the salesman lead 3 out of the 4 majors and most everyone else
who matters in tennis to believe...
John P
"quite often the Hawkeye operator will apply the technology to the
completely wrong mark/rally."
nonsense. there is no evidence - EVIDENCE - that Hawkeye has EVER, let
alone "quite often," been applied to the completely wrong mark, let
alone the completely wrong rally.
you are confusing Hawkeye with human linespeople who are forever calling
the completely wrong mark on clay.
John P
"Some say that was the case with the Ljubicic/Murray call where the ball
was clearly out and Hawkeye called it in. They say Hawkeye was applied
to the wrong stroke. I don't understand how this could happen. Anyone
care to attempt an explanation."
well, I didn't see this particular point and I don't know who
"some/they" are, but my guess is it didn't happen - the ball was in,
regardless of what "some/they" allege.
"Follow the evidence" - Grissom
John P
wrote:
"I'm just guessing here."
well, that's putting it very mildly, which is precisely why inventors
and scientists don't suffer lay fools gladly.
John P
"sort of an interesting philosophical multi-inversion of non-reality as
reality tracked by an approximation of reality there."
whatever, still more accurate than human linespeople "reality."
jdeluise
Unfortunately you seem to be under the impression that it actually sees the
ball. From what I understand it just projects where the ball *should* land
based on what it can see. Bottom line, I don't trust it at all BUT I would
say it has improved the game in the sense that people can't endlessly argue
with line judges and umpires all day long.
jdeluise
On 28-Oct-2010, JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
>
> nonsense. there is no evidence - EVIDENCE - that Hawkeye has EVER, let
> alone "quite often," been applied to the completely wrong mark, let
> alone the completely wrong rally.
Wrong, it happened at the AO last year in a Murray match. Are you a Hawkeye
salesman by any chance?
jdeluise
jdeluise
On 28-Oct-2010, JT...@webtv.net (John P) wrote:
Tell us what you know about the technology besides what the brochure told
you? lol
DavidW
Um, yes. There have been cases (a sideline call at Wimbledon comes to mind) in
which Hawkeye clearly disagreed with the _camera_, which records what the ball
_really_ does.
Repeat after me: Hawkeye is not God.
drew
Well, I saw the point and I'm sure others saw it too. The camera
clearly showed that the
ball was out by a good margin and Hawkeye saw it good. It was a
mishit that landed close to
the net. It was an odd trajectory and moved slowly. Maybe Hawkeye
miscalculated. It was a
clear error at any rate and you shouldn't comment if you didn't see
the particular point.
Murray actually apologized to Llubicic for challenging the call. He
knew it was out and
was surprised as anyone to get the call reversed on challenge.
>
> "Follow the evidence" - Grissom
Well, at least look at the evidence before commenting.
drew
Don't give the science gods too much credit. They're not above
'dancing' around
questions that they can't answer. If you deny this then you just
don't know what
you don't know.
I admit that I don't have enough technical knowledge of Hawkeye to
understand
HOW the errors are made but it's pretty damned obvious that the
system sometimes makes mistakes
outside of the stated margins of error. Now I don't expect
perfection. I'd just like to know how these errors occur.
Your belief in the technology is touching but it is precisely this
faith and lack of curiosity that
inevitably allows sloppy standards to be accepted.
So unless you have some technical insights that you would like to
share,
please keep your faith based responses to yourself.
drew
I'm not convinced that on the really close calls Hawkeye is any more
precise at
detecting the ball on the line. It probably yields fewer really bad
calls and that
is where I think the system really does work.
In as much as the Hawkeye engineers have stated a margin for error it
is a given
that some correct close calls are being overturned. Now we haven't
determined
how precise the human instrument is but unless the Hawkeye result puts
the ball
in or out BEYOND it's margin for error....shouldn't these particular
calls be considered
indeterminate?
Yama
: patrick described Hawkeye as:
: "sort of an interesting philosophical multi-inversion of non-reality as
: reality tracked by an approximation of reality there."
: whatever, still more accurate than human linespeople "reality."
HawkEye does not "track" the ball. It estimates where the ball will land, and
what sort of print it makes to the surface based on speed and trajectory. This
really does not give that accurate results - certainly I've seen many cases where
slo-mo camera and HawkEye seemed to disagree pretty heavily. I remember Luke Jensen
once commentating that players should always use up their challenges because sometimes
you just had "pretty weird results" and you just might get lucky.
What the HawkEye has going for it is that it is impartial and unambigious (outside of
those few times it bugs).
Yama
: drew wrote,
http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/UserFiles/File/Ljubicic%20Challenge.pdf
Ouch.
Ted S.
> Bottom line, I don't trust it at all BUT I would say it has improved
> the game in the sense that people can't endlessly argue with line
> judges and umpires all day long.
As Yama pointed out, this hasn't stopped Roddick. Then again, it *is*
Roddick we're talking about.
--
Ted Schuerzinger
tedstennis at myrealbox dot com
If you're afraid of the ball, don't sit in the front row. --Anastasia
Rodionova
Ted S.
> So you blindly believe in technology then?
I wish I didn't have to keep mentioning how the ball leaves a mark on
clay. Yet, when Hawkeye disagrees with the mark on the clay, there are
still idiot announcers who claim Hawkeye is right. (Pat McEnroe, if I
could throttle your neck right now, I would.)
drew
>
> Ouch.
Thanks for this....LOL....NOW it makes perfect sense. I had heard
something about them tracking the wrong ball and I couldn't understand
that
because it was such a weird shot and probably only one ball that
actually landed close to that spot in the whole match. Kind of an
embarassing
mistake but shit happens. Sounds like they've made adjustments to
avoid that type of error in the future.
drew
>
> I wish I didn't have to keep mentioning how the ball leaves a mark on
> clay. Yet, when Hawkeye disagrees with the mark on the clay, there are
> still idiot announcers who claim Hawkeye is right. (Pat McEnroe, if I
> could throttle your neck right now, I would.)
It's a McEnroe thing. They can't believe their own eyes...and neither
can we.
MBDunc
which was based on infrared scanning (the landing spot was scanned at
as that was warmer the spot was unquestionable).
Do they use that system anymore?
.mikko
TT
> John P <JT...@webtv.net> wrote:
> : patrick described Hawkeye as:
>
> : "sort of an interesting philosophical multi-inversion of non-reality as
> : reality tracked by an approximation of reality there."
>
> : whatever, still more accurate than human linespeople "reality."
>
> HawkEye does not "track" the ball. It estimates where the ball will land, and
> what sort of print it makes to the surface based on speed and trajectory. This
> really does not give that accurate results - certainly I've seen many cases where
> slo-mo camera and HawkEye seemed to disagree pretty heavily. I remember Luke Jensen
> once commentating that players should always use up their challenges because sometimes
> you just had "pretty weird results" and you just might get lucky.
>
From what I've seen, hawkeye seems to be always spot on. And you can't
see better from your tv than it does.
The raw data for hawkeye is footage from several high-speed cameras.
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
TT
Amusing thing is that some posters here claim this Ljube example as a
fault on hawkeye tracking system...while it was a fault of human operator.
People here talk and talk, despite knowing nothing about what they're
talking...
TT
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:02:09 GMT, jdeluise wrote:
>
>> So you blindly believe in technology then?
>
> I wish I didn't have to keep mentioning how the ball leaves a mark on
> clay. Yet, when Hawkeye disagrees with the mark on the clay, there are
> still idiot announcers who claim Hawkeye is right. (Pat McEnroe, if I
> could throttle your neck right now, I would.)
>
You're just talking crap as usual...When has hawkeye "disagreed" with
the mark on clay?
drew
> Amusing thing is that some posters here claim this Ljube example as a
> fault on hawkeye tracking system...while it was a fault of human operator.
The 'system' consists of human and machine.
If there is a fault in the tracking system it will only be revealed by
taking an honest look
at the discrepancies between photographic evidence and the spot that
Hawkeye produces.
I've seen some calls while sitting in the stands that seemed to be
absolutely wrong but I will
admit that I wasn't in the best place to make a call. The crowd
seemed to react generally against the
call so that is some indication....but without photographic comparison
it is subjective.
It's a fairly complex system and it is a simulation so there may be
weaknesses that can be identified with
specific types of shot tracking.
At any rate they should address the limits of accuracy issue with
Hawkeye and accept that calls outside of the
limits of accuracy must be called indeterminate. This could be done
by superimposing a larger clear spot over the
calclulated spot to indicate the margin for error. Then there could
be 3 possibilities; IN, OUT or INDETERMINATE.
This is the fairest way to treat the players and the linespeople and
it is the correct interpretation of the information
that is presented.
>
> People here talk and talk, despite knowing nothing about what they're
> talking...
Enlighten us learned one.
number_six
Here's a repost of a post I made in the March 2009 Hawkeye WTF thread
--
* * *
A bit later in the match, the announcers indicated that their producer
had come up with a very plausible explanation.
Murray's lob was out on the *first* bounce, the linesman called it
out, and Ljub let it go. The *second* bounce hit the line, and it was
the *second* bounce that the Hawkeye operator inadvertently
displayed. They showed a replay and it appeared likely this was what
happened.
The umpire acknowledged that they used the "wrong image" but he had
them replay the point, rather than award it to Ljubicic, probably
because the correct image was no longer retrievable, and he was
unwilling to overrule the system on his own.
Although I'm something of a Hawkeye skeptic, and believe many of the
hairline calls are within its operational margin of error, in this
case, it looks like the problem was that the operator displayed the
wrong bounce, not that the system itself failed to calculate and
display where the ball actually landed.
drew
>
Hawkeye is a good system. It needs a little refinement.
I remember the response of players when Hawkeye was first
implemented. Even Nadal was outraged at
some of the challenge overrules. The players now realize that some
of the hairline calls are
technically wrong and too close to call for the machine but somehow
this deficiency
is being generally accepted by the players. I am surprised at this.
Imagine if the system could be corrupted by a disgruntled employee.
Patrick Kehoe
Oh! No. Drew, refrain from giving the lunatic fringe around here any
other 'explaination' for a big match Fed/Nadal win... :)))
P