Visual Technology in Tennis, better than football but is it perfectly used ?

Now we don't all love the ATP for everything they do, but the ATP, WTA, ITF and all the tennis bodies have made good progress on technology. They should be an example to FIFA who lag behind and the game suffers as a result.

Hawkeye is a very accurate technology, and it is available on the centre courts for the most of the major tournaments across the tennis world today. Some argue though that the element of technology spoils the natural feeling of tennis, while some top players don't tend to trust hawkeye much.

We currently have 3 challenges per set, and an extra one during a tiebreak. The problem sometimes occurs that people use it for gamesmanship, they purposefully waste a challenge if near the end of a set to give themselves a benefit. This is a sad element of the use, but I think that will come as a side-effect and we can't do anything about it.
Some argue for more than 3 challenges in a set, there are some rare cases of people using up 3 challenges early and then can't do anything when they've been wronged later on in the set... but that is there problem in my opinion.

One thing I'm not so happy with though is the lack of use of hawkeye on clay. At the moment umpires and players rely on the mark of the ball on the clay, but due to all sorts of reasons, the mark is not always 100% accurate- as the ball could have moved off when bouncing.
It also opens the opportunity for some players to gain an unfair advantage by pointing to the wrong ball mark. I've seen this occur a few times, and I think it really is time to bring back hawkeye on clay. When so much is on the line in big matches, I think having the challenge down to the objective hawkeye is better than the judgement of the umpire or a player.

Some unfortunate examples of players 'happening' to point at the wrong mark, this is why we need hawkeye:

Arrogant Federer tries to cheat again?!
We don't need 'hawkeye', we need someone to instill a sense of fair play into the arrogant Swiss shanker. We've seen how he argues against 'hawkeye' even when it is in use - remember how he swore at the umpire when JMDP used 'hawkeye' in the USO.
So it's not the use/lack of use of 'hawkeye' that is the problem, it's players like Soderling and Federer who are the problem. 'hawkeye' has it's limits after all.

JuliusHMarx wrote:'hawkeye' has it's limits after all.

No for me it's not specific players who are the problem; the bigger issue is that the system now has room for the sort of stuff... which could be eradicated by installing hawkeye on clay courts.

I just gave 2 examples here, but I remember this year a funny episode with Troicki, I think he even got his phone out and took a picture of the ball mark such was the confusion.

I'd be wiling to bet that the line judges/umpire get it right 99.9% of the time on clay - which is about the same as hawkeye, given it is not 100% accurate. So I don't see a benefit of using it.
If players like Federer (or Soderling or Troicki) had more respect for the line judges/umpires/the game of tennis, they wouldn't try to cheat - we shouldn't need hawkeye to instill that in them.

I have always had 2 issues with Hawkeye:

1) Tactical use of it.
2) Umpires allowing of challenges nearly 30 seconds after the shot or when the rally has been played out and challenge comes in for a shot 2-3 strokes ago.

Get rid of it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'd be wiling to bet that the line judges/umpire get it right 99.9% of the time on clay - which is about the same as hawkeye, given it is not 100% accurate. So I don't see a benefit of using it.
If players like Federer (or Soderling or Troicki) had more respect for the line judges/umpires/the game of tennis, they wouldn't try to cheat - we shouldn't need hawkeye to instill that in them.

I think some players will try and cheat nonetheless, the best way to safeguard against it having hawkeye and that way they have no room to do so.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I have always had 2 issues with Hawkeye:

1) Tactical use of it.
2) Umpires allowing of challenges nearly 30 seconds after the shot or when the rally has been played out and challenge comes in for a shot 2-3 strokes ago.

Get rid of it.

How can you get rid of tactical usagae ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I'd be wiling to bet that the line judges/umpire get it right 99.9% of the time on clay - which is about the same as hawkeye, given it is not 100% accurate. So I don't see a benefit of using it.
If players like Federer (or Soderling or Troicki) had more respect for the line judges/umpires/the game of tennis, they wouldn't try to cheat - we shouldn't need hawkeye to instill that in them.

I think some players will try and cheat nonetheless

True, and it was good of you to point out 2 of the worst offenders, vs. Nadal.

I just wish Hawkeye had been around in McEnroe's day. Would he have quickly used up all his challenges and been left to rant at umpires? Good example of what can happen when you run out of challenges came at the recent women's tour finals when Caro W, I think, was the sufferer with a ball that was miles out yet was called good.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I have always had 2 issues with Hawkeye:

1) Tactical use of it.
2) Umpires allowing of challenges nearly 30 seconds after the shot or when the rally has been played out and challenge comes in for a shot 2-3 strokes ago.

Get rid of it.

How can you get rid of tactical usagae ?

I mean get rid of Hawkeye all together!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I have always had 2 issues with Hawkeye:

1) Tactical use of it.
2) Umpires allowing of challenges nearly 30 seconds after the shot or when the rally has been played out and challenge comes in for a shot 2-3 strokes ago.

Get rid of it.

How can you get rid of tactical usagae ?

I mean get rid of Hawkeye all together!

But she's a great poster and really contributes to the site


Interesting opinion LK, but do you really think the negatives totally outweigh the positives ?

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:I have always had 2 issues with Hawkeye:

1) Tactical use of it.
2) Umpires allowing of challenges nearly 30 seconds after the shot or when the rally has been played out and challenge comes in for a shot 2-3 strokes ago.

Get rid of it.

How can you get rid of tactical usagae ?

I mean get rid of Hawkeye all together!

But she's a great poster and really contributes to the site


Interesting opinion LK, but do you really think the negatives totally outweigh the positives ?

For me you have 2 negatives. Also take out the doubt. If there is a shred of doubt in it, it should be back to the drawing board.

LK wrote:For me you have 2 negatives. Also take out the doubt. If there is a shred of doubt in it, it should be back to the drawing board.

There's much less doubt with hawkeye than without.
As we've seen on clay without it, it's given the opportunity for some people to try and gain an unfair advantage by pointing to the wrong mark. The best sportsman won't do that sort of thing, but for a sport it's better to depend on a reliable technology like hawkeye rather than relying on players' sportsmanship and umpire's judgement.

It Must Be Love wrote:

LK wrote:For me you have 2 negatives. Also take out the doubt. If there is a shred of doubt in it, it should be back to the drawing board.

There's much less doubt with hawkeye than without.
As we've seen on clay without it, it's given the opportunity for some people to try and gain an unfair advantage by pointing to the wrong mark. The best sportsman won't do that sort of thing, but for a sport it's better to depend on a reliable technology like hawkeye rather than relying on players' sportsmanship and umpire's judgement.

Ooooooh a little dig at a certain player. Cheeky!

There is doubt. I recall Murray vs Ljubicic at Wimbledon and there were some dodgy Hawkeye reviews in that one where the commentators wondered if the gun had been positioned correctly.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Ooooooh a little dig at a certain player. Cheeky!

When people play me and they call balls that are clearly in as out I get annoyed and think that's not what the best sportsman would do, same applies to when I see professional players on my TV screen- especially when they point to the wrong mark and try to mislead the umpire.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
There is doubt. I recall Murray vs Ljubicic at Wimbledon and there were some dodgy Hawkeye reviews in that one where the commentators wondered if the gun had been positioned correctly.

How many years ago was that btw ?
Has hawkeye improved in that time ?

Federer's I'm not so sure if he is trying to point deliberataly at the wrong mark, but Soderling's is horrific. I think keep Hawkeye and have it on clay as well.

The Soderling one genuinely made me laugh, he may as well have pointed to a spot on the opposing tramlines.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Arrogant Federer tries to cheat again?!
We don't need 'hawkeye', we need someone to instill a sense of fair play into the arrogant Swiss shanker. We've seen how he argues against 'hawkeye' even when it is in use - remember how he swore at the umpire when JMDP used 'hawkeye' in the USO.
So it's not the use/lack of use of 'hawkeye' that is the problem, it's players like Soderling and Federer who are the problem. 'hawkeye' has it's limits after all.

Hear, hear I fully agree. Who can forget the beknighted one arguing with match officials that he should be allowed to challenge balls two or three shots ago in Indian wells.

Fully agree with IMBL we should have replay on clay as well. The mark system is hardly as accurate and involves more human error in finding the actual mark. Which is often a disputed point of contention.

Hawkeye is rather expensive technology, and I can see the logic in not having it on clay, when you'll probably only really it need for one or two points a tournament. But if the networks are going to show replays of it, I can't really understand why you wouldn't use it.

It should be used on clay as well. Its far more reliable than the ump finding the right mark and trying to work out if it clipped or not.

That Soderling clip is priceless.