Big debate: was Roger Federer right to criticise Hawk-Eye?
Former Wimbledon champion Michael Stich and Hawk-Eye inventor Dr Paul Hawkins argue the toss on the controversial electronic line-judge.
The GuardianJuly 11, 2007 12:15 AM
Michael Stich, 1991 Wimbledon champion & Radio Five Live commentator

Yes

There are lots of reasons why I don't think that Hawk-Eye is good for tennis. It might be a nice show for the spectators and for television but over the long term I think it will take a lot out of the game, especially the interaction between the players, the line judges and the chair umpires.

People are always talking about how there aren't enough characters in the game but the more technology gets involved in tennis, the fewer personalities will show through. You lose a lot by stopping players from arguing with line calls and interacting with the chair umpire.

All the players will end up doing is just playing tennis, not showing their emotions - nobody is allowed to throw a racket these days without getting a warning - and Hawk-Eye is just contributing to that.

John McEnroe was a great player, and very successful, but he is who he is partly because of the way he argued with umpires and used his catchphrase "You cannot be serious ". Imagine what would be missing from the history of the game if that had never happened? Maybe he would not have been the player or the figure that he is right now because he would never have had the chance to challenge the chair umpire's decision and show his personality. Mac also used challenging calls to his advantage, to pump himself up, but if Hawk- Eye had been available then he would not have had the chance to do that. Tennis is a game played by people and people have to be involved - be it players, line judges or umpires. Bad calls will always be made and I certainly do believe that not a single match has been decided by a bad line call in the history of tennis.

Even if Rafael Nadal had been given a bad call on match point down to Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final, then that would still not have been the reason he lost. He lost that match because he failed to take the break point chances he had in the fifth set. Tennis is about fi ghting, it's about commitment and sometimes it's about disagreeing with line calls. I had plenty of times when I didn't like decisions but I never walked off the court and said that's why I lost.

I have never played with Hawk-Eye but I have watched it quite a lot and I don't think it is accurate enough. I am not saying the technology is not good or doesn't work, but I don't think it works well enough to be used in tennis. It is not a live picture. They take pictures from diff erent angles and calculate it through a computer so it is all based on mathematics. Hawk-Eye's makers say they have a margin of error of 3mm but a millimetre in tennis is a huge distance, let alone three , and I don't know how much the system takes into account how much topspin or slice a player has put on a ball, which can have a huge eff ect on where it lands.

I have spoken to chair umpires who say that the reason they don't use Hawk-Eye at the French Open is that when they tested the system on clay, the ball marks proved it wrong time and time again. If it had never been invented we would all have just had to live with the fact that every so often an offi cial makes a bad call - and tennis would be better for it. Taking the human element out of our sport can only be a bad thing.

Dr Paul Hawkins, inventor of Hawk-Eye

No

What Hawk-Eye has brought to the game has attracted immense support from the overwhelming majority of players, commentators and spectators. Firstly it puts the destiny of the players in their own hands, giving them the call on when to question the judgment of line offi cials and this has led to far fewer code violations and instances of players getting upset in the tournaments where it has been used than in those that still rely solely on the human eye.

There is a huge amount of pressure on offi cials and players and the intensity of a situation when there is a tight line call makes everyone's blood pressure leap, even those of us who are merely watching. Particularly in these pressure situations, human judgment is impaired. Our computers don't have heart rates and make decisions on the evidence without the added stress of the tension of the situation. It also provides a high level of drama for the spectators that wasn't there before - and this is a secondary benefi t of the system.

On the particular call questioned by Rafael Nadal which provoked Roger Federer's outburst, at 30-30 in the third game of the fourth set, Hawk-Eye called the ball in by a margin of 1mm. This verdict was said by commentators to be wrong - they only get to see the replayonce - but if examined more closely (as you can at www.hawkeyeinnovations. co.uk), that criticism was unfair.

Television replays are deceptive because the cameras are at the wrong angle, looking down at the ball, the ball has a lot of motion blur and compresses and skids about 10cm whil e in contact with the ground. The TV cameras do not work at a high enough frame rate (they work at 150 frames per second) to capture the exact point where the ball fi rst hits the ground. On impact, it will compress so that the bottom half is flat. Then it starts to roll and skid and uncompress. The freeze frame television used showed the ball about 4-5cm out, but at th at stage the ball was decompressing and leaving the ground and therefore much further out than the crucial part when it first made contact with the grass.

There are three main criticisms of Hawk-Eye, the first being that it is not accurate enough. We accept that Hawk- Eye is unable to prove conclusively that the ball was in by 1mm, however we can show that this particular call was within the accepted error of the system (average error of 3.6mm when independently tested) and overall the players accept this. There is also some scepticism about the cost of the system but it was sponsored by Rolex and because of the level of their commitment the event is able to off set all the costs.

Finally, there are some complaints that it changes the nature of the game and I understand the calls to defend the traditions of tennis. But if you look back at the history of the game there were no line judges for many years, the players called the line and the umpire intervened only when there was a disagreement between the two players. Hawk- Eye puts the onus back on the player and could therefore be said to be taking tennis back to its roots.

Hawk-Eye has never imposed itself on any sport, we respond to requests from governing bodies to provide a decisionmaking tool to resolve the tightest calls. Hawk-Eye addresses problem areas where the authorities have decided human judgment is no longer enough.

Debate.....

Well IMO more than right or wrong is a question of coherence: Fed has always been against this machine (even if he used so well against AROD in the semi at the AO this year).. roflmao

Said that, I really believe that some of his arguments have some values: mainly the fact that it is a system that "takes" time out of the players and can imply to lose some concentrations (I have to find the interview in which he pointed out that he took at least 3 games in the fourth set before digesting the break point generated by the "machine". :moody: .I.e. the famous 3-0 at the beginning of the fourth..)...

Anyway, it is there and he have to live with it..He can and he will do..Still I see some of his points and I agree with some of them (even if for us the presence of the machine is quite funny). :rolleyes:

To be honest I think 'its six of one, half a dozen of the other!' I can understand Fed getting uptight about decisions because at that point in the match he was, argubaly, closer to defeat at Wimbledon than any previous final. I thought it was interesting that Fed was getting angry and swearing which we may see more of as Nadal closes the gap between them!

Anyway, on the one hand it is beneficial because it can be a match-decider and *should* give a more conclusive view than the umpire can give. It also provides and added dimension for the spectators which, as Johnny Mac always says, is also an important fact.

On the other hand I do think there has to be a few more rules regarding using it, i.e.

*players shouldn't be able to look up to their box/ ask the umpire otherwise they might as well have a rule where you can ask the players box if it was in or out!

*Some players are challenging for the sake of it even when they know the ball is in/out which does slow the game down and is a disadvantage for the server. Not sure how they could clamp down on this but there we go!

And as tennisveritas says, it's here now so we have to live with it!

A few points:

I think the challenge by the player should be almost instantaneous. If we ask the line judge to make an instant decision, so shoudl the players. No right to look at the caoch/family box for advise. At 6/5 Nadal 30/30 in the 3rd set, Fed serves an ace...Nadal changes side, Federer grabs a couple more balls for serving the game out at 40/30 but while facing ad court for serving, is told by the referee that Nadal is challenging the call. To be fair it takes only 6 sec of reflexion for Nadal to lift his arm to the referee. Had the serve been out, Federer would have had to get rid of extra balls, face the right service box and had lost any rhythm between 1st and 2nd serve. Not fair and this can be easily used to break the playerss' rhythm between serves.

Also, I believe HE was selected over cameras because of the fancy design and image but cameras well placed would have been much more accurate in my view and I am pretty sure cheaper as well.

:) Let us not forget Federer had anger management issues earlier on his career. Some actually attribute some of his current mild manner to Mirka.... but I am not so surprised that he does flare up at such calls.

When you are like federer and you are not used to being challenged you have to expend your energy else where.....Frankly I hope there will be other players like Nadal....who will challenge him equally on all the other surfaces. It will do FEderer himself a whole lot of good and the game of tennis will fare better as a whole.

Mind you ... I think ..regardless of all the hugs and the stomach rubs....and the "he also deserves to win"....Roger really deep inside wishes he had won Roland Garros..... and when push comes to shove...especially against Nadal on Federer's more comfortable surface he will feel ticked when it doesnt go his way.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so does absolute number One for too long..... like SB said all the other players not just Gasquet need to step up and make the whole ATP race come alive... rivalries are good but they can also lead to cold wars...it helps if there are variations...

Wise words!

I dont really think its fair to decide every single point with a machine. It should be used as supporting evidence rather than 100% law .The umpire and linesmen are there for a reason,and the point should be replayed if theres a very close call .Can you imagine having to use hawkeye on championship point, only to find that the ball is in/out by a millimetre ? Not a good way to decide a close match . :shrug:

Hmm....I don't necessarily think Stich picked the right argument to make there. Sayng that you lose the arguments with umpires because of hawkeye.....eeerm...... :blink:

It's interesting that a lot of the very top players - not just Federer - have said that they don't trust hawkeye, or have some criticisms of it. As the inventor himself says that there is a margin for error - if a ball is called in by a mm, surely it's possible that it's wrong?

I'm also unsure as to why Wimbledon gave the players an extra challenge? i'm sure it encouraged tactical challenging - especially during tie breaks where it's possible that each player would have 4 challenges. That really does break up the rhythm of the game imho.

Yeah, I don't think I agree with Stich.

However, the fact that they don't take the margin of error into account is a big flaw, as I have always felt since they brought this in.

If the call is within this margin of error, then they should either let the original call stand, or replay the point. Or they should just wait with using it until they

1. have reduced the margin of error, and
2. have the technology to use the system in real time (so that it can be used for line calling rather than challenging).

Anyway, one way or another there are always going to be things which don't go a player's way, and in reality (as Fed has said himself before) these do not determine the match. Of course, at 30-30 it's frustrating, but if it hadn't come to 30-30 in the first place ... there can always be a bounce, a mishit, a net cord etc. which can cost you any given point.

So in the end I don't agree with Roger's outburst on court seeing as though he knew there was nothing he could do. On the other hand, perhaps he needed to somehow get his frustration out of his system. :shrug:

But why not use HD cameras? They simply do not lie. End of argument.

The thing is that they are less "sexy" than the fancy HE. HE shoud be used to analyse the match but it is not precise enough to decide on a crucial point. I was actually very surprise to see on a HE graphic that the ball trajectory was not smooth and had "breaks". That shows how flawed it can be, because I cannot imagine a ball changing direction once in mid-air!!!!!

if hawk-eye is here to stay, it should be in the umpire's chair. that way they see every shot and can overrule immediately.

:D I think Stich makes an excllent point. We'd have never had Mac's legendary 'the ball was in" "chalkdust" etc and all those arguments we've seen over the years otherwise. I enjoy that side of it, if others don't then fine but drama is all a part of it and adds to the atmosphere and entertainment.

Still I suppose the players can find somthign new to argue about if they like, such as bathroom breaks.

This is what I don't understand? It's a much more efficient way of dealing with the issue.

I personally can't stand the circus surrounding hawkeye, and would be much happier with cameras.

Funny how it's been brought into tennis, but still not into football...where there it could have equal importance.

The use of hawkeye in football is not long away- they're in the process of trials at the mo.

That's interesting - always felt there was a need! :)

I have to say that that line call in the fourth set which was called in by hawkeye was a bit ridiculous coz that ball was clearly out.It was even more ridiculous because there wasnt even the slightest puff of chalk.That ball was called in by the slightest mm,if you look at the replay it was clearly out.
Hawkeye is clearly ridiculous.Look at what happened to Amelie.The ball was clearly out even on the hawkeye replay but was called in by that same machine.I cant remember what tournament it was in. I think its most effective in cricket for LBWs coz its trojectory based.Someone early on in this thread mentioned whether or not they take topspin into account as well as slice and side spin.These are all factors to be considered.

Hawkeye is still in development and could be as accurate as we want it to be but at the moment its not so Im in favour of Federer,he was right to argue!

The thing is though, it looked out DN, but Hawkeye despite having a margin for error is nevertheless more accurate than the naked eye.

There is a lot of talk about the Hawkeye margin for error, but surely it has a better margin for error than the human eyes of the linesmen.

Saying that, I do appreciate it is still in development, so players should question it if they feel it is pertinent to do so; but it won't do them any more good than arguing with an umpire.

That's right. So if human eyes are say 75% right and Hawkeye is 90% right, then surely you've got to go with which is better.

Hopefully one day there'll be a system that is 100% accurate, but that might be some way off yet.

Whatever the anger Federer showed, I think he behaved pretty well considering the situation and the importance of the call. it is not very often that a player finds himself in a position to win 5 Wimbledons in a row. The frustration came there because it was an accumulation of dodgy calls by HE. The worst moment came in the first set when HE made him replay the point while he thought he had already won the set. It required tremendous concentration and determination to put the incident aside and fight again to close the set a second time (ironically, somthing similar happened to Borg for his 5th title except that it was match point and not set point).

The main difference with HE and the Human eye is that despite both making mistakes, the line judge makes a non-arguable call. Once the line call (or over-rule by the referee) is made, there is no possibilty to argue or at least to change the call. Players are used to accepting line judges' calls wrong or right and this I believe requires some form of training from them. They are now faced through HE with a new situation as we saw in the final where they may have to accept obvious calls called wrongly by a defectuous machine. That is a very different situation and requires some more Yoga :pray: training by the players, especially as the opponent can try his chance and simply question a call knowing HE is not very precise.

Regarding HE and the human eye accuracy, I am not certain the former is more precise than the latter. I think it depends essentially on the setting. We could see in the FO that HE was not always accurate and remember an instance where the ball mark was clearly 2/3 of an inch out but HE saw it in. In other places HE seemed quite precise. But anyway, we shoudl get HD cameras once and for all.

I still maitain that if it cannot accuratley give results on clay then its rubbish.Clay has the mar and not a projected mark.The 2 should tie hand in hand if there is one discrepency,HE is rubbish and nothing more than an entertainment gimmick!

For those of you interested in the potential use of hawkeye in football, here's an interesting article...

Hawkeye article

they need something in football to stop the lilly-livered nancy boys rolling on the floor in agony after each tackle.. Could hawkeye track that?

"HE indicates that by the trajectory of player A's foot, it could in no way have connected with Player B's testicles unless he was a 2 foot tall midget with a scrotum the size of a deflated hot air ballon"

Now that I would like to see! (not the midget, the system :))

lol!

Im sorry I don't agree with that at all, how many marks did it get wrong on clay? It didn't in any of the matches I saw. On clay the issue is always what mark to look at anyway, and I trust Hawkeye to point at the right mark more than a person.

Players are standing right on the mark so its a bit daft for them to actually point to the wrong mark unless you are Hingis in the French Open Final of 99. Haweye clearly cannot pinpoint a mark,it has a margin of 3mm for error that in itself says its not pinpoint accurate but rather allows a leeway for error.I would like to see the examples of when HE actually did get it wrong on clay and see by how much it was wrong,be it in or out!

I certainly do not believe in this 3mm accuracy by HE. Certainly not in all cases as we have seen a few times! We are told to believe it but it is not the case.

You and I are certainly on the same wavelength.