If following the rules strictly does make the games less enjoyable, perhaps it is the rules that should be changed, not the machine. It's a necessary change that is coming some 20 years later than it should.
Here's the thing: no professional athlete get's paid because they are good at their particular sport or beacuse they win games and matches, they get paid because people want to watch them play their games. Sport is fun, interesting and full of emotions - or in other words: sport is entertainment and athletes are entertainers. Like it or not, a huge part of that entertainment is fans gettting infuriated by referee decisions and having discussions about stuff like whether or not a ball was in or out and all the "what if" scenarios that follow each possibly wrong decision. If you would know everything for certain, if every single decision would be 100% correct and every single rule would be followed to the letter, sports would lose a big part of their emotional appeal and entertainment factor - and in the end, athletes would lose money.
One word: SERENA. That infamous 2004 QF match against Capriati with so many obviously bad calls changed the game. Anytime there was major drama at a US Open match involving Serena and bad calls (2004/2009/2010/2018), it led to changes in the adoption of more technology to eliminate errors in judgement and increase fairness for players. Now with the 2023 USO, it has gone even further with great results. The use of electronic line tape, Hawk-Eye, and other systems means calls can be made reliably, confidently, and with little pushback from players and spectators. Instead, we can focus on the game and not the calls. Serena went through a lot, but we got there in the end.
Serena is the GOAT! She is a legend, a pioneer and a giant! I'm so happy that Coco honored Serena and Venus in her victory speech. She is standing on titans' shoulders!
@@dsdgdsfegfeg The US Open has always been the leader in tennis. Second oldest after Wimbledon, but the only major that's run uninterrupted, the original tennis governing body had to convince the US to join them because its event was more popular. The US Open has the largest purse and tennis court in the sport. It was the first Major to implement equal pay (50 years ago). In 2006, the US Open was the first Major to use the Hawk-Eye system followed by AO in 2007. Now, the USO has gone beyond that. Only the Australian Open is comparable in terms of embracing technology and having a well run tournament. AO has the highest attendance (~800k+), but the smallest purse.
Unprofessional is a nice way of putting it. I would use the word "suspicious", especially now that sports gambling has become mainstream. Smaller amateur level tourneys that can't afford it, have a valid excuse. At the higher levels, they should all be shamed relentlessly until they decide to take the transparency that Hawkeye provides.
The reason it is not used on clay is due to the surface. The system needs to be within a certain percentage of accuracy and due to the clay surface being more uneven and ever changing the accuracy of Hawkeye is not in the same percentile as it is on other surface thus making it less accurate. This is why they prefer to check the mark on clay instead.
@@AFCompany That is definitely not the reason. The reason is either 1: Romance of referee calling traditional rubbish or keeping tradition of Clay surface (it stands out from other Major Opens 2: Referee Unions 3: Cost of replacing all clay surfaces to use touch sensitive tape or the Hawkeye system 4: Another likely stupid unknown
@@AFCompany With so many capture points even a low 250fps per camera, the final render accuracy would be in the thousands of fps. Regardless of the uneven or changing 1-20mm surface depth differences of clay .. the system render would still know the Y axis bottom ball point location every time vs the stationary x/z axis point of the line while rendering. "Calling it" is still just a simple (ball Y axis) vs (line X/Y axis) vs time calculation. Then consider all the wrong or missing mark calls of the current system vs all the gigantic benefits of the system. And you realize the real reason is in my previous comment above. Even Hawkeye said they approve it for Clay, I'm sure they have thought about it even more than I just did in a few seconds.
I grew up playing and watching a number of sports and I must truly say that the technology has made sports so much better. I actually enjoy watching sports more now because of it
No, now you are trusting an algorithm, a black box that someone programmed. And you have to take their word that what they show you is correct and that the ruling is fair. Sport is emotion, sport is passion, you really want to have that dictated by a machine?
@@Hans-gb4mv You just weakened your own argument by saying Sport is emotion. Emotion + refereeing = bad calls. Do we really want a game dictated by a machine? Yes. That tech wouldn't have been implemented if the refs weren't making glaringly atrocious calls. If you had your career and millions of dollars on the line, you too, would choose accuracy.
@@Hans-gb4mvyou dont know anything. Algorithms don't think on their own, these algorithms are programmed to follow very specific rules, rules set by the Tennis Federation. If anything they uphold the game to the highest standards. Yes, we want the game to be refereed with no error so the best players win.
Americans in their own little world creating a them vs USA.This tech usage has nothing to with USA. As they said Australia started using it first, not USA. USA shouldn't even be in the title of the video. It should be "Why are some still not using it?" It should be used everywhere for all games, pressure France to grow up. Referees are not part of the game, pretending they are is stupid, they are but a product to solve a game problem, one that no longer exists. Referee jobs have lost to computers. Don't fight it.
Despite all people's complaints, the truth is, we can't stop the evolution of technology. Sooner or later, technologies like this will replace human judges. The umpire might still be there to avoid the game felt too mechanical.
An umpire also has to handle other things going on on the field so he can't be replaced. The balls and strikes maybe called by a system but he'll still be back there because he's needed.
The umpire serves a lot of purposes that would be stupid to try to replace with software. Maybe some one-off tournaments would try that but umpires generally will always be people no doubt
Cricket is the toughest and most complex field sport among all in terms of gameplay and media coverage. The tech around Cricket is going to mind boggling levels because of the need of the game to cover every facet like player's arm position, leg - crease position, dismissals, predictions, trackers so many. Sometimes we as fans tend to take broadcasting for granted but its on another level.
In football there are two systems. VAR and Goal line technology (which use the hawk-eye system). VAR is assistant referees that watch replays to help the main referee decide (or fix wrong decisions). Goal line technology is to detect of the whole of the ball crossed the goal line.
Offsides are automated in European games such as UCL, but in the Premier League, it isn't, despite the fact that it's used at Premier League grounds that are used in the UCL.
There's a numbers of papers written about the influence players, particularly high profile ones, can have on a referee. If anything, we should be bringing this to more sports, and broadening it's remit. When the NFL finally agrees to stop allowing referees to determine the outcome of games by being overruled by machines, we'll start seeing progress there too.
Just assuming you could some how figure out a system to determine penalties/fouls in the NFL as it's a tiny bit more complicated compared to if a round ball is on one side of a line or another. It would end up being a major shitshow, you know at the end of an NBA game where it seems like a penalty is called every possession well imagine every single play having penalties thrown... and how many of them will be offsetting, the game would never end! But hey if someone can figure it out then more power to them, it would be quite interesting to say the least how they could do it.
I think the only real place for it in the NFL is determining whether a FG is good, or whether the ball crossed the plane of the endzone. Where you could see a huge impact is in MLB. Especially calling balls and strikes. Maybe if they can track whether a runner beat a throw but definitely the strike zone.
@@alexanderthemeek to be fair the balls are going really fast and are never just straight. However, it's not like they've never seen it before and they've had years of experience so you'd think they can get it right.
@@rockys7726 baseball should be a lot easier for umpires because they don't have to judge the height and direction after the ball bounces as in cricket.
I'm very surprised they didn't mention the German goal vs England in the 2010 world cup. Look that up if you are not sure what I'm talking about. Any English person would vote for hawkeye after witnessing that.
I assume that when a tennis ball hits the court, it deforms ("squashes") a little, and maybe rolls a tiny bit depending upon the spin. But because sides of the ball are still curved, the portion of the ball touching the surface of the court will be smaller than the total horizontal cross-section of the ball while it is in contact with the surface. So my question is two-fold: (1) When Hawkeye shows where the ball landed, is it showing only where the ball contacted the court, or is it showing a horizontal cross-section of the ball as it contacted the court? (2) Do the rules of tennis have anything to address this? By analogy, think of a golf ball that stops right on the edge of a cup but does not fall in. The bottom of the golf ball obviously is still on the green, but if you look at it from above the side of the golf ball may be over the cup. The golf ball is not sunk, but suppose instead a golf ball and cup we consider a tennis ball and line on the court -- would the tennis ball be in or out?
Hawk-Eye is NOT showing a PHOTO of where the ball landed. Instead, it is showing a computer generated landing SPOT based on the many camera inputs of flight trajectory..
VAR doesn't have ball tracking. The visual at 4:37 refers to SAOT, or semi-automated offside technology, which has been implemented in the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Champions League.
VAR on offside calls is ruining soccer because it changes what would have been called onside ever since the offside rule was implemented. A player running at speed cant determine if a half inch of their shoulder is ahead of a defender, but they can roughly keep "in line" with the defender. In the past if an attacking player was "in line" they were onside. VAR just needs to ignore the closest calls (say within 6 inches) in favour of overturning more obvious errors.
Exactly - It would be so simple to just build in a buffer of 6 inches as you said or whatever amount is similar to human perception specifically for offside calls and then just keep the millimetre accuracy for ball crossing line type calls.
That's not a problem with VAR. It's a problem with the rules. Change the rules to fit what you mentioned and those won't be called offside, even after looking at VAR.
That’s not a problem with var, that’s a problem with the rules. There needs to be a consensus as to whether an offside constitutes a certain leeway or none whatsoever
I stopped watching Roland Garros due to the ridiculous clay mark system of a chair Umpire coming down to somehow locate the exact mark of a tennis ball. Ridiculous to still use that fallible system in the 2020's.
@@MichaelWalker-wu2pq The French ... Always willing to be stuck in time, and to then force this on others. I think it has more to do with Referee unions in France
@@bahia9991 possibly, but more often that not there are strings being pulled behind the scenes by vested interests who look for excuses like tradition to advertise to the public
@@bahia9991 I don't think I have ever seen tradition actually be the real reason in similar things, it's always vested interests telling ppl it's tradition or emotion, then you have the dumb public repeating the tradition line while the vested interests are richer & smiling at playing them
Racism helped Hawkeye transform. If that umpire had performed their job with integrity, Hawkeye wouldn't have been implemented as soon and quickly as it had.
Wow.This is an interesting video.Gotta say that I support the hawk eye system as with the data that can be created we can see different problems and generally find new info about things and therefore make life easier for everyone.😃
4:26 "the hawkeye technology works in 2 main ways" Proceeds to spew a word salad of marketing buzzwords and does not explain at all what actual technology is used.
Hawkeye was only used with the semi automated offsides during the World Cup and not used in the premier league and is not used for anything else but goal decision. Therefore the use of the Nottingham forset manager video is frankly incorrect and doesn’t provide context to the video. It would be great to double check how it is used within football
No one is blaming Hawk Eye itself for the VAR mess in football. It's the officials who are interpreting the captured visuals who are to blame for the bad calls.
Roland Garros officials are stubborn and haven't really changed their remarks on using updated technology. They could at least get to Wimbledon level where Hawkeye is used to overturn disputed line judge calls although that system is hilarious as well.
If you landed up losing out on a million dollar prize due to obvious errors by judges, who make you wonder if they were wrongly calling balls in and out or purpose, you'd want to eliminate the human "error" as well.
U all will be surprised by this but hawk eye technology was initially made for the game of cricket .. to determine the leg before wicket but technology was so good other sports picked up so fast ..
Whoops! Major oversight in this video: Electronic line calling will not be replacing line umps in 75% of tournaments! These expensive systems cost more than the entire prize money in most tournaments. Much more economical to stick with low-paid human umps there.
VAR and Hawkeye are two separate things.. VAR for offside is done manually by drawing lines on last defender and does not use Hawkeye. They introduced semi automated offsides for 22 world cup alone. And even that technology is not Hawkeye. Only goal line decisions use Hawkeye and that is the only thing that works amongst all the other VAR mess which has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the human implementation. I don't see what Hawkeye gotta do with all the VAR controversy.
They could radically reduce the costs if the venue would pay for the cameras and install (once) and leave them up indefinitely. We know Hawkeye loves to put them up and take them down because they get more money for it.
The proper way to decide disputed calls is through old fashioned brawling. All the players and referees rush onto the arena and start slugging it out, and the last one standing gets to make the final judgement. That's how God intended it to be, damn it! More entertaining that way, too.
As somebody who works with computers, I wouldn't be keen to trust computers with all the officiating, especially without serious audits and constant external review. Computers can be amazing but when you're relying on computer interpolation of reality there is a lot of faith you're putting in that system.
Fix your title please. 2022 next gen ATP Finals and 2023 Australian Open also use the same line calling system. Hawk eye review (challenge) is widely adopted in ATP 250+ non-clay tournaments.
To be clear, the slew of wrong calls against Serena -- which were correctly viewed as showing racial bias -- were made by MARIANA ALVES, who suffered no consequences (there were other chair umps for the remaining two matches of the tourney) and continued to officiate tennis matches for the WTA for many years.
It should be made mandatory across all GMs and Masters as the tennis court itself; sure there might be errors in the system - that is continuously learning and improving btw.. -, but in a match is impartial and the same for both (all) players. And it is far more accurate than any human eye could ever be.
My problem with Hawk-Eye is the visuals give the impression that the ball bounces perfectly in a way I've never seen a tennis ball bounce, so it's clearly ALWAYS wrong. But also doesn't show how much error is in the measurement. It pretends to be a source of truth rather than A measurement.
In the how it works section talk deeper about how the technology works, not just skim over it. Disappointed with the video. 0 technical detail, 100 business details.
Why does Hawk-Eye always show the exact same contact patch? The contact patch differs depending on velocity and angle but Hawk-Eye always shows the same two contact patches. Is the line the boundary mark or is the boundary an invisible vertical plane extending upwards from the line?
The biggest reason I stopped watching sports is because of bad ref calls. It just was not worth the higher blood pressure getting upset over a blind ass judge. How ever now that I have stopped watching sports for at least a decade I really have no interest in getting back into watching sports. I have found much more enjoyable things to do. If they would have had this in place 10 years ago in the sports I watch I probably would still be an advid sport watcher. Too little too late in my book but I hope it saves other sport fans from leaving the field of vision :)
If a human referee makes an error, it's considered 'okay.' But if a system, like Hawk-Eye or a self-driving car, makes a mistake, everyone goes crazy. I don't understand why.
I definitely don't saw Hawk-Eye is less reliable than human line judging on tennis. Nonetheless, I feel you have some very weak spots in your documentary: - First of all, you need to distinguish much more strictly between live calls (like now used in the US Open) and challenges. For technical reasons, the post-shot challenge system can work significantly more accurate. - Accuracy: Hawk-Eye is projecting the trajectory of the ball. It is NOT determining where the ball exactly landed. Also, the deformation of the ball when it hits the ground is simulated. Many close Hawk-Eye calls are not reliable due to these reasons. Unfortunately, Sony/Hawk-Eye stopped giving proven results about the accuracy of the live and the challenge system nowadays. - They do use more cameras than they need, but especially due to the projection of the ball, a player typically blocking some of them is an issue. You see that, for example at the phantom goal in soccer in England Hawk-Eye gave last year (the view on the ball was blocked by the goalie and the goal post and thus the trajectory was wrong). I am sure that in average Hawk-Eye does better calls than the human eye. However, once you say or suggest it does correct calls, you are wrong. As you say in the documentary, it is a shame that there is not a peer with another system in the market, who is challenging Hawk-Eye... Would be great to compare two approaches.
It’s not a motion detection sensor, but a super fast ball pixel identification system. Imagine having a line judge identify the ball across all 12 cameras, and drawing a line through the shot that way.
Considering how complex cricket is with many decision that depends on split seconds hawk eye was a god send. That dude who invented it must have really loved cricket and hated umpire decisions lol.
For any given technology there is margin of error. If the ball is in or out by less than the margin of error the point should be replayed. That would be best solution.
I'm all for technology improving sports but instant replay in football and baseball takes way too long and makes games hard to watch. Technology needs to be quick
Affordable electronic line calls for every recreational player is out the question I guess then. Absolute ridiculous. So sick of self line calling. It doesn’t work
The reason hawk eye is not accurate on clay is because we can see the marks on clay, and KNOW that hawk eye is not accurate. But it's not that Hawk Eye has specific trouble on clay, it's not actually accurate in ANY surface to that degree. Their millimeter accuracy claim is BS.
1:46 Sorry not sorry, but Mr. Ben Figueiredo, Director of Tennis for Hawk-Eye Innovations, is an instant crush for me. Between his good looks and his accent...#BlessHisParents
Illogical: hold on to a human error system because someone will miss anyone of the overweight umpires skipping across the red clay to inaccurately decipher the ball markings.
Yeah, but the system is flawed in badminton, due to the feather blocking some views of some cameras. A real-time replay of a visual image is more accurate than the hawkeye correlation in some cases.
If following the rules strictly does make the games less enjoyable, perhaps it is the rules that should be changed, not the machine. It's a necessary change that is coming some 20 years later than it should.
Some football fans will always be stupid.
Here's the thing: no professional athlete get's paid because they are good at their particular sport or beacuse they win games and matches, they get paid because people want to watch them play their games. Sport is fun, interesting and full of emotions - or in other words: sport is entertainment and athletes are entertainers. Like it or not, a huge part of that entertainment is fans gettting infuriated by referee decisions and having discussions about stuff like whether or not a ball was in or out and all the "what if" scenarios that follow each possibly wrong decision. If you would know everything for certain, if every single decision would be 100% correct and every single rule would be followed to the letter, sports would lose a big part of their emotional appeal and entertainment factor - and in the end, athletes would lose money.
Very misleading title, makes it seem as though the US Open is the ONLY tournament using it which we know simply isn't true.
They literally says that it is used in other sports dude!
@@priestwilliamson2135 I was talking about the title, not the content of the video…
Yup, clickbait title
The video is good, you’re right. The title is clickbait. I hate clickbait titles.
Nope! You're assuming it! Stop crying!
That was 20 years ago. Technology and image recognition has evolved a million times since then
sure it's not 974 thousand times. gonna need to see some proof about this "million times" claim.
One word: SERENA. That infamous 2004 QF match against Capriati with so many obviously bad calls changed the game. Anytime there was major drama at a US Open match involving Serena and bad calls (2004/2009/2010/2018), it led to changes in the adoption of more technology to eliminate errors in judgement and increase fairness for players. Now with the 2023 USO, it has gone even further with great results. The use of electronic line tape, Hawk-Eye, and other systems means calls can be made reliably, confidently, and with little pushback from players and spectators. Instead, we can focus on the game and not the calls. Serena went through a lot, but we got there in the end.
Serena is the GOAT! She is a legend, a pioneer and a giant! I'm so happy that Coco honored Serena and Venus in her victory speech. She is standing on titans' shoulders!
Good explanation but to clarify .. your only describing the US journey. Not the sports. The sport was already doing this.
What line calls were involved for Williams inn '09 and '18?
@@qc1okay I cant speak to tech but coaching is no longer forbidden during the matches thanks in big part to the Serena drama in 18
@@dsdgdsfegfeg The US Open has always been the leader in tennis. Second oldest after Wimbledon, but the only major that's run uninterrupted, the original tennis governing body had to convince the US to join them because its event was more popular. The US Open has the largest purse and tennis court in the sport. It was the first Major to implement equal pay (50 years ago). In 2006, the US Open was the first Major to use the Hawk-Eye system followed by AO in 2007. Now, the USO has gone beyond that. Only the Australian Open is comparable in terms of embracing technology and having a well run tournament. AO has the highest attendance (~800k+), but the smallest purse.
Not using Hawkeye in a tennis tournament (yes, even on clay) is simply UNPROFESSIONAL.
Unprofessional is a nice way of putting it. I would use the word "suspicious", especially now that sports gambling has become mainstream.
Smaller amateur level tourneys that can't afford it, have a valid excuse. At the higher levels, they should all be shamed relentlessly until they decide to take the transparency that Hawkeye provides.
@@MrBeatboxmastawho doesn't use it though apart from French tennis?
The reason it is not used on clay is due to the surface. The system needs to be within a certain percentage of accuracy and due to the clay surface being more uneven and ever changing the accuracy of Hawkeye is not in the same percentile as it is on other surface thus making it less accurate. This is why they prefer to check the mark on clay instead.
@@AFCompany That is definitely not the reason.
The reason is either
1: Romance of referee calling traditional rubbish or keeping tradition of Clay surface (it stands out from other Major Opens
2: Referee Unions
3: Cost of replacing all clay surfaces to use touch sensitive tape or the Hawkeye system
4: Another likely stupid unknown
@@AFCompany With so many capture points even a low 250fps per camera, the final render accuracy would be in the thousands of fps. Regardless of the uneven or changing 1-20mm surface depth differences of clay .. the system render would still know the Y axis bottom ball point location every time vs the stationary x/z axis point of the line while rendering. "Calling it" is still just a simple (ball Y axis) vs (line X/Y axis) vs time calculation.
Then consider all the wrong or missing mark calls of the current system vs all the gigantic benefits of the system. And you realize the real reason is in my previous comment above. Even Hawkeye said they approve it for Clay, I'm sure they have thought about it even more than I just did in a few seconds.
I grew up playing and watching a number of sports and I must truly say that the technology has made sports so much better. I actually enjoy watching sports more now because of it
Well said...same here... however only the highlights, as I quit drinking 🍺 beer
Cricket is the pioneer for technology in sports... Hawkeye also transformed golf by playing 18 and shooting 18..
It's "controversial" because now referees can't support their team, and the teams can't cheat so easily.
No, now you are trusting an algorithm, a black box that someone programmed. And you have to take their word that what they show you is correct and that the ruling is fair. Sport is emotion, sport is passion, you really want to have that dictated by a machine?
@@Hans-gb4mvif it's better definitely yes. The ATP wouldn't allow it if it was not accurate.
@@Hans-gb4mv You just weakened your own argument by saying Sport is emotion. Emotion + refereeing = bad calls. Do we really want a game dictated by a machine? Yes. That tech wouldn't have been implemented if the refs weren't making glaringly atrocious calls. If you had your career and millions of dollars on the line, you too, would choose accuracy.
@@Hans-gb4mvyou dont know anything. Algorithms don't think on their own, these algorithms are programmed to follow very specific rules, rules set by the Tennis Federation. If anything they uphold the game to the highest standards. Yes, we want the game to be refereed with no error so the best players win.
@@Hans-gb4mv " ... Sport is emotion, sport is passion, you really want to have that dictated by a machine?" Yes.
They make it sound like USA shouldn't have been knocked out of the Women's World Cup, but it was the goal line tech that decided USA"s fate.
Americans in their own little world creating a them vs USA.This tech usage has nothing to with USA. As they said Australia started using it first, not USA. USA shouldn't even be in the title of the video. It should be "Why are some still not using it?" It should be used everywhere for all games, pressure France to grow up. Referees are not part of the game, pretending they are is stupid, they are but a product to solve a game problem, one that no longer exists. Referee jobs have lost to computers. Don't fight it.
Well that and they weren't good
Despite all people's complaints, the truth is, we can't stop the evolution of technology. Sooner or later, technologies like this will replace human judges. The umpire might still be there to avoid the game felt too mechanical.
An umpire also has to handle other things going on on the field so he can't be replaced. The balls and strikes maybe called by a system but he'll still be back there because he's needed.
It's a good thing overall but transparency is vital.
The umpire serves a lot of purposes that would be stupid to try to replace with software. Maybe some one-off tournaments would try that but umpires generally will always be people no doubt
Cricket is the toughest and most complex field sport among all in terms of gameplay and media coverage.
The tech around Cricket is going to mind boggling levels because of the need of the game to cover every facet like player's arm position, leg - crease position, dismissals, predictions, trackers so many. Sometimes we as fans tend to take broadcasting for granted but its on another level.
In football there are two systems. VAR and Goal line technology (which use the hawk-eye system). VAR is assistant referees that watch replays to help the main referee decide (or fix wrong decisions). Goal line technology is to detect of the whole of the ball crossed the goal line.
yeah they make it sound like VAR is automated. It just exposes that refs still cant make the right call even when they look at a video
@@Spliceozome offside is automated
@@iitzhasheemsome leagues but not the premier league and others
@@iitzhasheem That system is not widely used yet. Most do not have automated offsides.
Offsides are automated in European games such as UCL, but in the Premier League, it isn't, despite the fact that it's used at Premier League grounds that are used in the UCL.
Next on the chopping block: home plate umpires calling strikes. Coming for you, Angel Hernandez.
There's a numbers of papers written about the influence players, particularly high profile ones, can have on a referee. If anything, we should be bringing this to more sports, and broadening it's remit.
When the NFL finally agrees to stop allowing referees to determine the outcome of games by being overruled by machines, we'll start seeing progress there too.
Just assuming you could some how figure out a system to determine penalties/fouls in the NFL as it's a tiny bit more complicated compared to if a round ball is on one side of a line or another. It would end up being a major shitshow, you know at the end of an NBA game where it seems like a penalty is called every possession well imagine every single play having penalties thrown... and how many of them will be offsetting, the game would never end! But hey if someone can figure it out then more power to them, it would be quite interesting to say the least how they could do it.
I think the only real place for it in the NFL is determining whether a FG is good, or whether the ball crossed the plane of the endzone.
Where you could see a huge impact is in MLB. Especially calling balls and strikes. Maybe if they can track whether a runner beat a throw but definitely the strike zone.
When will the NFL spot the ball based on cameras instead of a ref just putting the ball down on the nearest hashmark?
Hawk eye (DRS, ball tracking) is soul in Cricket match. It just assures better results.
Baseball needs it more. There are so many bad calls especially balls/strikes that can determine the outcome of a game.
Yes you would think that umpires should get it right because the strike zone is the size of a dartboard in baseball but they still screw up.
@@alexanderthemeek to be fair the balls are going really fast and are never just straight. However, it's not like they've never seen it before and they've had years of experience so you'd think they can get it right.
@@rockys7726 baseball should be a lot easier for umpires because they don't have to judge the height and direction after the ball bounces as in cricket.
@@alexanderthemeek what's cricket???
@@rockys7726 people who use Internet also know how to use search engines. How did you not learn it?
I'm very surprised they didn't mention the German goal vs England in the 2010 world cup. Look that up if you are not sure what I'm talking about. Any English person would vote for hawkeye after witnessing that.
I assume that when a tennis ball hits the court, it deforms ("squashes") a little, and maybe rolls a tiny bit depending upon the spin. But because sides of the ball are still curved, the portion of the ball touching the surface of the court will be smaller than the total horizontal cross-section of the ball while it is in contact with the surface. So my question is two-fold:
(1) When Hawkeye shows where the ball landed, is it showing only where the ball contacted the court, or is it showing a horizontal cross-section of the ball as it contacted the court?
(2) Do the rules of tennis have anything to address this?
By analogy, think of a golf ball that stops right on the edge of a cup but does not fall in. The bottom of the golf ball obviously is still on the green, but if you look at it from above the side of the golf ball may be over the cup. The golf ball is not sunk, but suppose instead a golf ball and cup we consider a tennis ball and line on the court -- would the tennis ball be in or out?
Hawk-Eye is NOT showing a PHOTO of where the ball landed. Instead, it is showing a computer generated landing SPOT based on the many camera inputs of flight trajectory..
@@markswaya6744Yeah, that interpolation leaves a lot to be desired. You're putting a lot of trust in their version of reality.
Wow I didn’t realize Clint Barton was so influential in tennis in addition to his work as an Avenger. 😂
VAR doesn't have ball tracking. The visual at 4:37 refers to SAOT, or semi-automated offside technology, which has been implemented in the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Champions League.
And yet not in the Premier League, despite a lot of their grounds being used for European games.
VAR on offside calls is ruining soccer because it changes what would have been called onside ever since the offside rule was implemented. A player running at speed cant determine if a half inch of their shoulder is ahead of a defender, but they can roughly keep "in line" with the defender. In the past if an attacking player was "in line" they were onside. VAR just needs to ignore the closest calls (say within 6 inches) in favour of overturning more obvious errors.
You are being sensible, logical and rational well done 👏
Exactly - It would be so simple to just build in a buffer of 6 inches as you said or whatever amount is similar to human perception specifically for offside calls and then just keep the millimetre accuracy for ball crossing line type calls.
That's not a problem with VAR. It's a problem with the rules. Change the rules to fit what you mentioned and those won't be called offside, even after looking at VAR.
That’s not a problem with var, that’s a problem with the rules. There needs to be a consensus as to whether an offside constitutes a certain leeway or none whatsoever
So everyone is in agreeance then. Someone wright a letter !!!
Someone tell Wimbledon to start using hawkeye instead of line judges please. I don't know what they're waiting for.
Hawkeye was invented for cricket and then it benefitted lot of other sports as well
minor critique: it just feels kinda weird not starting with the "how it works" part
Not to mention that players on clay courts will argue with the chair umpire about which mark to check.
To me it will always be "THE MAC-CAM "
“The US Open and other sports”
The US Open is not a sport
Short answer: its more accurate. There you go. Saved you time
The only reason not to use tracking systems is that drama sells. Bad calls keep people watching.
I stopped watching Roland Garros due to the ridiculous clay mark system of a chair Umpire coming down to somehow locate the exact mark of a tennis ball. Ridiculous to still use that fallible system in the 2020's.
@@MichaelWalker-wu2pq The French ... Always willing to be stuck in time, and to then force this on others. I think it has more to do with Referee unions in France
@@dsdgdsfegfeg No, it has to do with tradition and emotion.
@@bahia9991 possibly, but more often that not there are strings being pulled behind the scenes by vested interests who look for excuses like tradition to advertise to the public
@@bahia9991 I don't think I have ever seen tradition actually be the real reason in similar things, it's always vested interests telling ppl it's tradition or emotion, then you have the dumb public repeating the tradition line while the vested interests are richer & smiling at playing them
Racism helped Hawkeye transform. If that umpire had performed their job with integrity, Hawkeye wouldn't have been implemented as soon and quickly as it had.
Cricket is the pioneer for technology in sports..
Yup . Snicko,hotspot and Hawkeye
nobody cares about cricket bro.. but thanks tho
@@tarun1982 nobody is like you bro..
Hawkeye is the worst Avenger,
Wow.This is an interesting video.Gotta say that I support the hawk eye system as with the data that can be created we can see different problems and generally find new info about things and therefore make life easier for everyone.😃
4:26 "the hawkeye technology works in 2 main ways"
Proceeds to spew a word salad of marketing buzzwords and does not explain at all what actual technology is used.
Dear MLB,
Replace umpires with computers.
With love,
All baseball fans all over the world
Hawkeye was only used with the semi automated offsides during the World Cup and not used in the premier league and is not used for anything else but goal decision. Therefore the use of the Nottingham forset manager video is frankly incorrect and doesn’t provide context to the video. It would be great to double check how it is used within football
One sport that desperately needs more technology: volleyball. Too many wrong calls made by incompetent referees.
งานเอาภาพมาใช้ประโยชน์เสียง มีอนาคตแหะ เอา data ที่วัดมาใช้
No one is blaming Hawk Eye itself for the VAR mess in football. It's the officials who are interpreting the captured visuals who are to blame for the bad calls.
Case in point: Saturday night.
How come they do not interview the French open people for their opinion, instead of suppositions?
Because this is a commercial disguised as journalism.
Roland Garros officials are stubborn and haven't really changed their remarks on using updated technology. They could at least get to Wimbledon level where Hawkeye is used to overturn disputed line judge calls although that system is hilarious as well.
Ripping off Cleo Abrams video on her "Huge, if true" channel.
181,618 views, 1.9k likes, 242 comments, 3.14M subscribers. Nice!!
If you landed up losing out on a million dollar prize due to obvious errors by judges, who make you wonder if they were wrongly calling balls in and out or purpose, you'd want to eliminate the human "error" as well.
They often look at the wrong mark at the French open.
U all will be surprised by this but hawk eye technology was initially made for the game of cricket .. to determine the leg before wicket but technology was so good other sports picked up so fast ..
Cricket is the pioneer of technology in sports from hawkeye to snicko to hotspot to review system. Lot of other sports have been far behind
The ventriloquist is doing a great job.
The French Open shouldn't be considered a grand slam if they don't want to modernize.
Whoops! Major oversight in this video: Electronic line calling will not be replacing line umps in 75% of tournaments! These expensive systems cost more than the entire prize money in most tournaments. Much more economical to stick with low-paid human umps there.
cricket is a main reason for hawkeye
VAR and Hawkeye are two separate things.. VAR for offside is done manually by drawing lines on last defender and does not use Hawkeye. They introduced semi automated offsides for 22 world cup alone. And even that technology is not Hawkeye. Only goal line decisions use Hawkeye and that is the only thing that works amongst all the other VAR mess which has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with the human implementation. I don't see what Hawkeye gotta do with all the VAR controversy.
They could radically reduce the costs if the venue would pay for the cameras and install (once) and leave them up indefinitely. We know Hawkeye loves to put them up and take them down because they get more money for it.
Clearly more competition needed in the space. Or we can just keep printing money for Sony.
The proper way to decide disputed calls is through old fashioned brawling. All the players and referees rush onto the arena and start slugging it out, and the last one standing gets to make the final judgement. That's how God intended it to be, damn it! More entertaining that way, too.
Lol nice,
As somebody who works with computers, I wouldn't be keen to trust computers with all the officiating, especially without serious audits and constant external review. Computers can be amazing but when you're relying on computer interpolation of reality there is a lot of faith you're putting in that system.
For lower budget tournaments, can resolve to just using 4 each of 360 cameras.
Fix your title please.
2022 next gen ATP Finals and 2023 Australian Open also use the same line calling system.
Hawk eye review (challenge) is widely adopted in ATP 250+ non-clay tournaments.
I just think it's better for challenge rather than the initial call. I think the challenge is more exciting.
To a point. It gets tedious.
ISU when?
What about NFL? Are they using hawk-eye or other system?
That's a pretty good name for this technology!
To be clear, the slew of wrong calls against Serena -- which were correctly viewed as showing racial bias -- were made by MARIANA ALVES, who suffered no consequences (there were other chair umps for the remaining two matches of the tourney) and continued to officiate tennis matches for the WTA for many years.
It should be made mandatory across all GMs and Masters as the tennis court itself; sure there might be errors in the system - that is continuously learning and improving btw.. -, but in a match is impartial and the same for both (all) players. And it is far more accurate than any human eye could ever be.
The MLB needs it. Every game the home plate ump makes about 2 to 13 mistakes! It is NOT fair to the players.
6:01 is it the principal from substitute teacher?
When a major company buys your business, it's so they can corrupt it in their favor.
My problem with Hawk-Eye is the visuals give the impression that the ball bounces perfectly in a way I've never seen a tennis ball bounce, so it's clearly ALWAYS wrong. But also doesn't show how much error is in the measurement. It pretends to be a source of truth rather than A measurement.
In the how it works section talk deeper about how the technology works, not just skim over it. Disappointed with the video. 0 technical detail, 100 business details.
Marketing marketing marketing marketing Hawkeye marketing marketing marketing.
Why does Hawk-Eye always show the exact same contact patch? The contact patch differs depending on velocity and angle but Hawk-Eye always shows the same two contact patches. Is the line the boundary mark or is the boundary an invisible vertical plane extending upwards from the line?
In tennis? The ball must bounce in the court, on the line is in
Um dos melhores!
Yeah that match of Serenas was an absolute disgrace and so intentionally against her
The biggest reason I stopped watching sports is because of bad ref calls. It just was not worth the higher blood pressure getting upset over a blind ass judge. How ever now that I have stopped watching sports for at least a decade I really have no interest in getting back into watching sports. I have found much more enjoyable things to do. If they would have had this in place 10 years ago in the sports I watch I probably would still be an advid sport watcher. Too little too late in my book but I hope it saves other sport fans from leaving the field of vision :)
A video on hawkeye without Penko in it would have been incomplete
🤣
If a human referee makes an error, it's considered 'okay.' But if a system, like Hawk-Eye or a self-driving car, makes a mistake, everyone goes crazy. I don't understand why.
I definitely don't saw Hawk-Eye is less reliable than human line judging on tennis.
Nonetheless, I feel you have some very weak spots in your documentary:
- First of all, you need to distinguish much more strictly between live calls (like now used in the US Open) and challenges. For technical reasons, the post-shot challenge system can work significantly more accurate.
- Accuracy: Hawk-Eye is projecting the trajectory of the ball. It is NOT determining where the ball exactly landed. Also, the deformation of the ball when it hits the ground is simulated. Many close Hawk-Eye calls are not reliable due to these reasons. Unfortunately, Sony/Hawk-Eye stopped giving proven results about the accuracy of the live and the challenge system nowadays.
- They do use more cameras than they need, but especially due to the projection of the ball, a player typically blocking some of them is an issue. You see that, for example at the phantom goal in soccer in England Hawk-Eye gave last year (the view on the ball was blocked by the goalie and the goal post and thus the trajectory was wrong).
I am sure that in average Hawk-Eye does better calls than the human eye. However, once you say or suggest it does correct calls, you are wrong. As you say in the documentary, it is a shame that there is not a peer with another system in the market, who is challenging Hawk-Eye... Would be great to compare two approaches.
btw hawkeye is flawed. it makes wrong calls.
Imagine being the line judge who's bad calls basically destroyed your carrer and the careers of everyone else in your field
Serena sounds like she’s had a rough go. Poor thing …
When Hawk-Eye malfunctions it evolves into "Hook-Eye"...
but well... it doesn't really malfunction because there are a lot of redundancies set in place to avoid that same thing.
How does it not confuse the ball with the players who are constantly moving in front of it?
It’s not a motion detection sensor, but a super fast ball pixel identification system.
Imagine having a line judge identify the ball across all 12 cameras, and drawing a line through the shot that way.
@@LiliputianMisChief wow incredible. Thank you
Don't forget the sport which started the Hawkeye revolution. - Cricket 🏏
If we ever find out this thing isn't 100% accurate, someone is going to get hurt.
Considering how complex cricket is with many decision that depends on split seconds hawk eye was a god send. That dude who invented it must have really loved cricket and hated umpire decisions lol.
I'm making a research about the scientific and technical side of Hawk Eye technology, could anyone help me find ressources. Thank you!
Interview with the right person 06:52 she has her own Hawk-Eye system in her mind she is so great 👍
Checking the mark is more accurate than Hawkeye on clay. The French are right about this one.
For any given technology there is margin of error. If the ball is in or out by less than the margin of error the point should be replayed. That would be best solution.
I hope we can get it at club/local level at some point in the future lol. Having opponents ump your shots in a competitive game is BS.
Thanks to my beloved sports Cricket 🏏for this technology
I'm all for technology improving sports but instant replay in football and baseball takes way too long and makes games hard to watch. Technology needs to be quick
You probably won't have any players walking up and dusting off the ball mark while the play is under "scrutiny" by the umpire.
Affordable electronic line calls for every recreational player is out the question I guess then. Absolute ridiculous. So sick of self line calling. It doesn’t work
The reason hawk eye is not accurate on clay is because we can see the marks on clay, and KNOW that hawk eye is not accurate. But it's not that Hawk Eye has specific trouble on clay, it's not actually accurate in ANY surface to that degree. Their millimeter accuracy claim is BS.
1:46 Sorry not sorry, but Mr. Ben Figueiredo, Director of Tennis for Hawk-Eye Innovations, is an instant crush for me. Between his good looks and his accent...#BlessHisParents
Yeah, that's great... how about having a narrator without an annoying vocal fry though...
thanks to cricket for which it was developed in late 90s
Edifying!
The biggest advantage of using a machine is not its accuracy but that you can't argue with it even if it is wrong. 😂
Illogical: hold on to a human error system because someone will miss anyone of the overweight umpires skipping across the red clay to inaccurately decipher the ball markings.
Yeah, but the system is flawed in badminton, due to the feather blocking some views of some cameras. A real-time replay of a visual image is more accurate than the hawkeye correlation in some cases.