The TRUTH behind Hawk Eye Accuracy | History of Line Tracking Technology in Tennis
2020 ж. 8 Қыр.
1 722 552 Рет қаралды
Watch this video ad-free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/cult-tennis-...
Hawk Eye has been a staple technology used to resolve line call disputes in professional tennis matches for over 15 years, but have you ever wondered... how accurate is it? Surely it's not perfect, right? Today on CULT TENNIS, we go over the history of Hawk Eye's introduction to tennis, how it exactly works, and just how precise it's line calls are!
CULT Tennis brings you player profiles and analyzes some of the best stories in the world of Tennis! Subscribe to see more content like this, and thank you for stopping by!
--------------------------------------------------------------
/ culttennisyt
/ culttennis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Who else agrees that if Hawk Eye Live was used on Arthur Ashe stadium this year, Djokovic might have won the whole thing!!
Why did they not use it this season
Nope
no. he was playing shit.
Totally
Let's not forget he wasn't exactly playing his best. He lost a set against Edmund and was about to lose the first set vs Carreno Busta. Sure, he probably would have turned it around but we don't really know. Thiem was always going to be a big challenge as well!
I stand by the notion (especially after that US Open match with Serena) that even if the technology is inaccurate, human line calls are just far more inaccurate to leave millions of dollars on the line for.
They will be innacurate by a small margain, yet consistent. That consistency alone would quash on court umpire drama
@@M3DIT4TE good point as well
agreed!
Exactly. People get furious when a human being with a fallible set of eyes and mind get a call wrong of whether a ball going 100 miles per hour was in or out with a margin of millimeters. Then, when you implement a computer system that is right 99% of the time and makes one slight miscalculation, they get furious again. I'll take almost never wrong over people who are wrong quite often lol.
You still win big coming 2nd... look at golf, come 4th with a missed putt that would have put you 1st? No biggie, prizemoney is still huge.
Regardless of whether it is "right" or "wrong", it is still better than a human because it is consistent.
But the linesmen are consistent. Consistently bad
Chris eyyyyyyy
and unbiased
The only possible issue would be wind gust’s, but even then lines people could be mistaken as well.
I like the human error aspect of sport. Just look at the state of the premier League now and it's ridiculous by-the-book handballs and millimetre offside checks after every goal - it's a shambles
removing the line judges would've helped Djoko out a tonne
Cue scene of a future descendant of Djoko hitting a robot in the servo by accident.
Not being an idiot would have, too
He’ll still get a foul for breaking the camera
You mean ignoring the rules?
poor djoko
Having watched my first lot of tennis with automatic line calling at the Australian Open, I have to say that I found it a relief as the game flows so much better without the constant challenges and their delays.
Yeah the line judges should be removed completely
It helps Americans players as a lot of umpires have shown anti American biases before. I’m not american but I want everybody treated equally so I’m pro it although I miss line judges
@@krob2327 Care to share with us any examples of your 'anti-American' biases
"Watch as the worlds greatest tennis player winds up for a forehand" Shows Tomic lmaoo
non tennis fans didn't get the joke im sure, that's the reason I left a like on this video
Cult Tennis owes me a new keyboard lol
@@chloeharvey5684 That was no joke. That was an understandable mistake. They clearly thought the guy is Djokovic, and it is very difficult to tell them apart.
sorellman you didn’t get the other jokes either then I guess
@@chloeharvey5684 Dear Jesus, what jokes? Are you a writer for Bill Maher? When he gets things right, he is a social commentator. When he makes mistakes, he is a comedian now, don't you get it? Am I supposed to see error in judgement as being a joke? I thought so, but no.
A computer is more accurate than a human. Yes computers make mistakes and have errors. But I would take a computer calculating where a ball lands going 100+ mph over a human any day of the week.
@Heather i think it's a matter of time until the playing population understands/trusts technology and the game shifts. 2020USO had some courts with only these cameras so it should come soon
A computer is only as accurate as the human minds who programmed it
Also computers are dispassionate and will not be phased by the importance of the call or the drama of the occasion.
@@MeFreeBee and the angry man woman swinging a bat at it 😂 although to be fair, the best news for me is that there won't be any more Djokovic incidents if line judges are replaced by computers fully
@@nick2swsThat not how it work, that like saying AI can only play Chess as well as the person program it
I dont play tennis. I dont even think Ive held a racket. Yet I keep watching these videos, and learning a lot. KZhead is a weird place.
Even if you aren't a tennis fan, if you watch sports, this is still a good thing to know as Hawkeye and similar technologies are used or are proposed to be used in multiple sports. Association football's goal line technology uses Hawkeye, and it has suggested uses in sports like baseball, American Football, and figure skating.
It’s not about fundamental accuracy in a vacuum, but about being better then a human. So long as a computer is even slightly better then a human it will be chosen. In addition people are far less likely to get angry at a computer for a seemingly bad call, rather then a human.
@@The_SUN1234 1. I would definitely pay to watch robots compete in sports events 2. I wasn’t even advocating robots competing, but adjudicating. 3. What? Are you pro or anti anger? I genuinely can’t tell
What about robotic players? I mean where is the line drawn here? You might scoff at the notion but so did people 30 years ago at the thought of robot umpires and linesmen
@@KrolKaz i would love to see a robotic Novak Djokovic take on the real one 😂
7:26 world Greatest tennis player got me lmao
Went straight to the comments after hearing that 😂
Was waiting for someone to catch it!
Ikr he is da best tennis player
Haha..was it Borna Coric?
@@RamachandranS20 bernard tomic the goat
a) More accurate than humans by far. b) Unbiased. c) Always at full concentration. d) Noone for players to get mad at. The $60k price tag is prohibitive to human beings, for decent tournaments, it's affordable.
@Heyzyen Funny you should say that. Have you heard about the racist soap dispensers? Basically, the developers were racially ignorant, so they didn't test the motion sensors for non-white people, so only white people could get soap. So whenever you create something, it's possible that your own biasis slip in there. If there was a program using machine learning to get the Hawk Eye effect and it's only fed shot by men, it might not be accurate for shots by women (who are generally a bit slower but with more spin). Never underestimate the ability of humans to create flawed stuff.
@@DrZaius3141 it calculates spin
@@DrZaius3141 yeah - but i presume hawkeye does not track the Players - i reckon it kind of ignores them, to test Hawk eye you would after all use some sort of serving machines for precision.
@@Zwangsworkaholic I should clarify: I don't think at all that Hawk Eye in its current form has any bias, I was just trying to point out how it could be feasible. Any automated system has certain parameters it's optimized for. To get back to the bathroom with another example: it's still not uncommon that mirros in women's bathrooms are placed at heights where many women can't see themselves. The height is optimized for men and noone put a second thought in it.
@@DrZaius3141 An AI trained on a limited dataset is not "sexist" or "racist" because it doesn't work properly on a completely different dataset. It's literally impossible for a computer to be sexist or racist, even if someone programmed a computer to say "women should stay in the kitchen" the computer still wouldn't be sexist, the programmer would be.
As a baseball fan that somehow stumbled into tennis KZhead, we absolutely need something like this already. Umpires are absolute garbage. Great video
While you are correct for calling balls and strikes-and heck, you could use hawkeye with a snickometer to get force plays and foul tips-there are some things that you’d need an umpire for. A computer doesn’t know what a balk is.
And to top it of, calling strikes requires depth, especially on sharp breakingballs.
@@gabbiehoffmeister3962 Why does a computer not know what a balk is?
4go101 for example if someone spits on a ball or uses tar to have better grip it’s considered a balk . You can simply decide if a pitch is a pick off or a balk . Humans have a deeper understanding in context sensitive things . For most things in baseball especially you can use modern slow motion cameras to support almost every decision making .
@@Mrterminus this is what they do right now. Albeit the umps are doing most of the things and just reviews it if a call got challenge.
Some of those calls in the Williams/Capriati match were like what I see in my local doubles comp. Every ball that lands on the line gets called out. Lots of revenge calls in return!
So there is a little back story to that match. Earlier in the year the Olympics were held and several top umpires were caught manipulating their Olympic credential so as to be able to see other Olympic events besides tennis for free. They were caught and a final judgement was made during the 2004 US Open. The judgement resulted in several top officials being sent home from the US Open. (Look up some news articles about it) this on the court for that match as the chair umpire was a woman who was up and coming at the time but not ready for the big time just yet but in the vacuum left by the suspension of top officials she drew this assignment. She is the one who started everything by overruling a ball to out that was called in by the line judge and was clearly in. After the ensuing mayhem she panicked and stopped overruling anything. The line judges also got nervous and began blowing calls.
Dude am binge watching your entire channel, this is next level stuff!
Great minds think alike!!
Players cannot argue with a computer. However, I would like to see the lines themselves use some kind of touch sensitive sensor, linked to the ball coating.
bigrobsydney that might be easy to do, like a conductive paint
I fear there would be false positives if the ball bounced close to the line and the sensors picked up the bounce of the ball even if it didn't touch the line
@@joshuas3897 they can adjust sensitivity and see how much pressure was applied to it
@@PokeLoomerTM Potentially
YES. Super frustrating that something that LOGICAL and way more accurate is still not implemented !
Hawkeye was originally developed to determine LBW outs in cricket. The main function of the technology was to predict the ball's trajectory.
It takes the forecast approach - a lot like your daily weather report.
@ yeah... except that Hawkey predicts split seconds into the future, after having observed the trajectory for seconds.
I also watched this video.
Where is the rest of the transcript from this video?
@ bdw your so called daily weather report requires super computers to predict weather.
I think the problem with Hawk Eye being able to see that a ball was in when no human could have ever seen it like in the one example you showed is that actually changes what is considered in and out. Tennis players have always known these sorts of shots to be out and played accordingly. It’s almost as if the net was suddenly a centimeter higher.
Was it raised?
They should probably just trim the last mm of the line to make more "realistic" predictions/calls
I feel that Hawk-Eye would work best in tandem with full replay review for visual confirmation - adding replay like in the ATP Cup this year would also help check double bounces, lets, etc. which Hawk-Eye can't do
But, which one is correct if they disagree. Unless the camera is able to run at say 1000FPS, Hawkeye is better
I really love these documentary style videos, just binge watched them all. You deserve way more subscribers than you have.
Now we know why Serena had a short fuse at future US Opens lol
After computers replace line judges, they will have T 1000s by the courtside in case she threatens the cameras
Hawk Eye is just great. Very accurate, fast to implement and fun. Great addition to tennis
Wow, your videos are VERY well made -- thoroughly researched, good pace, enjoyable editing, and all the right topics that satisfy a curious itch. Keep it up, buddy! Love your work! Cheers from Korea
"the world's greatest tennis player" about Tomic - that sarcasm took me by surprise :D kudos to You CULT TENNIS
You make an assumption. No sarcasm there. It was a mistake. Tomic and Djokovic look very much alike, especially from that angle.
I don’t see the sarcasm. Tomic is the goat
@Warrior Son I'd say is between him and Kyrgios :)
Lol. Who is Tomic
Tomic is the greatest tennis player in his family, though sister Sara ain’t too shabby. GOAT = Greatest Of All Tomics.
Hawk-eye shows shots that are "in" that would be called "out" 99% of the time in a rec game.
because computer calculations understand that where a ball bounced from is not necessarily where the ball made contact with the ground. in other words, they can account for skid.
I'm so glad that the line calling technology is being widely adopted. I've always felt it was absurd to have all of those people staring down the lines when we know that that the human eye is incapable of judging the ball accurately at those speeds. Prior to this technology it would've made as much or more sense to simply have the chair umpire make the calls. Hopefully linespeople will soon be a thing of the past.
why dont you play tic tac toe wityh your computer? let's see who wins? how exciting
Damn, this is some quality youtube content!!
Thank you!
Depending on the angle and velocity of the ball, as well as the rotation, some balls will slightly "skid" or "skim" along the ground at the moment of impact, rather than bouncing directly up or down. This is more pronounced on grass surfaces seen in your example at 7:25. This skidmark covers a larger area on the ground than the ball bouncing directly on its axis
Best up and coming tennis channel by a mile. Keep doing what you’re doing man!
Just found your channel and I love it! Really nicely made videos, enjoyed em a lot. Keep it up!
This is my new favorite channel! Great videos!
Very nice of you to say :) Thanks for watching!
In the early '80s, Vic Braden was using hi-speed video to check the accuracy of lines calls. I seem to remember that the consensus was that human lines persons were pretty inaccurate on close line calls.
Vic’s show was awesome. He also used the videos to show that almost all players stop watching the ball at about 3 ft in front. Which makes Fed even more amazing - he watches it all the way to his strings.
Bro, you’re videos are really good, you speak well and you’re able to make it not boring, nice editing and nice “hosting”! Keep up man, loving ur channel
Hopefully computers can save a couple dozen line judges from being threatened with execution by Serena.
Line judge jobs getting phased out though 😢
Only ball kids will be there on court now.
@@gmediagroupss they'll find an electric gimmick that traces and catches balls.... and only after the point has ended. ;)
@@fridbertaugust I do not want to see machine that uses powerful vacuum technology to suck the balls in.
@@elaineoh3984 right, tennis would loose it’s feeling. I at least hope Wimbledon would stick to tradition and have people on court and no machines.
keep the videos coming!
Will do!!
4:48 cool animation. excellent channel you'll grow for sure. I dont even like tennis yet enjoy the content!
Some history from cricket's side - Hawk Eye's first use in cricket back in 2001 was also for entertainment's sake. It wasn't until 2008 i.e. after tennis implementation that it was used to make official umpiring calls. Compared to tennis Hawk Eye calls in cricket have to be more predictive. The reason is because ball never reaches or touches the surface the wicket - the surface to which Hawkeye needs to predict the path to. You can see the example at 1:54 - red is the actual movement and blue is the Hawkeye prediction line to the three yellow lines (wicket). In cricket this is called LBW or Leg Before Cricket calls. Since its introduction it has as being quite controversial. Earlier Hawk Eye rules stated that if the distance between wickets and the ball impact was more than 2.5 meters Hawk eye cannot be used. This was very controversial because people couldn't understand why Hawk eye failed to predict distances above 2.5 meters. Aside from that Hawk Eye used to often misinterpret the path when a cricket ball was spinning. It has led to some hilariously wrong calls. You can find videos on YT about that. While the technology has gotten better with time it is still controversial for the "umpire's call" seen in 1:54. The reason is that in cricket Hawk Eye needs to make an actual prediction. So, if a ball partially touching the yellow lines or wickets there is no 100% certainity of that reallly happening . So, if there is some degree of uncertainity the decision is more aligned to the on-field (court) umpire's call than Hawk eye's call. Some say Hawk Eye's prediction has gotten better and it is 100% reliable but rules in cricket still don't allow that. That said, Hawk Eye had a huge impact in the way cricket is played. Cricketers used to often thrust out their legs to stop the ball from hitting the wickets. While LBW was a rule to stop people from doing that it was still a misused tactice. With Hawk Eye people need to be extra careful about using their legs and this has had a huge impact in the way cricket is played.
This is high quality stuff my man, you should have more subscribers
You deserve way more subscribers! Great Video!
Thanks so much!! Glad you enjoyed it
Worked along side Hawkeye many times. There is a LOT of work that goes into it and it's a huge team. Every single camera is configured and represented in a 3d simulation. Their smallest setup requires more people than our own crew. I highly respect their work and I understand technology can be flawed, but they are working hard to do deliver accuracy. I genuinely have nothing but respect for them and glad to work alongside them. Hoping they can bounce back after the lost of so many tournaments.
Your channel is very underrated. You should deserve more subs👍
Your content and voice are like the Core-A Gaming of tennis. I don't even watch tennis, yet I subscribed to your channel, I don't play fighting games, but I subscribed to Core-A.
i'm not a tennis fan at all, but man this is some high quality channel
What I think is interesting about the introduction of technology into referee calls of various kinds is that it will require getting specific with rules, finally. So many professional sports, with millions and millions of dollars at stake, have vague rules that are up to the subjective judgment of refs. That's the way it has had to be to cope with the limitations of humans, but no more. We can get be specific down to the millisecond over what counts as a traveling call, then let the computers and cameras call them. We can be specific down to the precise positions of hands and distance to the ball about what counts as pass interference, and let computers and cameras call it.
Your videos are amazing. Informative and funny, thank you friend! Great work
I am not a tennis fan but the quality of the video is keeping me interested. Great job!
I never see KZhead videos on tennis other than highlights compilations of the same old points. This is a welcome change for all tennis fans and I hope you keep making awesome videos like this!
Amazing production value and super informative. Love the sarcasm and certain "shade" throwing thrown in lol.
got to keep viewers on their toes!
@@CULTTENNIS haha no doubt. Just came across your channel and I subbed immediately. Keep doing what you're doing and this channel will grow huge. Just got done watching the Coria video. Classic footage!
same for VAR and goal line systems in football ;) people were opposed strongly but there is no turning back now :)
Even if it calls your ball out when it was in, it will also call it in when it was out so chances are throughout a player's career they will break even.
Good point and its not like any human could benefit from those faults, because you cant hit a ball this crazy precise.
As long as it is more accurate than a human, they should use it.
@@Vlasko60 I think Cricket matured a lot more than Tennis with usage of Hawkeye. Since it is not 100% accurate, in cricket, umpires decisions are considered for marginal decisions. Instead of showing them as hitting or missing, which is akin to in or out for tennis, they are referred to as "Umpire's Call".
This is only true if those errors apear very often. Its called the law of big numbers. Basically, if you roll a dice 6 times and track the results, it would be unlikely to be evenly distributed. But if you roll dice 60 times, 600 times or more its more likely to distribute evenly between all 6 numbers.
Capriati in that 2004 match against Williams was incredibly dishonest; how can you not see those balls were in and steal your opponent's points. But the look on her face during the on-court interview when faced with questions about this was very telling. She knew Serena was being cheated, but was cool with it. I suppose that's how she'd have liked it for herself.
It's not the players job to make calls, it's the ref. There's no telling that Williams wouldn't have returned the favor if Capriati had been honest, so there's no incentive for her to do a job that's not hers by making calls she thinks are in or out (especially when she may not have good vision on it either.)
@@squidge903 thats on paper.. But in Human heart there is something called sportsman ship .. when you know you don;t desrve a point you don't take it.. if u r taking just because it's given .. it may not be your fault but you are not worth it..
@@Straightforward786 It's not that simple. In reality, it's often hard to say for sure if a ball was in or not, especially as a player on the baseline with the ball coming at you fast and landing near the baseline. Sure, it's often clearly out. But by definition, it's the closer calls that line judges get wrong. So, in practice, most of the time. As a player there will be times when your opponents ball is called out but you know it might have been in. But equally, you're far from certain. The only reasonable thing to do is let the call stand unless it's very clearly wrong. And, like I said, the very clearly wrong doesn't happen much - and I don't mean very clearly wrong on the replay, I mean very clearly wrong as you see it in the real time as the player. That rarely happens because nearly all incorrect calls are when the ball lands very close to the line.
I love how I’ve never played tennis in my life but still binge watch this channel
This video is so good honestly.
The reason why at 7:30 the ball looked as if it bounced out, is because it DID bounce while it was out. The ruling being the way it was, was based on it being a grass court. The ball grazed some white painted grass before it bounced(out of bounds). Based on that ruling, there can be slightly wider boundary margins on grass courts, especially with low-angled high-velocity shots, be it as few and far between as shots like that may happen.
yea there is no way that it being in was the fair call, it might've been the right one but not a fair one
If only Chris Evert had this in 1988 during her Wimbledon semi-final with Navratilova!
Love the channel, keep it up
I genuinely don’t like and have never liked tennis or watching it but I still watch your videos and it baffles me
Hawk Eye operates with 10-12 "slow" cameras with 150 frames per second per camera (the video mentions 340 fps -perhaps Hawk Eye has improved). In contrast, Foxtenn ("Real Bounce" system) works with 40 high speed cameras with 2500 (!!) frames per second per camera (already used in quite many ATP tournaments). Hawk Eye interpolates/calculates/estimates the ball trajectory within the frames and shows a computer generated image on the basis of the calculations. Therefore it is sensitive to shocks like wind and trembles, etc. Its expected systematic error is 2,6 mm. Foxtenn shows the real video image of the ball's path and due to its extra fine time resolution, its systematic error is basically zero. Think for a moment to understand why the difference in resolution is so important: a ball flying at 126 km/h travels 35 cm in 0.01 second (!) or 23 cm between Hawk Eye frames. For 90 km/h it is 25 cm or 17 cm. So in the case of Hawk Eye, some wind gust after the last frame taken before landing can easily divert the ball with a few mm from the expected path.
Yes. It's a probability of in or out, not a certainty. The faster frame rate brings the system error down.
I did the math and on a 150mph serve Hawk eye’s camera take a picture of a frame every 8 inches the ball moves. Which is pretty large especially relative to the ball’s diameter. I think having the camera’ be better will dramatically reduce the likelihood of a wrong call
Isn't it also true, that it is still vastly superior to line judges. Plus, changing the rules to giving the benefit of the doubt the ball being out will make things a lot easier. The system is still largely superior to human judgement. I feel the data set generated can predict the parabola of a tennis really well.
Not sure about this math...how many frames per second does it take?
Nah. Predictive analytics such as counter battery fire does not work when type and amount of spin is variable.
@@Blaisem 150mph = 2640 inches per second, which at 340fps will cause the ball to move around 7.76in per frame.
Very informative. Keep it up! God bless!
In cricket, even now in 2020 after 19 years of advancement, the use of Hawk Eye has limitations, and isn't as accurate due to the more inconsistent nature of a cricket pitch, the unique spin and swing nature of each ball as it is worn out through a match, and the effect of the seam of the ball in a bounce. If I recall, something like more than half the ball has to be impacting the stumps in a hawk eye replay for it to be considered confidently hitting. This is of course a bit different from tennis where the ball does eventually bounce after the estimation, whereas in cricket it remains an estimation and is used to predict the path of a ball if there had been no other action or impedance against it. Great vid! loved it.
Man it was hard focusing on the video after seeing the Serena vs Capriati
Wow I have never heard of that serena match they should literally get these line judges out of there
Im pretty sure one of the line judges must have had a personal vendetta with serena
unown unown they certenly made it seem like so
As soon as the naked eye could see on TV the inaccuracies of the calls of the naked eye on court between Serena and Jennifer, it's a no brainer to get a system that would contest the call on court, which is the least accurate.
lovely channel! really fantastic videos
First off, well produced video. Second: 8:43 is NOT a foot fault. Also, Serena might not have actually foot faulted. Too close to tell, but saying she would "get away" with it, is really snide of you.
I’m glad someone said this.
That's really interesting, to be honest I thought it would be more accurate. Before Hawkeye I used to think that one day the actual lines would be "smart" with the ability to sense contact with the ball/ players feet. Thanks for posting
That's a nice idea
I love that idea! I find it interesting how different minds work. I would not have looked at it from that aspect. To me, those examples of the camera seeing the exact bounce and skid and everything would be a good idea. It is apparent that the technology exists now, but maybe those cameras have to be so close to get that level of accuracy? I don’t know, but I do like your idea
That idea is already possible today with the use of fiber optic cabling.
I've binged your videos, fell in love and now I have withdrawal symptoms because I'm not getting any new content. jk man, I know these take time, but they're awesome!
coming soon :)
@@CULTTENNIS awesome! can you give away what's it gonna be about?
Wow, as a South African im shocked an American heard about cricket!
Guessing he's done his research...
When ever I’m watching a tennis match and there’s a challenge I always try to guess if the balls in or out and I’m right about 30 percent of the time lol 😅.
The future for tennis is probably a combination of Hawkeye and the Foxtenn one you mentioned in the last minute. Foxtenn coupled with Hawkeye will give real data to improve Hawkeye's algorithm. On the other hand if players feel like Hawkeye f***ed up they can use the Foxtenn footage as a challenge.
No need for combination -at least for the basic service of linejudgeing (Hawk Eye has quite many additional smart services, too). Foxtenn is simply superior in accuracy. Hawk Eye operates with 10-12 "slow" cameras with 150 frames per second per camera (the video mentions 340 fps -perhaps Hawk Eye has improved).. In contrast, Foxtenn ("Real Bounce" system) works with 40 high speed cameras with 2500 (!!) frames per second per camera (already used in quite many ATP tournaments). Hawk Eye interpolates/calculates/estimates the ball trajectory within the frames and shows a computer generated image on the basis of the calculations. Therefore it is sensitive to shocks like wind and trembles, etc. Its expected systematic error is 2,6 mm. Foxtenn shows the real video image of the ball's path and due to its extra fine time resolution, its systematic error is basically zero. Think for a moment to understand why the difference in resolution is so important: a ball flying at 126 km/h travels 35 cm in 0.01 second (!) or 23 cm between Hawk Eye frames. For 90 km/h it is 25 cm or 17 cm. So in the case of Hawk Eye, some wind gust after the last frame taken before landing can easily divert the ball with a few mm from the expected path.
I feel that when we get to the point where we start asking questions like "what actually counts as the ball touching the ground", we may as well just flip a coin. It's like trying to measure sprints to the millisecond, where it's just about how we define crossing the line.
what about touch sensitive lines, I guess the challenge then would be to make the ball behave the same on the lines
I like the system where the line judges male the calls, with Hawkeye being the challenge
I’m reminded of the Agassi-McEnroe match in the Wimbledon semis in 1992, in which after the whistle for out-of-bounds kept going off at the wrong time on McEnroe’s serve, Agassi came up to the ref and said, “Turn it off. Just turn it off. This things been screwing up for the whole tournament.”
Amazing video! Keep going!
Great video and explanation. A minor grammatical suggestion. Your two text "it's" should read "its" without the "' ' ."
ahhh good catch!
When Hawkeye zooms in twice, u know it's a big one
This man deserves WAY more subs.Great work bro
Great video. Love the Tomic jab.
Part of the reason that Hawkeye isn't used on Clay is that the spot of the ball is visible. You'll notice that the balls always produce a small amount of clay spray every time that they hit. Watch the close ups. That clay dust can mimic the ball with Hawkeye. The ball could be a fraction of an inch out but still register as in. If they can ever come up with Hawkeye that recognizes the ball and not the clay dust then they'll use it, but I just don't see that happening.. More importantly, and I've played on clay so have seen it. That's why they're not used on clay.
@Jurtez Lupa well I have heard that it was partially due to dust on the French Open broadcast a few times.
Hawk eye is a gift to all other sports from the great sport of Cricket.
very interesting! keep going!
Let's get you more subs. Awesome video! Thanks for the upload.
The truly weird part is incorporating the deformation of the ball into the call and ignoring that a spherical object can only make initial contact with the ground at a single point, meaning if only the deformation of the ball touches the line, the ball was in contact with the ground outside the line before that and the call should be Out.
Totally agree. In cricket it is 'not out' (umpire's call) if less than 50% of the ball is touching the stumps/bails. Cricket balls have no deformation. In tennis, 10% would do away with stupid edge cases.
I think it is generally accepted that the interpretation of the point of contact is not the instantaneous first point of contact, but the entire area the ball contacts on that first bounce. So though the very first point of touch could be out, if the ball flattens to impact onto the line as well then it is in.
Weird tennis would set itself up like that with the impossibility of trying to "see" the complete deformation of the ball as it strikes the ground. Seems to me if any part of the ball touches out of bounds, before any part of the ball touches inbounds, the ball is out. Like in every other sport with boundaries. But then I don't play tennis. ¯\_("/)_/¯@@mattc3581
Can’t they replace the ground lines with lasers that trigger when tripped?
Then any motion that blocks the laser would trip it. Bugs, leafs, trash, rocks... even a large enough amount of dust can trigger a laser sensor. Also, what if a player's foot is already blocking the lasers line? The laser would also have to be above the ground, not on the ground so it would actually get trigger before hitting the ground saying the ball is in when it could just barely be out.
@@TheMusicman1945 then ban leaves and bugs. Duh. Jk
I agree that lasers alone would not work but perhaps in addition to the cameras. Might be a lot of extra work and cost for little gain. I suspect you would need laser on each side in case there is a foot and a ball at the same time. AI would have to figure out which trip to use and hopefully Biggest issue trying make sure there timing is the same too because at 320 fps if they are out of sync a little bit it could cause trouble. Ball hits at .002. Was the trip at .001 the ball or something else. I think it would make system WAY more expensive and in a little if any gain. I do like your thinking behind it though.
It'd be less expensive to just install a layer of sensors in the ground.
The key here is even if the computer is inaccurate, it is consistent. If its precision is high, that becomes the new standard and any pro athlete can and should adapt. One could argue that a line judge is less consistent due to inherent biases. Thus the precise, if not perfectly accurate, behavior of the computer system is superior to the imprecise (and still not perfectly accurate) human judge.
Hey, great video. Could anybody talk a bit about the calibration? I've heard several players/referees mention that the calibration might be incorrect. How common/accurate is this observation, and what's the calibration process like?
Calibration is basically giving the system examples and telling it "This ball that we deliberately placed is at this exact location (we measured with the really good measuring tape)" over and over until the system gets its magic math correct internally so that its results agree with the given examples.
this pandemic taught me one thing, to learn programming as soon as you can.
Yet another great video! I never thought about the technology behind Hawkeye but it really is more complicated and accurate than I thought. Future video topic suggestion: a break down of the rule that got Djokovic DQ'd at the US open and other times in tennis history it has happened/had exceptions 😀
Agreed, a video about some of the interesting rules and DQs in tennis would be interesting!! Thanks for your continued support!
I would love to you you do one on the swingvision app and how it works in the same way and how close will this tech get to our wrist
The issue with Hawkeye is: If it breaks during a match (which is certain to happen with thousands of matches each year), then how do any line calls get made? You would have to have some line judges on reserve in case that happens.
what do you mean "break"? how can a program break at all? i suppose game stops for a while and programmers will get it working again i think. it would not be an issue at all.
one viewer - what I mean is at some matches, players will challenge a call. Then, the umpire is told Hawkeye isn’t working. Maybe it can be fixed, but I don’t think the tournament would pause the match to fix it. No telling how long it might take to get it working again.
@@tberry79 it should be tested and optimised before using it regularly.
@@saberswordsmen1 and yet, that system would be million times better than human eye. as i said, it should be maximally optimaized before using it and i think it should work fine.
@@saberswordsmen1 yeah, maybe you guys are right, back up plan would not hurt now that i think about it.
HAWKEYE should be used on clay, just Google the amount of controversy from players that's disagree whether the ball clipped the line.
There is 1 major inaccuracy in this video. While Hawkeye cameras are used to view the baseline in a Hawkeye live setup, they do NOT “track footfaults as well” as stated in the video. The review official watches the baseline on a screen and if he/she sees a footfault, they hit a button and a voice says “footfault “over the PA system. So there still could be footfault controversy with Hawkeye live.
Line call arguments are a fun aspect of the sport. Keep line judges and hawkeye. Together they make the sport more dramatic
The issue with replacing line umpires at top tournaments is that you remove a lot of the incentive for people to get into umpiring in the first place. The unintended consequence of that might be a shortage of umpires at lower levels of tennis.
Very like postmen, of the kind of jobs that makes no sense anymore.
I would prefer an actual camera system that shows where the ball actually hit.
Here is the deal, if a ball is hit with 100 miles per hour, a camera that takes a picture 340 times per second, is only accurate for 13cm. 100 mph => 160 kmh => 44m/s => 44m/s *(1/340)s => 0.13m. Considering the two images beofre impact and after impact is pretty much what the system does, only more sophisticated. For fun if you want to be as precise as 3.6mm you need 12356 images per second, which is bonkers. (Funny number 12345).
@@Schnorzel1337 no, that's not how it works. If you see a truck move at a steady speed from a to b, you don't need to have recorded its position at every single point to know where it would be at a certain time
@@patrickbeart7091 Good that was never the question but good. @Nazraq S suggested a "real camera setup" that shows where it actually hits, which is not possible at all. If you want to get decent results just for the camera you would need 12356 images per second so the first image where the ball touches the ground captures the ball at most 3.6mm from the initial impact. That part obviously ignores friction and everything else.
@@Schnorzel1337 ahh I see, sorry for the confusion
@@patrickbeart7091 For context if you had a truck moving at 100 mph then the truck would be blurred across in the direction of travel, making the truck not only appear longer than it actually was, it also blurs the edges and distorts it. Looking at a tennis ball moving at 100mph at 300fps looks like a pill, when it hits the ground it deforms and skids and all of those actions are, consistently, declared as being part of the contact and determines whether it's in or not. To achieve such a system you'd need cameras that either play at insane framerates, or you'd have to combine THIS system to predict where it would hit with a camera capable of a 10000+ of a second exposure time to achieve a "picture" of the ball actually hitting, which adds another problem, the 10000+ frame time would likely need to be a series of shots to get all of the frames where it's contacting. So, no, a system that actually monitors the contact of the ball is just a technological hurdle that nobody is really willing to foot the bill for.
Damn, this video is good. The narration is on point too.
Long story short Hawk Eye's accuracy is 2,6 mm - better than any eye. Bounce position is predicted using 8 cameras. System takes into consideration speed and spin to calculate trajectory and skid. It doesn't take wind into account. Some other competitors like Foxtenn make calls on bounce obsevations opposed to estimations
LMAO ARIGHT 5:45
7.25 heres a footage of the worlds greatest tennis player ..... wait whaaat??? Bernard tomic🤣🤦♂️
Lukas Helmhart Djokovic, Federer and Nadal on suicide watch,
The only question to ask is "What is the most accurate calling system, the human eye or the electronic Hawkeye?" Since the whole point of calling balls in tennis is to determine which hit is in or which is out, then whichever system does this best is therefore best for the game. Make the accuracy determination and you have your answer.