Still Think ELC is Infallible?

[jimlosaltos]

Zverev's photo of ball mark called "in" by electronic line system.

The don't believe that even by the most generous interpretation of "ball blooming" or "fuzz tendrils touching the tape" that his was in.

My copy was forwarded by another player, John Millman, who wrote: "I think on the most part electronic line calling takes out a lot of the internal debate for a player… until this happens.. no doubt these rogue calls happen weekly.."

filedata/fetch?id=107033&d=1745792771&type=thumb

#

[jeffreycounts]

I've always thought this system was not 100% accurate, but it is certainly treated as such. That is absolutely ridiculous if that was called in.

[stroke]

I am not convinced this call was wrong, but either way, I do think the Hawkeye system makes less errors than the chair umpire constantly checking marks.

[jimlosaltos]

I've always thought this system was not 100% accurate, but it is certainly treated as such. That is absolutely ridiculous if that was called in.

There is some strange psychology at work that leads announcers and some players to act as if a system is infallible because it uses computers.

This ball mark certainly appears to be outside the stated error margin for Hawkeye ( I believe the ATP standardized on Hawkeye rather than FoxTen for ELC }

During trail periods with FoxTen we saw slow motion video where balls were called in that clearly looked out. HawkEye offers no such visual check since the cameras are higher and the actual ball "mark" shown in replays is merely a computer simulation. In some replays I've seen, the simulated ball mark didn't resemble what would be reasonably created by a shot, i.e. HawkEye's simulation had a long tail as if the ball skidded even through the ball came down sharply and jumped.

I suspect tennis' Hawkeye is more reliable than lines people, but unlike systems in other sports there is no independent testing or analysis of tennis Hawkeye. Hawkeye is used in Major League Baseball, BUT that system has more sensors & MLB is more transparent about results.

[jeffreycounts]

It's supposed to be accurate within 3.6 millimeters. That picture you posted is waaay more than 3.6 millimeters.

[jimlosaltos]

It's supposed to be accurate within 3.6 millimeters. That picture you posted is waaay more than 3.6 millimeters.

Exactly. Various excuses like the ball marks "bloom" on clay work for explaining away out calls on ball marks that touch the line. But it can't work in both directions.