Hawkeye: Yes or No?

I must say, Fembruary/March virtuall off-season has be very fruitful in ironing out/expressing different opinions on some aspects of tennis.

We've mastered fast courts and time violation, today, just a relatively minor one: hawkeye.

Personally, I think it's great having it, it rules our a lot of unnecessary grief. Although, still not technically perfect, it's much better than the 80s rants of McEnroe & co.

So, why all of a sudden does Federer voice his dislike for it:

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/news.aspx?articleid=16739&zoneid=25

According to him, introduction of hawkeye system takes away the element of drama from matches, and memorable moments such as "You cannot be serious".

While they all look great and amusing from a rose-tinted glossed-over historical distance, I'm not sure we'd like to see any more of THAT.

These days, there i so much money at stake, umpires are scared to penalise star players for time violation, can you imagine pandemonium without the use of hawkeye?

I reckon it would only increase the already unfair divide between the "stars" and the mortals.

Anyone agrees/disagrees?

Just a light pre-IW eve chat, of course, please

P.S.

I don't know if it's a coincidence but Nole, being an avid football fan advocated for introducing technology in football recently, obviously being in favour of hawkeye.

I'm for it, although I have seen a few that looked very wrong to me. If they're making millimetre decisions on it and it isn't that accurate........


I thought you were questioning the existence of the esteemed forum member at first sight!

bogbrush wrote:I thought you were questioning the existence of the esteemed forum member at first sight!

Yes, I must admit I did too!

Hawkeye (the system) is a great addition - TMF has never liked it but he uses it himself now (very badly on occasions it must be said )

lol, I thought similar too.

I like the system, reduces the number of heated discussions in matches that arent particularly good for anyone.

lydian wrote:lol, I thought similar too.

I like the system, reduces the number of heated discussions in matches that arent particularly good for anyone.

That was my first thought, as well when I typed the title out...but I left it like that

Federer's comments are more nostalgic and there is a distinct benefit that he has reaped from such challenges.

I had much rather have the system to avoid dubious line calls. It also keeps the lines people honest.

Does anyone recall DC matches being hotbeds of controversy because of country affiliations? There is a specific Stan Smith match I had in mind.

laverfan wrote:Federer's comments are more nostalgic and there is a distinct benefit that he has reaped from such challenges.

I had much rather have the system to avoid dubious line calls. It also keeps the lines people honest.

Does anyone recall DC matches being hotbeds of controversy because of country affiliations? There is a specific Stan Smith match I had in mind.

Imagine if the line call went wrong on The Shot.....

I think the character showing and discussion with the empire disappeared before HE so in that respect, I disagree with Federer.

I also disagree with him that though over a career it might even out, there are some bad calls that are too important (BPs SPs, MPs) to be left to human eyesight...even if we know HE is not perfect.

And finally knowing how easy it is to give a time warning to Cilic than Nadal, I am glad line calls are taken away from business weary referees.

So though I understand Federer's point, on this occasion I completely disagree with him.

I disagree with the general thrust of Federer's views here, although I do think that many comments, when reported in writing, can very often come across rather differently from how they might do if we had heard them 'live.'

Many things are said during the course of an interview and journos are desperate for material to fill their pages. I doubt very much doubt if Federer was seriously advocating a return to the old system. He recognises as much as any of us that the HE genie is well & truly out of the bottle, and you can never put it back. He does balance his views, after all, when saying "But I get the point of HawkEye"

A player who loses a match on one crucial close call will still agonise over it, but at least HE has removed once and for all any sense that the loss resulted from some huge injustice.

As for the nostalgia thing, well it is just that really - nostalgia. Although perhaps still sad in some ways to think that we'll never be treated to any more Johnny Mac-type quotable quotes that live long in the memory ("that ball was on the line, man - chalk flew up ...!!)

A rare case of Federer talking rubbish.

The more accurate system is best in my opinion.

Henman Bill wrote:A rare case of Federer talking rubbish.

I would be inclined to agree with this.

I remember him once saying that hawk-eye is best thing that happened to tennis after the introduction of tie-breakers. I don't know the exact quote. Will post a source if I find it.

Hawkeye? I say yes. Ha ha!

By the way, IW only tournament I have seen this year where they are putting the hawkeye on every court. So it isn't a situation of havs v. hav nots. In US broadcast here they were talking about how Ellison was very specific on the outside courts having hawkeye. First tournament I have heard of that has gone all courts Hawkeye.

i like the Hawkeye system.

Tenez makes a good point about how it evens the playing field for some of the smaller names. It is unfortunate but probably true that the linespeople are more likely to make brave calls against the lower ranked players.