Talk:Hawk-Eye

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Hawk-Eye is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Hawk-eye is unreliable in the extreme. This must be emphasized. I disagree with the previous comment. Extensive testing on Hawk-Eye show that it is very accurate at plotting the true trajectory of a cricket ball. The only contentions issue is its predictive capabilitites after a ball has struck the batsman. "Neutrality" hardly seems an issue. It has been known to show the ball going in entirely the wrong direction, showing a googly as a leg break, even though the ball had clearly begun to spin as a googly before it hit the batsman. First of all, people on this page need to learn to sign their comments. On the substance, I do not understand what is disputed here. The author of the first comment did not provide any evidence or even references to back up the statement that Hawk-eye is unreliable. I wantch all major tennis events on the TV and not once have I heard any suggetsion that it was unreliable.BorisG 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I completely agree with Boris. It is acurate within 5 millimeters, according to Pat McEnroe. Shot-spot is different. It doesn't use the same technology. Shot-spot is acurate within 15mm, if you believe ESPN. Skislope15 22:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Microchip

Is the information on the micro chip in tennis balls corrrect? I can't find info. on it on Hawk-Eye site. --84.92.136.183 14:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find that claim rather odd - as it goes against the basic visual trajectory tracking principal on which hawkeye was founded. I think we definitly need some verifiable sources / citations for it, or else we should consider removing it. Triponi 10:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I also find the claim that "The use of Hawk-Eye in tennis uses a unique microchip system that is fixed on a wire frame inside the tennis ball" extremely hard to believe. And I was also unable to verify it. So I've removed it from the article. - dcljr (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no microchips implanted in tennis balls for use in connection with Hawk-Eye. Hawk-Eye's ball tracking for line calling and is based on high speed cameras placed around the court which are hardwired to powerful computers with customized visual processing softwareRnl58 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)RNL58

I can verify, there are no microchips of any kind in any tennis balls used for competitive play, professionally, or on the collegiate level. Let us ignore, for the moment, the logistic problems with a microchip inside a rubber ball that gets smacked at 130+MPHs . Over the years, (the last 5 most prominently) there has been a massive division in the tennis world, specifically about the weight of the balls used at different tournaments. We're talking about tenths of an ounce here. Even now, amoungst the former best of the game, such as Johnny McEnroe and Cliff Drysdale, there is a looming uncertainty regarding the current ball weight in many of top tier tournaments (Grand Slams, Tennis Masters Series etc.) But, back to the direct implications... this isn't a solid rubber hockey puck that has a huge weight to mass ratio, and is frozen, and vulcanized... this is a hollow tennis ball, that is made out of flexible rubber, designed to bounce, and contort, and be hit at speed in excess of 150Mph. I hope your microchip is made entirely out of adimantium.

[edit] Cyclops

I remember seeing something in tennis a few years back very like Hawk-Eye. The commentators, however, referred to it as Cyclops. Is it just the same technology? 194.83.144.16 13:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyclops is totally different - it uses infrared beams to call balls out on the service line, but doesn't give any other positional information. 143.252.80.100 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live Hawk-Eye?

In Tennis, is Hawk-Eye capable of calling in's or out's live? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.241.129.19 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Other Sports

Does anybody have any evidence that Hawk-Eye is used in sports other than Cricket and Tennis, as is claimed in the first line of the entry? Tonksville 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nadal complaint

The Nadal complaint bit needs a bit of a work over. I originally thought he was just showing a hissy-fit as tennis players are want to do when things don't go their way but reading the reference it appears several people (including his competitor) agree it was out, contrary to Hawk-Eye. It would be good to look into this further to. For example what did MacCam suggest if it was used? Or if not, did instant replys suggest anything?Nil Einne 00:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nadal apparently paid his competitor to say that stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.179 (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This bit "The Hawk-Eye technology was used in the 2007 Dubai Tennis Championships with some minor controversies. Defending champion Rafael Nadal accused the system of incorrectly calling an out ball following his exit. The umpire had called a ball out; when Mikhail Youzhny challenged the decision, Hawk-Eye said otherwise.[4] Youzhny said afterwards that he himself thought the mark may have been wide but then offered that this kind of technology error could easily have been made by linesmen and umpires. Nadal could only shrug, saying that had this system been on clay, the mark would have clearly shown Hawk Eye to be wrong.[5]" is quite poorly worded.

"Nadal accused the system of incorrectly calling an out ball" - it was out and incorrectly called in, or it was in and incorrectly called out?

"The umpire had called a ball out; when Mikhail Youzhny challenged the decision, Hawk-Eye said otherwise." - Otherwise? Other than the umpire or other than Youzhnhy?

It may be clearish from the context but it could still be rewritten. Bejjer (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cricinfo 3D

Does crickinfo 3D use hawk-eye to gain the data for what it displays? Nil Einne 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Intro?

The introduction says Auto-ref was developed in 2000 while Hawk-eye was "put forward" (whatever that means) in 2001. This suggests that Auto-ref was the original technology. Is this the case? Given that the article later states that Hawk-eye was used at a sporting event three years earlier than Auto-ref, I'm assuming that the two dates given in the introduction relate to different points in the development of each technology. If this is the case it is very misleading and needs to be changed by someone who knows the full details. 212.140.167.99 14:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As this article is about Hawk-Eye, not ball tracking systems in general, details of autoref should go elsewhere. Sjmtlewy 30:31, 25 May 2007 (BST)

[edit] does any one have try to make his own software like hawkeye?

can some provide me the information if any one have try to make his own software like hawkeye?

[edit] Ball Coating

Could a tennis ball be coated with something either inside or outside its rubber,in order to detect with more accuracy?Sigleyy (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation

This article definitely needs some work. Can anyone provide more information on how Hawk-Eye actually works? Even basic information like 'it tracks the ball visually using a camera', if this is the case? Presumably, if this technology is patented, then details must be available in the patent applications.

Also, an outline of the tech's pros and cons could be good, with examples of when it has failed or excelled. This is shown to some degree in the Tennis category, but it really needs cleaning up. smiler (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)