User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 17 of 51
  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    1,763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Hawk Eye system, anyone?

    Just watched the LD vs LCW match. Some of the calls were really close and it might have turned the match in one way or another. It is very strange that the chair umpire over-ruled a baseline call by the line judge as it would be hard to judge from where he is sitting. Normally they over-rule when it is a sideline shot (on his side).

    Thus, would badminton follow some of the other sports, tennis , being the recent one, to use the Hawk eye system. They can follow like Wimbeldon where a player,say,is only allowed 3 chanllenges per set.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bristol & Coventry
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not sure. The hawkeye isn't 100% anyway. It's just a simulation based on video footage and measurements during a period of time/ rally. For sports like tennis and cricket, it's easier to implement as the pace is slower than badminton. But it could be featured.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    coming to a court near you...
    Posts
    28,044
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How much does a Hawkeye machine cost? There'll need to be a minimum of 4 per court–2 on the baselines and 2 on the sidelines. On average there are 4 courts in play at the arena. So that makes 16 machines minimum. I guess the question is whether BWF considers getting these machines (x16) worthwhile

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,658
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This topic has been discussed before and the prob is shuttle is not a ball, the speed is too fast and decelerate too fast. Also the player is in the court most of the time. Margin of error is higher than human eyes.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silentheart View Post
    This topic has been discussed before and the prob is shuttle is not a ball, the speed is too fast and decelerate too fast. Also the player is in the court most of the time. Margin of error is higher than human eyes.
    No way!!

    A high-speed camera will be superior to the human eye.. No question about that!!!.. (there is a reason for having goal-photos in track&field, horse-races etc)..

    120fps is much much more than what your eye can handle :-)

    Just the reruns from std. cameras at WC etc clearly showes that line-judges frequently make misstakes... I think strategically plased cameras running at high-speed could be beneficial..Especially with the 21 point systms where a few line-calls may make the difference between winning and loosing a tight match.

    /Twobeer

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    1,763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with 2beer, maybe if hawkeye not feasible, then at least the use of high speed cameras wud be a cheaper alternative.
    And yes, in a tight 21 pt rally game, 2 wrong calls could mean winning and losing OR a player walking out .....

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    If anyone has watched hockey, you know that they don't rely on the referees' calls when the referees are unsure.

    They use cameras from many different angles to confirm what actually happened rather than what referees or judges THINK has happened.

    I think this is a very feasible thing to do. I've seen some bad line calls that could have easily been overruled if the umpire or someone just watched the slow motion. Instead of that, the rally is usually lost by the player who has won.

    I don't know what's holding the badminton sport back from doing something that hockey does.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    coming to a court near you...
    Posts
    28,044
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Green72(CAN) View Post
    If anyone has watched hockey, you know that they don't rely on the referees' calls when the referees are unsure.

    They use cameras from many different angles to confirm what actually happened rather than what referees or judges THINK has happened.

    I think this is a very feasible thing to do. I've seen some bad line calls that could have easily been overruled if the umpire or someone just watched the slow motion. Instead of that, the rally is usually lost by the player who has won.

    I don't know what's holding the badminton sport back from doing something that hockey does.
    ......$$ MONEY! $$......

  9. #9
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madbad View Post
    ......$$ MONEY! $$......
    true also... money is the matter
    why not suggest to place 3 linesman per line? majority wins!! yeahhhh
    sometimes are more fun to watch human touch in games, not relying on gadgets. badminton court is much smaller than tennis court, thus, the necessary of hawk eye is not appreciated. high camera might be more considerable......

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,237
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    the problem isn't the matter of technology. its the problem of PEOPLE.

    we have tv-replays, we see it lots every game of every match, watching the shuttle dribble over the net and land slightly out, or have it land on the edge of baseline, etc...
    if the umpire had access to these replays, VOILA! the problem would be solved. and they wouldn't have to spend a single dime on extra cameras and sensor technologies.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    3,989
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chickenpoodle View Post
    the problem isn't the matter of technology. its the problem of PEOPLE.

    we have tv-replays, we see it lots every game of every match, watching the shuttle dribble over the net and land slightly out, or have it land on the edge of baseline, etc...
    if the umpire had access to these replays, VOILA! the problem would be solved. and they wouldn't have to spend a single dime on extra cameras and sensor technologies.
    Agree.. But adding some high-speed cameras that BWF supplies and moves between the Super-series tournament, wouldn't be a staggering cost as I see it (and more accurate :-) )..

    If I where to dream on high-speed cameras could also be used for replays of netkills, defending and smashes (in conjunction with the smash-speed measurement, for som exiting slow motion reruns on TV, to make the game more presentable as well!!!

    /Twobeer

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bristol & Coventry
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How do you have 3 lines man per line!?

    Quote Originally Posted by drifit View Post
    true also... money is the matter
    why not suggest to place 3 linesman per line? majority wins!! yeahhhh
    sometimes are more fun to watch human touch in games, not relying on gadgets. badminton court is much smaller than tennis court, thus, the necessary of hawk eye is not appreciated. high camera might be more considerable......

  13. #13
    Moderator drifit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Selangor, Malaysia
    Posts
    6,428
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slicedbanana07 View Post
    How do you have 3 lines man per line!?
    hm... use imagination, sit on staircase type of chair...
    mistake: high speed camera, not high camera...

  14. #14
    Regular Member Mark A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St Helens, UK
    Posts
    4,188
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chickenpoodle View Post
    the problem isn't the matter of technology. its the problem of PEOPLE.

    we have tv-replays, we see it lots every game of every match, watching the shuttle dribble over the net and land slightly out, or have it land on the edge of baseline, etc...
    if the umpire had access to these replays, VOILA! the problem would be solved. and they wouldn't have to spend a single dime on extra cameras and sensor technologies.
    This type of attitude could benefit SO many sports! Badminton is intrinsically stop/start and, unlike tennis, the player's don't hit the shuttle after a close line bounce, so studying slo-mo replays is much less disruptive.

    This year's Wimbledon introduced a "challenge" system, whereby a player can argue a dodgy line call and Hawkeye will settle the matter. If their challenge is correct, they retain their remaining challenges and if not, they lose one (having started with 5 possible challenges).

    This would be PERFECT for badminton AND Hawkeye wouldn't be needed, as the ultra slow replays always make it clear whether the shuttle was in or out. Equipping an umpire's chair with a little TV monitor would cost next to nothing, as well!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Posts
    1,263
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slicedbanana07 View Post
    I'm not sure. The hawkeye isn't 100% anyway. It's just a simulation based on video footage and measurements during a period of time/ rally. For sports like tennis and cricket, it's easier to implement as the pace is slower than badminton. But it could be featured.
    While HawkEye isn't 100%, it's pretty damn close. Just a few years ago, its accuracy for tennis was inadequate -- its calculated trajectories could be off by several cm or more. However, within the past year or 2 they've got it down to within 3mm. The improvements were due primarily to 2 factors. They increased the the number of (very) high-speed cameras from 6 up to 10. They also significantly improved the algorithms in the software used to track the ball & calculate its trajectory. There may have been some calibration improvements as well.

    Roger Federer may well have been justified in his criticism of some of the HawkEye-based decisions made during the final at Wimbledon this year. A number of those questioned calls appeared to be within that 3mm margin of error. However, a vast majority of questioned calls for most monitored matches are not quite that close -- they often reveal that the ball was out by several cm -- well within HawkEye's capability for making a correct call.

    Granted, badminton shuttle speeds coming off the racket on fast shots are often 30-40% faster than initial tennis ball speeds. However, shuttles decelerate much more quickly than tennis balls. The pre-bounce speed of a tennis serve if something on the order of 70-75% of its initial speed. On other tennis shots, the speed just prior to the bounce may be somewhat less than this percentage. I suspect that a badminton shuttle usually hits the floor at a speed that is considerably less than half of its initial speed -- due to the much greater drag (air resistance) for a shuttle than for a tennis ball.

    The software algorithms for HawkEye would undoubtedly need to be modified to accurately calculate badminton trajectories. However, given the speed differences I've mentioned, I see no reason why this technology could not be adapted for badminton.

    Yes, the HawkEye system is quite expensive. For a single tennis court, it requires 10 (expensive) high-speed cameras, sophisticated software, and a battery of high-speed computers (I believe that I saw at least 8 computers in the HawkEye booth for a professional tournament at Stanford).

    I believe that you would still need a similar number of high-speed cameras for badminton to ensure that you have multiple unobstructed views in order to faithfully interpolate/calculate the trajectory of a badminton shuttle.
    .
    Last edited by SystemicAnomaly; 07-18-2007 at 04:06 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    malaysia
    Posts
    1,763
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks, SystemicAnomaly. That was an insightful post. Perhaps, with all things electronics, the cost will come down later and the BWF can start to introduce this, if not, then other electronic assistance to ensure accuracy of line calls in the future.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,237
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark A View Post
    This type of attitude could benefit SO many sports! Badminton is intrinsically stop/start and, unlike tennis, the player's don't hit the shuttle after a close line bounce, so studying slo-mo replays is much less disruptive.

    This would be PERFECT for badminton AND Hawkeye wouldn't be needed, as the ultra slow replays always make it clear whether the shuttle was in or out. Equipping an umpire's chair with a little TV monitor would cost next to nothing, as well!
    the thing is, the umpire at the big tourneys (OG, AE, WC, etc) all have computers to register every shot, lets, faults, errors, smash winners, net shot, the list goes on. now we see this even more prevelant with the super series!

    its not very difficult to have his screen jacked into the live TV feed as well.

    the biggest problem with bad calls is that frequency of the bad calls.
    in a game, if i feel theres bad calls 1/10 times, thats horrible, seeing how few rallies there are nowadays with the new scoring system.

    if bad calls existed 1/50 times, maybe i wouldn't care so much, and neither would taufik or lin dan...

    and if the live feed and tv replays were available, (umpire wouldn't even need to press a button, just an extra screen perhaps) we can significantly reduce the occurance of accepted bad calls.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone own/try the Hawk 16?
    By TNBRE in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 21
    : 08-30-2011, 11:52 PM
  2. Anyone tried Eagnas Hawk 26e?
    By lsk_rulez in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 29
    : 08-31-2005, 08:30 PM
  3. Has anyone tried the Hawk 20e?
    By hong in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 8
    : 04-07-2005, 11:47 PM
  4. Hawk 15
    By TQuach98 in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 3
    : 01-31-2004, 02:55 AM
  5. Stringing machine HAWK 10 good???
    By Sucker in forum Badminton Stringing Techniques & Tools
    Replies: 3
    : 04-19-2001, 01:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •