Hawk-Eye

Hawk-Eye - Hallo friend Insurance WCest, In the article you read this time with the title Hawk-Eye, we have prepared this article well for you to read and take the information in it. hopefully the contents of the post which we write you can understand. okay, happy reading.

Title : Hawk-Eye
Link : Hawk-Eye

Read too


Hawk-Eye

;
I was at the Australian Open tennis last night (quarter final between Djokovic and Berdych, not a bad match) and found myself wondering about the Hawk-Eye technology that is used to review line calls.


In case you're not familiar with it, either player is allowed to challenge any line call (either in or out) that they believe is in error. The call is then reviewed by the Hawk-Eye system which uses high-speed cameras and triangulation to determine the exact spot that the ball landed. After three erroneous challenges the player is no longer allowed to challenge a call until the following set.

Quite a lot of the challenges proved correct, which made be feel sorry for the lines-people; I suspect their days are numbered. The rules of tennis state that if any part of the ball comes in contact with any part of the line, it is in. With serves coming down in excess of 200 km/h, it's not hard to imagine that human perception has quite wide error bars and that a machine can probably do better. But I also wondered: is it possible that human perception has a systematic bias that causes it to favour a particular call? That is, given a marginal situation in which a tiny smidgen of the ball touches the line, has it traditionally been the case that is tends to be called out? Or when the ball is just out, perhaps it has tended to be called in?

It would be interesting to know if Hawk-Eye was calibrated with respect to expert judgement, or using only objective measures using pressure sensors, etc. In any case, I would be fascinated to know if there is evidence of any systematic divergence in judgement between Hawk-Eye and the lines-people. Further, if there is such a divergence, I wonder if it has decreased over time. I could imagine that a lines-person would compensate in their judgement if they have too many challenges overruling their calls. In effect, they may have learned to make their calls more accurate as a result of Hawk-Eye challenges.

If this has happened, it's possible that the "effective boundary" of a tennis court -- that is, the area in which a ball would tend to be called as in were it to land there -- may have shifted just a tiny bit. And if this were the case, to pour speculation upon speculation, I wonder if the best players would in turn have adjusted their play to work most effectively within these new boundaries?


Such is the article Hawk-Eye

That's an article Hawk-Eye this time, hopefully can benefit for you all. okay, see you in other article posting.

You are now reading the article Hawk-Eye with the link address https://wcest.blogspot.com/2013/01/hawk-eye.html