Talk:Hawk-Eye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
[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)
