How about that Wimbledon final yesterday? Amazing stuff, and to think that for a mere £91 I could have witnessed history (did you know that tickets are available on ticketmaster the night before?!)...might have actually been worth it.
Almost as incredible as watching the Nadal-Federer collision course over the last two weeks has been seeing Hawk-Eye perform its own magic. For those of you not moderately obsessed with tennis, Hawk-Eye is the computerized tool that tracks the ball’s movement and can be used to determine if a given shot is in or out. The system uses 4 to 6 high speed video cameras placed around the court. In each camera’s 2-D image, certain pixels are recognized as the tennis ball, and by combining these pixels from various cameras, a 3-D image of the ball’s path is produced. The bounce location, and thus the all-important “in” or “out” determination, is interpolated based on the ball’s path.
The system was actually first developed in cricket in order to clarify “leg before wicket” decisions. (Sadly, I have no idea what that means—cricket is one of the most confusing sports I’ve ever seen. I’ve tried to understand, but I don’t think it’s happening…)
Nonetheless, it’s found its niche in tennis, to varying levels of satisfaction. While there are reports of errors, the system is very accurate. I also think it provides a sense of certainty and authority that comes with mechanization. It’s hard for a player to argue with a computer (though some have tried), and despite its shortcomings, the bold proclamations of “IN” or “OUT” suggest infallability.
The role of science in how sports are played, judged, and watched is increasing, and many people find this alarming. This seems to be a somewhat exceptional view of science and technology: in many areas of life, technological developments are viewed with delight, not suspicion. But like anything with a history, sport’s tradition accounts for much of its appeal, and tinkering with the rules or equipment can seem disrespectful and disruptful. More fundamentally, sports are not “product-driven”. The fact that sports are challenging is kind of the point, and the game as a whole does not benefit if things are made easier. Assembling a car using improved technology, on the other hand, saves money, produces a safer car, etc. (True, this also means fewer jobs, but I’ll let the economists out there handle that one.)
Anyway, nothing like a great tennis match to provide inspiration for some lab work!
That was a truly remarkable match and we were debating just yesterday how that image (Hawk-eye) is generated (so thanks!) and whether relying on the ump’s eye is better (respecting tradition and all that). I knew I was on the wrong side of the argument when I found myself having to defend rain delays vs. retractable roofing.
Anyway interesting post and I’ll let someone else to explain LBW to you (I’m against it as it wasn’t in the 1744 “Laws of Cricket” according to wikipedia :-) ).
I think this summer’s Olympics will be an interesting showcase of how technology is playing such a big role in sports and may trigger more widespread debate. I’ve heard several news stories about the high-tech swimsuits that swimmers wear these days and I wonder how advancements in bicycle technology will affect the racing times of cyclists. Where does technology end and old-fashioned human athleticism begin? Will we be able to disentangle the two?
And will computers/high-speed cameras someday replace referees/umpires?
For now, I find the Hawk-Eye in tennis added entertainment!
Good point about the swimsuits – I’ve been hearing that many athletes have had to get out of their previous contracts in order to switch to the Speedo suits to even be competitive!
Hawk-Eye certainly does add some entertainment. I had the privilege of attending the tourny last week, and every time they consulted the computer, a collective “oooooooh” came out from the crowd. Nice side effect.