There was a controversial scene in the third round of the US Open women's singles match yesterday morning, Beijing time. Brazilian player Maya suspected that the ball had jumped twice before returning the ball, but the referee did not stop the game. In the end, Maya won the game. One point.
After the point ended, Kalinskaya thought that Maya had jumped twice before hitting the ball, and she applied for video replay. Some thought the replay video almost confirmed Kalinskaya was correct, but referee Miriam Bly reviewed the video on a tablet and said Kalinskaya's return was in the wrong direction. The second bounce hit Maya's racket before landing, so the point was awarded to Maya.
The ownership of this point is very critical for both sides, because the score before this point was Kalinskaya 2-0 (40-40). If the score of this controversial ball is awarded to Kalinskaya, she will Gain a valuable break point, on the contrary, let Maya gain a game point.
Kalinskaya immediately objected to the referee's decision and negotiated for about 1 minute, but the referee did not change the penalty. During this time, Maya walked back to the baseline of her own half and waited for the next point to begin.
Fans who are familiar with the rules of tennis events know that once the referee makes a penalty after a Hawkeye challenge, it is often the final penalty. Even if the players on the unfavorable side raise objections, the referee will not change the original penalty, while players on the favorable side often He will not be involved in the negotiations. He only needs to wait for the referee to report the score and then enter the next point of the game.
In addition, after the referee has clearly stated the determined facts and explained the relevant rules, if the player who raises the objection still does not stop negotiating with the referee, the referee will often say "let's play". If the player If negotiations continue and the player is not immediately ready to start the next point, the player will be given a warning.
According to publicity reports before the start of the tournament, the US Open has introduced video replay technology in 8 venues this year. Each player has 2 opportunities to apply for video replay per set (one additional time in the tie-break) to help identify double jumps and body contact. Controversies such as ball and net contact.
After video replay was introduced into the competition, Kalinskaya's first application for video replay caused a lot of controversy. It stands to reason that hawk-eye replays and video replays themselves are intended to reduce and eliminate controversies. However, the first time video replays were put into practical use at the US Open, controversy arose. I have to say that this is indeed puzzling and unexpected.
Former WTA doubles world No. 1 and Australian player Rennae Stubbs said on social media that she felt this was a wrong penalty and asked the event organizers, "This is very terrible, why don't you Get it right (just put it into use)? How can you blatantly make a mistake using video replay at Armstrong Stadium? Oh my god, you have video replay and you still get it wrong! Here it is!"
A tennis reporter named jose morgado posted on social media, "What? Hahaha, this is obviously a wrong farce, and many people are watching! "
This reporter also said that there are few disputes and misjudgments in the current application of Eagle Eye technology, but looking back at the beginning of the birth of Eagle Eye technology, it has indeed gone through a controversial detour, and even the Eagle Eye playback system appeared not long ago. Error situation. This controversial incident during Kalinskaya's game shows that video replay technology needs improvement in many aspects.
We all know that the ball prints presented by Eagle Eye technology are simulated based on images taken by multiple cameras at different positions. In other words, the oval ball print we see on the TV screen is not actually a real ball print, but a computer simulation of images taken from multiple angles. During this process, I don’t know the specific algorithm of this system, but I believe that the shooting clarity and algorithm technology must be continuously adjusted and optimized. This technology is now very mature. If the hardware and software do not malfunction, there will be basically no delays or misjudgments.
In order to better demonstrate the working principle and details of Eagle Eye, the current Eagle Eye company sometimes provides real-time pictures of tennis balls landing after giving simulated ball marks. This real picture can make the viewer more intuitive. feelings. However, the real-time picture provided does not conflict with the simulated ball mark. So far, no one has proposed that there is a difference between the real-time picture and the simulated ball mark.
Back to the controversial incident involving Kalinskaya, the pictures shown at the scene were real pictures taken by cameras from two angles. People can easily draw different conclusions from observing from two angles. Just like what we usually encounter when playing tennis, when spectators standing in different positions look at the same ball, some people will think it is a good shot on the line, while others will think the ball has gone out of bounds.
The second video of the live replay was viewed from behind Maya (pictured above). It looked more like Maya's racket touched the tennis ball after two jumps. The first video played back on site (as shown below), the shooting angle is from the front of the racket and the ball. Whether Maya hit the ball before landing or after landing, different people have different observations and conclusions. This is the most controversial aspect of this penalty. main reason.
Based on the above analysis, I think video playback technology can refer to the initial stage of Eagle Eye playback. At the beginning of the application of video replay technology, the pictures given by players when applying for video replay were only computer simulation pictures rather than real-life pictures, which could eliminate most disputes. When this technology matures, we will consider giving simulated pictures first and then real-life pictures like the Eagle Eye technology.
Having said that, no matter how sophisticated and technologically advanced the machines are, they still cannot be 100% correct and reliable. However, this cannot be a reason for us to reject new technologies, because countless past practices have proven that Hawkeye technology has indeed greatly reduced human misjudgments and reduced many disputes. This is already the consensus of most people.
From another perspective, no matter how far machine technology develops, and no matter how far human society develops, we cannot achieve absolute accuracy and fairness. Mistakes, and the resulting surprises and injustices, are part of life. What we have to do is to work hard to optimize technology, constantly improve the rules to promote fairness, and at the same time have a calm mind. This is the best attitude towards the Kalinskaya controversy. (Source: Tennis Home Author: Yunjuan Yunshu)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-