호크아이제도에 관한규칙에 대하여 알고 싶은데요

게임당이 아니고 한세트당 2개이고 타이브레이크를 하게 되면 다시 2개가 추가되며 첫세트가 끝나고 새로운 세트가 시작되면 새로 2개만 호크아이 판정을 요구할수 있으며 요구한 판정이 옳았다면 첼린지 숫자의 변화는 없습니다.

이번 봄에 소니에릭슨경기인가에서 얼듯 들었는데 세트당 2개의 첼린지가 3개로 되었고 관중석으로 넘어온볼을 아직까지는 코트 안으로 돌려 줘야만 했는데 이제는 관중이 잡은볼을 야구에서처럼 가져 갈수 있다고 했던거 같아요.

정확하게 아시는 분 계시면 답글 부탁 드립니다.

그리고 호크아이 판정은 어떤 경기에 쓰이느냐가 아니고 장비가 설치된 경기장 에서만 사용됩니다.
클레이코트처럼 볼마크가 생기는 경기는 대부분 아직 사용하지 않고 있고 같은 경기라도 장비가 설치된 주경기장 서너개 에서만 사용되므로 보조 경기장에서 치루어지는 예선전에는 같은 경기라도 호크 아이 판정은 없는걸로 알고 있어요....

정확하게 아시는분이 더 좋은 답을 주시리라 믿고 제가 아는 한도에서 급한 불이라도 끄시라고 올려 봤습니다.

그나저나 호크아이 판정이 가능한 경기장에서 시합 한번해봤으면 소원이 없겠습니다...

Tennis unifies Hawk-Eye system
April 17, 2008 /


The four governing bodies of professional tennis – the ITF, ATP, Sony Ericsson WTA Tour and Grand Slams – have agreed to unify the rules of Hawk-Eye, the electronic line-calling challenge system. Henceforth players/teams will be a maximum of three unsuccessful challenges per set, with an additional challenge if a set reaches a tiebreak

For those events with advantage sets, at 6-6 players/teams will restart with a maximum of three unsuccessful challenges every 12 games thereafter.

Ana welcomed the move. I’m a big fan of Hawk-Eye and this seems like a good idea,” she said. “It’s best that the rules are the same for all events – Sony Ericsson WTA Tour and Grand Slams.”

Until the announcement of these standardized rules, there were always differences between tournaments with the number of challenges players were permitted per set varying among events. Greater unity and equality between events were the motivating factors behind the move.

The only Grand Slam at which the technology is not implemented is the French Open, where the ball in any case leaves a mark on the clay surface.

By: Yannic Glowitz

위의 두 분이 말씀하신 바와 같이 2008년 3월 ITF, ATP, WTA, Grand Slam Committee 가 만나 이전까지 각 토너먼트마다 다르게 적용되었던 호크아이 규정을 통합했다고 합니다.
표준화된 새 규정에 의하면,
잘못된 콜에 대한 챌린지(즉, 성공한 챌린지에 대해서는 챌린지 제한 회수에 변동을 주지않습니다.)는 세트 당 3회로 하고 타이브레이크에서는 한번의 챌린지할 수 있는 기회가 추가됩니다.
세트 스코어가 1-1 또는 2-2 일 경우 deciding set 6-6에서 타이브레이크를 안하고 2점 차이 날 때까지 계속하는 경우에는 6-6 이후 매 12게임이 경과할 때마다 세번씩의 챌린지 기회가 추가된다는 군요.

In Tennis Calls, It's Game, Set, and Match for Line Judges


Every so often, a nasty confrontation shatters the genteel atmosphere of tennis, when a player angrily challenges the call of a line judge. Such dramas might make for good television, but a new analysis shows that the judges are usually right. Although the findings might not stop athletes from venting their frustrations, they do provide a hard slice of insight into the capabilities of human visual perception.
To help resolve disputes, pro tennis adopted a video system called Hawk-Eye in 2006 that tracks the position of the ball and gives players a resource with which to challenge official calls. Psychologist George Mather of the University of Sussex in the U.K realized that Hawk-Eye data could help evaluate how well our perception performs in a situation that demands almost instantaneous decisions--balls hit by the pros often travel 50 meters a second.

Mather obtained data from nearly 1500 challenges made to calls in 15 pro tennis tournaments during 2006 and 2007. He organized them according to how close the tennis ball landed to the line, as reported by the Hawk-Eye system, and whether the dispute involved the side lines or the baseline at the back of the court. "I was surprised at just how closely challenges and errors depended on ball position," he says. If the challenges were due largely to attention lapses by officials or gamesmanship by players, Mather says he would have expected little relation between ball location and challenges or errors. Instead, he found that almost all of those challenges--95%--occurred when the ball was within 10 centimeters of the line, meaning the challenges had to be due to conflicting perceptions. In such cases, the Hawk-Eye data upheld the judges about 60% of the time. The data show the performance of the officials "was remarkably good," says Mather, who reports his findings in today's Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Behavioral neuroscientist Saumil Patel of the University of Texas Medical School in Houston says Mather's paper "takes many, many years of laboratory research on how the brain processes information" about bodies in motion and applies it to something that arises routinely in tennis. Patel, who specializes in visual perception studies, calls it "amazing" that a complex decision-making problem such as making tennis line calls "fits in a simple statistical framework."




© 2008 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Hawk Eye system was developed as a replay system, originally for TV Broadcast coverage. As such, it cannot call ins and outs live. Currently only the Auto-Ref system can produce live in/out calls as it was developed for instant line calling. Both systems can produce replays.

The Hawk-eye Innovations website states that the system has an average error of 3.6mm (it does not indicate what the maximum error is). The standard size of a tennis ball is reportedly 65 to 68 mm. This means that there is a 5% error relative to the diameter of the ball. This could throw into doubt the accuracy of such calls as the one mentioned in the Nadal-Federer 2007 Wimbledon final. For the sake of comparison, approximately 5% of the diameter is the fluff on the ball.






작년 유즈니 선수가 자신의 챌린지가 성공하자 본인도 의아해하더군요.
상대선수는 하드코트에 찍힌 볼 마크를 가르키며 호크 아이 판정이 잘못됐다고 항의하고.....
유즈니에겐 행운이겠고 상대선수에게 불운인 5% 에러 범주에 속하는 사례겠지요.

바담풍 님 덕분에 저도 검색하면서 호크 아이에 대해 어렴풋이 알고 있거나 다소 오해했던 부분이 명확해졌습니다.

고맙습니다.

요약하면,
의의제기는 한 세트당 3 개 이고,타이브레이크가 되면 한 개 더 추가되고
타이브레이크가 아니고 개임 듀스이면 세트가 끝나지 않고 개임듀스가 계속되면
그 합이 12이 될때마다 새로 3개로 시작 한다는 말씀이군요.

어찌되었든지 고맙습니다.