Latest news with #HawkEye
CNET
3 days ago
- Sport
- CNET
Smart Cameras Power a Robot Umpire at MLB All-Stars for the First Time. Here's How the Challenges Went
If umpires draw your ire for bad calls, you may soon have a new target: Major League Baseball used its ABS, or Automated Ball-Strike System, to call pitches at the July 15 All-Star Game for the first time. If trials this season go well, it will probably be adopted for the 2026 regular season. But challenges against the camera had an unusually high rate of success. The ABS uses Hawk-Eye cameras, a technology increasingly common in games with high-speed objects. The cameras judge how a ball travels -- in this case, over the strike zone -- and are equipped to make a preliminary call. A human umpire, along with batters and pitchers, have a couple of seconds to review the footage and challenge a call if they think the automated system was wrong. It's a system the MLB has experimented with since 2019 and is finally ready to bring to the national stage. This approach has caused some controversy, particularly because the Hawk-Eye cameras are programmed to see the strike zone very differently from human umpires. Instead of the standard cube shape that's underpinned strike zone knowledge for decades, the ABS uses a two-dimensional rectangle standard that's automatically adjusted to extend between 53.5% and 27% of the batter's height. Batters are measured before each game. The ABS didn't perform quite as well as it did in spring training -- or players are more willing to test it now. Todd Kirkland / Stringer via Getty Those worried about discrepancies now have new fuel for their worries. In the July 15 game, which the National League won in a home run derby after nine innings ended with a tie, four out of five challenges to the ABS and umpire Dan Iassogna's combined work were successful. That's much higher than the ABS spring training test, where teams won only around 50% of their challenges. The MLB hasn't revealed definitive plans on whether the ABS could replace umpires altogether, but at this time the human-based, real-time reviews from the umpire appear to be an integral part of the system. The league did not immediately respond to request for comment.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Sport
- The Guardian
Rage against the machines: ignore the fury at Wimbledon, AI in sport works
We are all suckers for a good story. And there was certainly a cracking two‑parter at Wimbledon this year. First came the news that 300 line judges had been replaced by artificial intelligence robots. Then, a few days later, it turned out there were some embarrassing gremlins in the machine. Not since Roger Federer hung up his Wilson racket has there been a sweeter spot hit during the Wimbledon fortnight. First the new electronic line-judging system failed to spot that Sonay Kartal had whacked a ball long during her match against Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova – which led to the Russian losing a game she otherwise would have won. Although, ironically, it happened only because an official had accidentally switched the system off. Then a Taylor Fritz forehand was called out despite landing four feet inside the baseline. This time the system had been confused by a ballboy still being on court when the American began his serve. In truth, it was far less serious than in the Kartal one. But it didn't matter. The narrative was established. Technology was robbing us of our jobs, stealing our cherished traditions. And the twist? It also suggested that computers couldn't replace human judgment after all. Rather lost in all the outrage was the fact that Wimbledon was actually using a souped-up version of the same Hawk-Eye system that it has employed since 2007. And a couple of incidents, albeit embarrassing ones, should not make us ignore the broader reality. Technology is far better than the human eye. It makes far fewer errors. And it's not even close. Long ago, researchers estimated that line judges get around 8% of close calls wrong. But, if anything, players' judgments are far worse. When I asked IBM how often players got it right when they challenged a line call at Wimbledon last year, I expected it to be about 50/50. But of the 1,535 challenges across the men's and women's singles in 2024 just 380 – less than 25% – were overturned. In other words, when a player thought the ball was out and made a challenge, they were wrong three out of four times. And there is a wider point, which a Wimbledon official stressed to me about the use of technology in sport: sporting bodies are using it not only because players, by and large, want it, but because it protects the integrity of sport and officials too. Gone are the days when a decision went against supporters or gamblers and they shrugged their shoulders. Nowadays they abuse players and officials on social media and mutter about dark conspiracies. At the last Rugby World Cup, Wayne Barnes even spoke of receiving 'threats of sexual violence to my wife, threats of violence against my children – and you're like, is that really what sport is about?' He is far from alone. In such a fevered environment, anything that helps an official has to be a good thing. And even when referees do their best, they are unconsciously influenced by crowds. One study asked 40 qualified football referees to judge 47 incidents from a match between Liverpool and Leicester; half watched with crowd noise, the control group in silence. Those viewing the footage with crowd noise awarded significantly fewer fouls (15.5%) against Liverpool compared with those watching in silence. Another study in Norway found that successful teams were more likely to be given favourable penalty decisions. Psychologists call this influence conformity. And say what you like about machines, they are immune to that, too. Critics of technology in sport are often deeply resistant to change. They also demand perfection. But to quote Voltaire, perfect is the enemy of good. Instead, we should be asking, is the tech better and more accurate than what was in place before – and is there scope for further improvement? Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion Hawk-Eye is more accurate now than it was when it was introduced in 2007. It will continue to get better. And while there are plenty of critics of VAR, the way Fifa has used it at the World Cup and Club World Cup – with fewer delays and letting fans see the replays the officials watch – shows it can work. Let's hope the Premier League was taking notes. One thing is clear, though. More is to come. That's according to Matt Drew, who founded the integrity department at StatsPerform, a leading data and sports integrity provider. 'No system is 100% perfect, but they are demonstrably more accurate than relying purely on human decision-making,' he says. 'Sports believe that technology helps them get more decisions right and protects officials and players from abuse. The best ones – like in tennis and cricket – also balance it in a way that preserves the fan experience. And they are going to continue to use and refine it, so it becomes more accurate.' What might we see? Well, at the International Olympic Committee's artificial intelligence conference last year it showed a diver in real time, with a screen immediately telling a judge the height of his jump, the number of rotations in the air and how close his legs were to his torso as he spun. Each element of the dive was also split into sequences, with everything analysed in less than a tenth of a second. The idea was to give every judge a far better idea of the quality of the dive and be able to award a fairer score. Who would be against that? Meanwhile as the machines continue their rise, more traditions will inevitably slip away. From September, for instance, the NFL will replace its 'chain gang' of officials who walk on to the pitch to mark first downs with Hawk-Eye technology. In truth, I will miss them. But having someone guess where the ball should be placed feels far closer to the 18th century than the 21st. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Sport
- The Guardian
Rise of the machines: amid AI outrage, technology can be a force for good in sport
We are all suckers for a good story. And there was certainly a cracking two‑parter at Wimbledon this year. First came the news that 300 line judges had been replaced by artificial intelligence robots. Then, a few days later, it turned out there were some embarrassing gremlins in the machine. Not since Roger Federer hung up his Wilson racket has there been a sweeter spot hit during the Wimbledon fortnight. First the new electronic line-judging system failed to spot that Sonay Kartal had whacked a ball long during her match against Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova – which led to the Russian losing a game she otherwise would have won. Although, ironically, it happened only because an official had accidentally switched the system off. Then a Taylor Fritz forehand was called out despite landing four feet inside the baseline. This time the system had been confused by a ballboy still being on court when the American began his serve. In truth, it was far less serious than in the Kartal one. But it didn't matter. The narrative was established. Technology was robbing us of our jobs, stealing our cherished traditions. And the twist? It also suggested that computers couldn't replace human judgment after all. Rather lost in all the outrage was the fact that Wimbledon was actually using a souped-up version of the same Hawk-Eye system that it has employed since 2007. And a couple of incidents, albeit embarrassing ones, should not make us ignore the broader reality. Technology is far better than the human eye. It makes far fewer errors. And it's not even close. Long ago, researchers estimated that line judges get around 8% of close calls wrong. But, if anything, players' judgments are far worse. When I asked IBM how often players got it right when they challenged a line call at Wimbledon last year, I expected it to be about 50/50. But of the 1,535 challenges across the men's and women's singles in 2024 just 380 – less than 25% – were overturned. In other words, when a player thought the ball was out and made a challenge, they were wrong three out of four times. And there is a wider point, which a Wimbledon official stressed to me about the use of technology in sport: sporting bodies are using it not only because players, by and large, want it, but because it protects the integrity of sport and officials too. Gone are the days when a decision went against supporters or gamblers and they shrugged their shoulders. Nowadays they abuse players and officials on social media and mutter about dark conspiracies. At the last Rugby World Cup, Wayne Barnes even spoke of receiving 'threats of sexual violence to my wife, threats of violence against my children – and you're like, is that really what sport is about?' He is far from alone. In such a fevered environment, anything that helps an official has to be a good thing. And even when referees do their best, they are unconsciously influenced by crowds. One study asked 40 qualified football referees to judge 47 incidents from a match between Liverpool and Leicester; half watched with crowd noise, the control group in silence. Those viewing the footage with crowd noise awarded significantly fewer fouls (15.5%) against Liverpool compared with those watching in silence. Another study in Norway found that successful teams were more likely to be given favourable penalty decisions. Psychologists call this influence conformity. And say what you like about machines, they are immune to that, too. Critics of technology in sport are often deeply resistant to change. They also demand perfection. But to quote Voltaire, perfect is the enemy of good. Instead, we should be asking, is the tech better and more accurate than what was in place before – and is there scope for further improvement? Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion Hawk-Eye is more accurate now than it was when it was introduced in 2007. It will continue to get better. And while there are plenty of critics of VAR, the way Fifa has used it at the World Cup and Club World Cup – with fewer delays and letting fans see the replays the officials watch – shows it can work. Let's hope the Premier League was taking notes. One thing is clear, though. More is to come. That's according to Matt Drew, who founded the integrity department at StatsPerform, a leading data and sports integrity provider. 'No system is 100% perfect, but they are demonstrably more accurate than relying purely on human decision-making,' he says. 'Sports believe that technology helps them get more decisions right and protects officials and players from abuse. The best ones – like in tennis and cricket – also balance it in a way that preserves the fan experience. And they are going to continue to use and refine it, so it becomes more accurate.' What might we see? Well, at the International Olympic Committee's artificial intelligence conference last year it showed a diver in real time, with a screen immediately telling a judge the height of his jump, the number of rotations in the air and how close his legs were to his torso as he spun. Each element of the dive was also split into sequences, with everything analysed in less than a tenth of a second. The idea was to give every judge a far better idea of the quality of the dive and be able to award a fairer score. Who would be against that? Meanwhile as the machines continue their rise, more traditions will inevitably slip away. From September, for instance, the NFL will replace its 'chain gang' of officials who walk on to the pitch to mark first downs with Hawk-Eye technology. In truth, I will miss them. But having someone guess where the ball should be placed feels far closer to the 18th century than the 21st. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Sport
- The Guardian
‘It'll always need humans': former Wimbledon line judge laments the Hawk-Eye era
The cloth cap and blazer-wearing line judges of Wimbledon are as much an icon of this famous old sporting event as the manicured lawn courts. But this, the 138th tournament in its storied history, was the year SW19 took a leap into the 21st century – replacing some of their judges with an electronic line-calling system that was supposed to put an end to human error. Now, as the sun sets on this new era at Wimbledon, many of the headlines have been about just that. Mistakes have been blamed on the people operating it, much to the ire of players forced to replay points that were sabotaged by the faltering Hawk-Eye. The irony has not been lost on one former line judge. Pauline Eyre's beady eye was once trained on swerving kick serves from the likes of Jimmy Connors; this year she watched from afar, and in exasperation. 'You cannot just keep taking away anything that makes it human in order to create some kind of perfection for players who are also flawed, that's what they have to deal with, that's what sport is,' said Eyre, who worked as a line judge for 20 years, spanning 16 Wimbledon championships and 12 finals. 'Sport is about people,' she said. 'The principle is more important than the very occasional difference to one call.' In many ways, Wimbledon is falling in line with other professional tennis tournaments, including the Australian Open and US Open, which also use automated ball-tracking technology known as electronic line-calling or ELC. The French Open remains the only grand slam that still employs human line judges. Wimbledon uses the ELC provider Hawk-Eye, which has 10 cameras around the court and tracks the bound of a ball to a margin of error of 2.2mm. Previously, ELC was used as a safety backup when players had challenged calls by line judges. But at this year's debut, players were forced to replay points at crucial stages after an operator unintentionally switched off a set of cameras with one computer click. The technology has since been overhauled so that cameras cannot be turned off when the system is operational. For Eyre, it's not just the sometimes theatrical tradition of players challenging calls that is lost, or the distinctive uniform seen across the grounds, but the personnel as well. Some of the line judges, formerly numbering 300, who became court assistants are no longer putting their specialised expertise to use, she said, and for the players, there are no visual cues confirming each call on court. Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion 'It'll always need humans,' Eyre said. 'And what you've got then is humans in an underground bunker pressing buttons instead of humans standing on a court in the fresh air, visible.' During this year's tournament, Emma Raducanu expressed her disappointment that 'the calls can be so wrong' after her loss to top seed Aryna Sabalenka. Jack Draper said it was a 'shame' that the tradition of umpires was lost and said it's easier for players not having to worry about line calls. A spokesperson for the All England Club said the decision to introduce live electronic line calling was made after a significant period of consideration and consultation, and acknowledged the 'vital' role line officials played at the tournament for decades. 'For the players, it offers them the same conditions they play with on tour and, crucially, this is what the players want and expect,' the spokesperson said. 'Ultimately, live electronic line-calling is by far the most accurate way to call the lines on a tennis court, and that's why tennis has, and is, adopting this system.' What is next, wondered Eyre, whose career is now in comedy: 'Should we replace the royal box with AI? Should we replace the ball kids with a machine that will throw the ball at you?' Attending the championship for the third time, travelling from Scotland, tennis fan David Cullen said he agrees with the technology in principle, for its efficiency and reliability. Aesthetically, it was good to see the line judges on court and the interactions with players on court, contended Jane Carter, 58, outside No 1 Court. 'I would think that it would improve with use over time,' replied Cullen, 62. 'AI, unfortunately, is the way it's going to go for all sporting events,' he added, lamenting the use of VAR in football, which he said slows down the game. Standing beneath the shade of No 1 Court, Tom Mansell said the technology takes the 'fun out of it' and said the more jobs for people, the better. 'If there's going to be errors either way, then why can't it be a human making the decision?' said Mansell. 'It's a skill as well, actually, being a judge,' he added. 'We'd much rather keep that alive than lose it.'
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Sport
- The Guardian
‘It'll always need humans': former Wimbledon line judge laments the Hawk-Eye era
The cloth cap and blazer-wearing line judges of Wimbledon are as much an icon of this famous old sporting event as the manicured lawn courts. But this, the 138th tournament in its storied history, was the year SW19 took a leap into the 21st century – replacing some of their judges with an electronic line-calling system that was supposed to put an end to human error. Now, as the sun sets on this new era at Wimbledon, many of the headlines have been about just that. Mistakes have been blamed on the people operating it, much to the ire of players forced to replay points that were sabotaged by the faltering Hawk-Eye. The irony has not been lost on one former line judge. Pauline Eyre's beady eye was once trained on swerving kick serves from the likes of Jimmy Connors; this year she watched from afar, and in exasperation. 'You cannot just keep taking away anything that makes it human in order to create some kind of perfection for players who are also flawed, that's what they have to deal with, that's what sport is,' said Eyre, who worked as a line judge for 20 years, spanning 16 Wimbledon championships and 12 finals. 'Sport is about people,' she said. 'The principle is more important than the very occasional difference to one call.' In many ways, Wimbledon is falling in line with other professional tennis tournaments, including the Australian Open and US Open, which also use automated ball-tracking technology known as electronic line-calling or ELC. The French Open remains the only grand slam that still employs human line judges. Wimbledon uses the ELC provider Hawk-Eye, which has 10 cameras around the court and tracks the bound of a ball to a margin of error of 2.2mm. Previously, ELC was used as a safety backup when players had challenged calls by line judges. But at this year's debut, players were forced to replay points at crucial stages after an operator unintentionally switched off a set of cameras with one computer click. The technology has since been overhauled so that cameras cannot be turned off when the system is operational. For Eyre, it's not just the sometimes theatrical tradition of players challenging calls that is lost, or the distinctive uniform seen across the grounds, but the personnel as well. Some of the line judges, formerly numbering 300, who became court assistants are no longer putting their specialised expertise to use, she said, and for the players, there are no visual cues confirming each call on court. Sign up to The Recap The best of our sports journalism from the past seven days and a heads-up on the weekend's action after newsletter promotion 'It'll always need humans,' Eyre said. 'And what you've got then is humans in an underground bunker pressing buttons instead of humans standing on a court in the fresh air, visible.' During this year's tournament, Emma Raducanu expressed her disappointment that 'the calls can be so wrong' after her loss to top seed Aryna Sabalenka. Jack Draper said it was a 'shame' that the tradition of umpires was lost and said it's easier for players not having to worry about line calls. A spokesperson for the All England Club said the decision to introduce live electronic line calling was made after a significant period of consideration and consultation, and acknowledged the 'vital' role line officials played at the tournament for decades. 'For the players, it offers them the same conditions they play with on tour and, crucially, this is what the players want and expect,' the spokesperson said. 'Ultimately, live electronic line-calling is by far the most accurate way to call the lines on a tennis court, and that's why tennis has, and is, adopting this system.' What is next, wondered Eyre, whose career is now in comedy: 'Should we replace the royal box with AI? Should we replace the ball kids with a machine that will throw the ball at you?' Attending the championship for the third time, travelling from Scotland, tennis fan David Cullen said he agrees with the technology in principle, for its efficiency and reliability. Aesthetically, it was good to see the line judges on court and the interactions with players on court, contended Jane Carter, 58, outside No 1 Court. 'I would think that it would improve with use over time,' replied Cullen, 62. 'AI, unfortunately, is the way it's going to go for all sporting events,' he added, lamenting the use of VAR in football, which he said slows down the game. Standing beneath the shade of No 1 Court, Tom Mansell said the technology takes the 'fun out of it' and said the more jobs for people, the better. 'If there's going to be errors either way, then why can't it be a human making the decision?' said Mansell. 'It's a skill as well, actually, being a judge,' he added. 'We'd much rather keep that alive than lose it.'
