Hawk-Eye, the sophisticated instant-replay system used in Grand Slam tennis matches on show courts, uses cameras and computer simulations to show where tennis balls land. It's used as the final word on accepted calls, and the New York Times says it has "won over players, fans and officials." Maybe so, but it hasn't won over Salon tech writer Farhad Manjoo.
The Times sings Hawk-Eye's praises and notes that tennis's clay-court appeals process, in which an umpire can overrule a call based on marks the ball makes in the clay, have allowed the system to be implemented with little controversy. The Post, though, bemoans the technology. It blames the machine for the absence, in contemporary tennis, of fits of emotion akin to John McEnroe's famous outbursts, and says "technology can introduce as much uncertainty as it solves," because machines can get calls wrong, too.
Indeed, they canbut that's no reason not to use them. If Hawk-Eye, and other instant-replay systems, can increase the accuracy of calls, then that's all that matters, provided everyone is subject to the same rules. To say an improvement isn't an improvement just because it's imperfect is not only illogical; it goes against the very idea of progress.
Comment Rules
The following HTML is allowed in comments:
Bold: <b>Text</b>
Italic: <i>Text</i>
Link:
<a href="URL">Text</a>