Working Knowledge: Tennis Hawkeye—In or Out?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A new participant has taken center court at major tennis tournaments: Hawkeye, a tracking system that sees whether a ball lands inside, outside or partly on a line.

Hawkeye’s 10 video cameras feed 24 gigabytes of data to video-processing software that tracks the real-time position of every serve and shot. Television broadcasters began using the system in 2002 to enhance commentary. In March 2006 the NASDAQ-100 Open became the first tournament on the professional circuit to allow players to challenge an umpire’s line call, with the final decision settled by a review official after consulting Hawkeye.

This year all Grand Slam and Masters tournaments not played on clay are using this arrangement. Each player is allowed two challenges per set of play. Some stadiums show a computer-generated replay from Hawkeye during an umpire’s review, engaging the crowd. Thus far Hawkeye has overturned 33 to 40 percent of challenged calls, according to Paul Hawkins, who invented the system and founded Hawkeye Innovations in Winchester, England.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Hawkins, an engineer with a doctorate in artificial intelligence who specializes in visual processing, first developed the system for cricket. TV commentators use it to analyze pitches toward the batsman. But cricket organizations have not adopted the system for challenges. “It’s a cultural issue,” Hawkins says, adding that Major League Baseball also has not shown interest because a home-plate umpire’s calling of balls and strikes is so central to the game.

Many top tennis players say they like Hawk­eye because it makes calls more accurate. Umpires say it takes a little pressure off them as serves and other shots get faster and faster. Fans seem to like the drama that challenges create. Setup and operation of Hawkeye can run from $40,000 to $50,000 a week per court, but stadium owners are attracting companies such as Canon and Sony to sponsor the amenity.

With a few adjustments, Hawkeye could call every shot live, eliminating line umpires altogether by sounding a tone when a ball lands out of bounds. “But no one is asking for that because they are concerned it would make the game too sterile,” Hawkins says. “As a sports fan, I would have to say it would be bad for the game. At the moment, we have a nice balance between the human and the technical.”

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti
Scientific American Magazine Vol 297 Issue 1This article was published with the title “In or Out?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 297 No. 1 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican072007-4drHHPcSBAdGehiuxhJxNj

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe