New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe