Hawk Eye Is Not As Infallible As People Think - 3808 Words

Section 1: Introduction Hawk-eye is a simulation which is provided by numerous cameras. By tracking the flight of the ball and projecting its path, Hawk-eye is able to triangulate the ball’s potential location. Sport has been notable throughout the years of attempting to eliminate human error using technology, in order to deliver fair sport to the public. The brand has continued to grow extremely quickly, and is synonymous with modern day sport. Initially used in Cricket at the turn of the century, it has spread to numerous sports, most recently football. Whilst both are at differing ends of the spectrum, in terms of experience in the game, they draw huge contention within the media and amongst players. Fallibility is a matter discussed widely in sport, and not just in Tennis. This report will thoroughly examine the article 1by Suzi Gage and discuss the claim presented that Hawk-eye is not as infallible as people think. Therefore, the accuracy of Hawk-eye, its weaknesses and any potential advances th at would help progress the technology used in sport will be discussed. Gage bases most of her article findings on the journal by Harry Collins and Robert Evans2 and the Hawk-eye website3, both of which will be thoroughly scrutinised in order to best determine the validity of the claim. Section 2: Stats (Investigating the insufficient stats behind the workings of hawkeye)( Perhaps the most pertinent statistic mentioned by Gage in her article1 is the claim that Hawk-eye is accurateShow MoreRelatedDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 Pageschallenges, including: â€Å"How can I help others accept new goals, new ideas, new approaches?† â€Å"How can I invigorate those who feel outdated and left behind?† â€Å"How do I help the ‘survivors’ of a downsizing pick up the pieces and move on?† â€Å"How do I help people with very different agendas and philosophies work together, especially during periods of high stress and uncertainty?† Anyone tempted to dismissively argue that the answers to these questions are â€Å"common sense† would do well to recall Will Rogers’