hi. @missingvettel - Tumblr Blog

#I refuse to make a list without seb that is insanity to me #ok I dropped the list I made yesterday cause it's fun #personal stuff #tier list

"Ce n'est même pas la victoire qui me fait plaisir, mais de jouer avec de tels coéquipiers, ce staff et cette direction." "Je n'ai pas les mots, j'aime trop ce club !" 💙❤️⭐⭐

#PSG #5min of pure happiness

#still can't believe iiiiiiiitttttttt #we got twooOoOOO!!!!!! ❤️💙#PSG

My TL used to fawn over every crumb and now it's a graveyard. He killed us all.

heartsoftruth

I always want to learn more about different car cultures around the world and this one’s been on my list for a long time. Getting to drive a lowrider and spend time with the people that honour them and work to keep the culture alive was a sick experience. Shout out to the team on this, full video on YT.

heartsoftruth

frereamour

lowrider ~

feraltwinkseb

March 27, 2011 - Melbourne, Australia

The argument has never been "the umpire can't be wrong." Of course an umpire can be wrong. But the fact that an umpire might be wrong doesn't automatically mean Hawk-Eye is right. It just means the two disagree.

And on clay specifically, there's also the ball mark. That's what makes this debate different from hard courts. You're not choosing between a human opinion and nothing; you're comparing an electronic reconstruction with a physical mark left on the court. People often go for the "Humans make mistakes, so use Hawk-Eye" argument. Sure, but Hawk-Eye isn't measuring the bounce directly either? It's a very sophisticated estimate based on camera tracking, and it has its own margin of error. The whole question is which evidence should be trusted most when they conflict...

This debate keeps coming back not because Roland Garros is stubborn or living in the past, but because even players don't always trust the technology on clay. We've seen multiple pros challenge electronic calls when they believed the mark showed something different. That doesn't prove Hawk-Eye was wrong, but it does show the issue isn't as clear-cut as some people make it sound. The way some fans talk about it, every disagreement is automatically proof that the umpire got it wrong. But if the mark, the umpire, and Hawk-Eye don't agree, then all we really know is that at least one of them is wrong. The difficult part is deciding which one.

And what gets lost in these discussions is that most of these controversial calls are extremely close. They're often within the margin of error of both the technology and the human interpretation of the mark. In those situations, it's far too easy to simply declare Hawk-Eye correct by default. That's not a conclusion, it's an assumption. When the disagreement is only a few millimetres, saying Hawk-Eye must be right is often just choosing to trust the technology, not proving that the technology was right....

The debate isn't whether Hawk-Eye is generally accurate, it clearly is. The debate is whether, on a clay court where a physical mark exists, the electronic reconstruction should always override what can be seen on the surface.

#roland garros 2026 #just mean to say it's not as clear-cut as some try to make it sound when it comes to clay