[Football] Hawkeye

[GOM]

From the link

“VAR will only be used for "clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents" in four match-changing situations:
– Goals
– Penalty decisions
– Direct red card incidents
– Mistaken identity”

Using penalty decisions as an example we have all witnessed, if the referee has made an error or misses a penalty VAR will intervene. We have all seen this happen. VAR will then say yes it’s a penalty or no. Goals are in the same list. So, by the same token last night’s VAR should have followed the same process?

Whether to give a penalty is subjective, so VAR can intervene
Goals ARE in the same list, thing is though a goal has to be awarded for it to be a goal before VAR can intervene.

 

[GOM]

Clearly and obviously, Hawkeye failed to give the referee and indication that a clear and obvious goal had been scored.

Clearly and obviously you are correct, unfortunately it's all about timing and nobody knew it had failed to giver the signal at the time.

 

[GOM]

Ultimately? There were none, but they'd have to look at a replay to know that. There was potential for an infringement by the Villa defender when he knocked into the keeper - a possible handball for example, which would be reviewable to see if a penalty should have been given - penalties are one of the four things VAR can be used to review. At which point they would have noticed the ball had clearly crossed the line and could advise the referee as such.

I've looked over the Premier League's VAR section https://www.premierleague.com/VAR and can't see where it says they won't look at goals if goals aren't awarded. (In fact, we've seen they do look - for instance when there is an assumed offside, and the ref doesn't signal a goal because of that assumption, only for the replay to show the player was onside and the goal is then awarded). Nor does it say that they can only look at footage for infringements they suspect, and if they spot something else while looking for it they have to ignore that other infringement (i.e. if they suspect offside, but when reviewing spot a foul and having to ignore the foul).

There is, according to what it on the Premier League's own website (and accepting there may be technicalities in the actual guidelines that are not published for the sake of clarity), scope for them to have awarded the goal using VAR to avoid the clear and obvious error in the goal situation.

Right so there were no infringements, so nothing for VAR to intervene with.
VAR only looks after the goal is scored to see if it can dis-allow it for offside, VAR does not do run of the mill offsides on behalf of the lino.
Curious isn't it that the rules only say what VAR will do, and says nothing about what it won't do ? Unless of course you assume that if it's not on the list of what it will do, then it won't do it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Whether to give a penalty is subjective, so VAR can intervene
Goals ARE in the same list, thing is though a goal has to be awarded for it to be a goal before VAR can intervene.

But then the paragraph doesn’t make any sense as the referee can’t “miss” a goal he has awarded. As a consequence I disagree with your interpretation.

As an aside the games board, or whatever they’re called, have said VAR could have been used.

The bottom line is this has raised a clear short coming in how the two technologies work and interact; I have no doubt this will be remedied soon.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Love to have seen the look on the Refs face when his watch went off at half time indicating a goal

 

[Seasider78]

My conversation with [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] about what constitutes a goal reminds me of a lecture I attended 44 years ago (must have been good if I remember it). The scenario is this. Chap goes in for a routine op for a serious condition but, through no fault of anyone, a sequence of freak events results in the chap dying a few minutes after being anaesthetized. This is America in the 60s. Hospital administrator (who happens also to be the surgeon) realizes there is bound to be litigation. So he sends someone to report to the family that all is going well.

After an hour he sends someone to report that there are complications.

An hour later 'there is no cause for immediate concern but things are much worse than we thought'.

And so on for 6 hours, until the family are told that unfortunately the chap didn't make it.

Because the events were managed the family accepted the tragedy.

The surgeon recounted the events to a close friend, a psyciatrist, some years later. The latter made the suggestion that those six hours between physiological death and declared death represented a period of socio-psychological death. The story was anonymised and captured in a text book, and recounted in my lecture (which was on the nature of reality).

Perhaps what we witnessed yesterday was a socio-psychological goal. It differs in substance from socio-psychological death only in that the latter is transient and after a period of time (six hours in the case above) it will transition to death, whereas a socio-psychological goal is permanent, and will never transition to being a goal in the absence of compulsory VAR.

You might be overthinking it a bit!

 

[Lower West Stander]

You are mixing up Hawkeye with VAR. Hawkeye couldn't decide if it was a goal. VAR shows it was a goal but cannot initiate a discussion with the ref because a goal wasn't given (according to [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]) which is apparently a rule. The ref has the power to ask to see the VAR, but last night the ref chose to not do so. This is either because he misunderstands the rules (doesn't know he can use VAR to check a possible Hawkeye failure), or because of a systems design failure (for example, Hawkeye has no means of letting the ref know that Hawkeye cannot make a decision on whether or not it was a goal, so the referee assumes Hawkeye is confident).

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[portslade seagull]

I wonder if it had been Liverpool whether this would have been referred to VAR

 

[Worthing exile]

Was the Assistant Referee in that corner fast asleep when the goalie fell in to the side netting?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You might be overthinking it a bit!

Maybe

But, the EPL have been underthinking it. If that had been us yesterday I'd be being accused of indifference

 

[Lenny Rider]

In these circumstances when it was so obvious I would've liked to see Villa own up to it, but some hopes.

Like Leeds did in the Championship when they scored when the lad was down injured and let Villa, managed by Dean Smith, walk a goal into the other net from the restart.

Why didn't Smith do that last night at the start of the second half as it was clear there had been a mistake?

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Love to have seen the look on the Refs face when his watch went off at half time indicating a goal

That was obviously the point when someone at Hawkeye said 'Hey - shouldn't that wire be plugged in? There you go, in now - there's one message on the queue.'

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

Love to have seen the look on the Refs face when his watch went off at half time indicating a goal

He’s not really known for his collection of mannerisms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guy Fawkes]

There weren't any VAR checks in either of the games so far, were there?

VAR would have checked all 3 goals in the Man City match

Last night was proof that VAR is a complete waste of time and has a detrimental effect on the game as we once knew it , the goal line technology I think is very good and should stay , even with last night's cock up , hopefully lessons will be learned .

But if VAR can't see what we all could see and give the goal what on earth is it for ? Armpit offsides and fingernail handballs , no thanks get rid asap .

How VAR is used for offsides varies between countries using the system, most do not use rules that mean that goals are ruled out in such close incidents as mentioned above as they use a system where it's got to be obviously offside at first glance and not needing lines and millimetre adjustments to work out if it should stand or be ruled out

The rules we have here were selected before the season started because they thought it would make it easier to use the VAR system, and clearly they will review and adjust the rules around how VAR is used for these types of incidents for every season to try to improve it

Like most changes to the game, things get tweaked and improved and we will get to a point where most of the issues with the system will be ironed out and it will work far better given time (from a fans point of view)

You're missing the point of this thread. If Hawkeye fails, the refs should be aleterd.

It wasn't a question of Hawkeye incorrectly saying the ball wasn't over the line - the cameras were obscured, so there were no images. That is why we weren't shown the usual graphic.

Because Hawkeye isn't infallible, the Premier League should have planned for these kinds of situations. The ref and VAR refs should receive a signal to say whether Hawkeye is triggered or not. If not, VAR should intervene.

It's a very simple technological solution. The Premier League is negligent.

They surely tested the system before the game started to see if it worked. If successful, why would they think it would have failed during the match?

If, as others said on the thread, the ref got a signal that a goal should have been awarded when he left the pitch at half time, the issue could have been something like a fault with the watch meaning it was out of range from whatever transmits to it whilst the ref was on the pitch, and only alerted him once back in range. Or it (the watch) had run out of charge and it only alerted him once he started charging it again at half time when he was in his dressing room) - or one of a thousand other possible causes

How would anyone know it failed to say that VAR officials have to take over and check

How can hawkeye conform it was a goal now but not at the time? I agree they have confirmed it was a goal.

This is a cock up of majestic proportions. Seven cameras and some guys, one who presses the buzzer if it is a goal. What the acual **** were they doing last night? And what made them take another look at it later and admit they'd ballsed it up? It sounds like the Hawkeye guys were all YTS last night, probably watch porn on their phones rather than looking at their game feed. Pathetic.

As i suggest above, the watch not receiving the signal was possibly the issue, not the system automatically detecting the goal and trying to alert the ref (given the usual speed of the decision, it's surely more likely to be an automated system rather than a manual system of pressing a buzzer to tell the ref to award it

the fault lies with footballing authorities that introduced technology without proper contingency and removing responsibility from the officials.

if not already mentioned, this could simply be avoided by testing the goal line tech pre-game just as they check the nets.

Surely they already test this pre-match and may well have tested it and found it to be working, but that doesn't stop a system from failing during the game as no system is foolproof

That's my point! They should know.

VAR is watching the game. There is a possible goal. There are three things that can happen with Hawkeye:

It sees the ball is over the line
It sees the ball isn't over the line
It doesn't know because its cameras can't see the ball.

The third one is what has happened - that is why the usual graphic wasn't displayed (the fact this was the case, means the ref and VAR would have known that Hawkeye had failed).

So VAR need to have an alert to say the Hawkeye cameras have been triggered. If they don't receive the alert, they need to check it themselves.

It's really straightforward. Just a case of the Premier League not considering this scenario. Hawkeye will know that there are very rare occasions when it won't work, but the PL didn't plan for this.

They have reviewed VAR decisions made during the season and concluded that there were still mistakes made by the VAR officials as it still relies on humans to interpret things and decide, and different officials will reach different conclusions based on the same footage and award different outcomes.

It could simply have been that the VAR officials didn't look closely and only gave it a cursory glance because they trusted the Hawkeye system to have already made the correct decision so it's a failure of the officials using the system and not necessarily the system itself

Another thing I don't understand: The failure of the Hawkeye system would have been known at half-time. They could have asked VAR to check if it was a goal and the ref could then have asked Villa, as a gesture of sportsmanship, to let Sheffield United walk a goal in on the restart. Why didn't that happen?

Or simply VAR award the goal at half time (as it was so close to half time (42nd minute))

What infringements were there ? VAR does not look for a ball crossing a line, goal or sideline.

Ultimately? There were none, but they'd have to look at a replay to know that. There was potential for an infringement by the Villa defender when he knocked into the keeper - a possible handball for example, which would be reviewable to see if a penalty should have been given - penalties are one of the four things VAR can be used to review. At which point they would have noticed the ball had clearly crossed the line and could advise the referee as such.

I've looked over the Premier League's VAR section https://www.premierleague.com/VAR and can't see where it says they won't look at goals if goals aren't awarded. (In fact, we've seen they do look - for instance when there is an assumed offside, and the ref doesn't signal a goal because of that assumption, only for the replay to show the player was onside and the goal is then awarded). Nor does it say that they can only look at footage for infringements they suspect, and if they spot something else while looking for it they have to ignore that other infringement (i.e. if they suspect offside, but when reviewing spot a foul and having to ignore the foul).

There is, according to what it on the Premier League's own website (and accepting there may be technicalities in the actual guidelines that are not published for the sake of clarity), scope for them to have awarded the goal using VAR to avoid the clear and obvious error in the goal situation.

A handball by a defender isn't an automatic penalty, it was pretty obvious that if there was contact with the ball, it was accidental and not preventing a goal so no real reason to review to see if a penalty should have been awarded (clear and obvious comes into play here and as it was the keeper and defender in isolation at the back post and the ball traveled from the free-kick taker straight into the keepers hands, what would they have to look for? the ball was over hit and any attacking runners being held, etc wouldn't have mattered as the keeper always had it due to the height / distance on the delivery).

There was no attacking player close to the defender or keeper when they collided and no need to review for offside as no one was challenging for the ball and therefore affecting the keeper, or changing the flight of the ball from the free kick

This means that VAR would only need to look to make sure it crossed the line or not in this instance, and clearly the officials didn't look closely at it, most likely because they assumed that the Hawkeye system had answered that question and didn't take the time or level of care needed to reach the right decision (it's only as good as those operating it)

 

[drew]

VAR would have checked all 3 goals in the Man City match



How VAR is used for offsides varies between countries using the system, most do not use rules that mean that goals are ruled out in such close incidents as mentioned above as they use a system where it's got to be obviously offside at first glance and not needing lines and millimetre adjustments to work out if it should stand or be ruled out

The rules we have here were selected before the season started because they thought it would make it easier to use the VAR system, and clearly they will review and adjust the rules around how VAR is used for these types of incidents for every season to try to improve it

Like most changes to the game, things get tweaked and improved and we will get to a point where most of the issues with the system will be ironed out and it will work far better given time (from a fans point of view)



They surely tested the system before the game started to see if it worked. If successful, why would they think it would have failed during the match?

If, as others said on the thread, the ref got a signal that a goal should have been awarded when he left the pitch at half time, the issue could have been something like a fault with the watch meaning it was out of range from whatever transmits to it whilst the ref was on the pitch, and only alerted him once back in range. Or it (the watch) had run out of charge and it only alerted him once he started charging it again at half time when he was in his dressing room) - or one of a thousand other possible causes

How would anyone know it failed to say that VAR officials have to take over and check



As i suggest above, the watch not receiving the signal was possibly the issue, not the system automatically detecting the goal and trying to alert the ref (given the usual speed of the decision, it's surely more likely to be an automated system rather than a manual system of pressing a buzzer to tell the ref to award it



Surely they already test this pre-match and may well have tested it and found it to be working, but that doesn't stop a system from failing during the game as no system is foolproof



They have reviewed VAR decisions made during the season and concluded that there were still mistakes made by the VAR officials as it still relies on humans to interpret things and decide, and different officials will reach different conclusions based on the same footage and award different outcomes.

It could simply have been that the VAR officials didn't look closely and only gave it a cursory glance because they trusted the Hawkeye system to have already made the correct decision so it's a failure of the officials using the system and not necessarily the system itself



Or simply VAR award the goal at half time (as it was so close to half time (42nd minute))





A handball by a defender isn't an automatic penalty, it was pretty obvious that if there was contact with the ball, it was accidental and not preventing a goal so no real reason to review to see if a penalty should have been awarded (clear and obvious comes into play here and as it was the keeper and defender in isolation at the back post and the ball traveled from the free-kick taker straight into the keepers hands, what would they have to look for? the ball was over hit and any attacking runners being held, etc wouldn't have mattered as the keeper always had it due to the height / distance on the delivery).

There was no attacking player close to the defender or keeper when they collided and no need to review for offside as no one was challenging for the ball and therefore affecting the keeper, or changing the flight of the ball from the free kick

This means that VAR would only need to look to make sure it crossed the line or not in this instance, and clearly the officials didn't look closely at it, most likely because they assumed that the Hawkeye system had answered that question and didn't take the time or level of care needed to reach the right decision (it's only as good as those operating it)

Pretty much agree with all these points. The blame, as I see it, rests with the match officials. Oliver would have been unsighted but the linesman would have seen there could be an issue but they were over confident of the infallibility of the Hawkeye system. The lino and/or the video ref should have alerted Oliver.

 

[ac gull]

Rules is rules culture of the modern world re computer says yes / no means that there is no room for common sense to be applied anymore whatever the situation

If computer / whatever system says it is what the answer is then is deemed correct - even if as last night it clearly is not

If VAR is in operation - then surely the ref can just decide to go and watch the video and check - oh sorry forgot rules says he couldn't do this as its a goal only if computer says so even if blindingly obvious that the computer is wrong

The joys of the modern world!

 

[Bodian]

Or it (the watch) had run out of charge and it only alerted him once he started charging it again at half time when he was in his dressing room)

Maybe he forgot to wind it up?

 

[zefarelly]

Maybe he forgot to wind it up?

Maybe PL football is just a wind up. . . .

 

[ac gull]

There is gona be a "review"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53096686

Surely just a catch all clause in VAR that when an obvious error suspected re no matter what then ref can ask to watch the video back and decide for himself

 

[AZ Gull]

They surely tested the system before the game started to see if it worked. If successful, why would they think it would have failed during the match?

If, as others said on the thread, the ref got a signal that a goal should have been awarded when he left the pitch at half time, the issue could have been something like a fault with the watch meaning it was out of range from whatever transmits to it whilst the ref was on the pitch, and only alerted him once back in range. Or it (the watch) had run out of charge and it only alerted him once he started charging it again at half time when he was in his dressing room) - or one of a thousand other possible causes

How would anyone know it failed to say that VAR officials have to take over and check

As i suggest above, the watch not receiving the signal was possibly the issue, not the system automatically detecting the goal and trying to alert the ref (given the usual speed of the decision, it's surely more likely to be an automated system rather than a manual system of pressing a buzzer to tell the ref to award it

Surely they already test this pre-match and may well have tested it and found it to be working, but that doesn't stop a system from failing during the game as no system is foolproof




Or simply VAR award the goal at half time (as it was so close to half time (42nd minute))


This means that VAR would only need to look to make sure it crossed the line or not in this instance, and clearly the officials didn't look closely at it, most likely because they assumed that the Hawkeye system had answered that question and didn't take the time or level of care needed to reach the right decision (it's only as good as those operating it)

I think people have got the wrong end of the stick about the reports of the ref getting the goal signal when he left the pitch at half-time. This report clearly indicates that the system was working at half-time when subs were "scoring" goals in their kickabout (ie the signals were from current events, not from the incident during the match).

Sportsmail has been told the technology was working throughout the game and that Oliver's watch was even indicating 'goal' during half-time when substitutes were shooting into the net, as happens on the watch.

The Hawkeye system didn't actually fail, as such (in the sense that some or all of the technology broke or lost power or couldn't receive a signal); it was simply that this was that one scenario (in 10,000, or whatever) that the cameras simply didn't have the line of sight necessary in order to correctly identify the ball as being fully over the line. Assuming the Hawkeye company have never claimed to the PL that the system is absolutely 100% effective, then the onus falls on the PL/PMGOL to decide how to manage those extremely rare occasions when Hawkeye cannot deliver the necessary "goal" signal.

NBC reported yesterday that there were 69 seconds from the moment the ball crossed the line to the next break in play. That was obviously more than enough time for the VAR to view the available images and mention to the ref on the pitch that it was at least worthy of further review. It is this part of the system which completely failed (probably, as I think [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] has mentioned, because everyone has assumed Hawkeye IS 100% effective and therefore should be taken as gospel in every single instance). It is a systemic failure of the VAR system.

And, of course they couldn't award the goal after the fact (ie at half-time) - they could only have done that if the action had immediately preceded the final stoppage, the half-time whistle.