[Football] Hawkeye

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

No. It's still in use(less)

Thanks.

Edit: what I wrote about goal line technology below is wrong - I just read that it actually is simply a camera job (seven of them), So they SHOULD have done a VAR check. What a shit shower. My Lord Denning comment, therefore, stands.

https://twitter.com/Hawkeye_view/st...9?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

My understanding about the game yesterday is the goal line tech, which does not need to see the ball - it is some sort of telemetry - did not set off the alarm in the referees earpiece meaning the ball cannot have crossed the line. Listening on the radio, folk said they were almost certain the ball crossed the line but couldn't be sure. In contrast, VAR is not done by telementry - it is done by video.

I presume the ref has absolute faith in goal line technology and why not? He would have deduced 'nothing to see here' and that a VAR check would not have been done becaise that would have been absurd.

A bit of a Lord Denning situation (meaning that it seems they feel a VAR check should not be done to check goal line technology because it would be a catastrophe if goal line technology had failed, and knowing that would not be in the national interest).

 

[monty uk]

3 officials on the field and two supporting technologies and still the wrong decision made. A farce really especially in a game with so much riding on it for the two teams involved

And possibly for us if it gives Villa an extra point, and therefore position, at the end of the season. Our goal difference would put us above Villa on equal points.

Could be costly.

 

[southstandandy]

What I don't get about last night's decision is that Hawkeye are saying their cameras were obscured and couldn't spot where the ball was. This is presumably why we didn't get the usual graphic showing whether the ball was over the line. But the VAR refs can see there is a possible goal - in those circumstances they should be able to check whether Hawkeye has been triggered. If not, they need to make the decision themselves. This is a really simple technological fix. It's basically a failure of the Premier League, who didn't consider what would happen if Hawkeye fails (they must have known it was possible).

Toatlly agree, but this is where VAR is completely useless. Apparently they can assist with the removal of a goal 'wrongly' given but can't intervene in the rare case (as per last night) in giving a goal that was incorrectly missed. If VAR is to be effective they have to change this part of the process.

 

[Acker79]

Why would they think the system has failed and the whole ball hasn't crossed line?

There was no reason to doubt Hawkeye - even with images

They review the whole game. They are suppose to look for red cards, penalties, goals. There was a crush of players around the ball (looks to me like one of the villa players accidentally nudges the keeper into the goal). What if one of the villa players used their hands to make sure the keeper kept control of it? They should have been reviewing the footage as a matter of course - then when they review the footage they see the whole of the ball goes over the whole of the line.

There is no excuse. GLT doesn't absolve VAR of checking goal mouth action for any other infringements.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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

None in the one I watched (Citeh). There agian I don't think there were any ambiguous moments.

I also suspect that if VAR isn't being used we wouldn't have been told.

 

[GT49er]

On another thread someone said VAR is not beig used for the rest of the season. Any truth in this? I will look it up now.

Edit: reported on CNN and in the Mirror that the EPL was given the green light to scrap VAR by UEFA on May 8, and met to discuss this on May 9, but I can't find the verdict....yet

No, all I see is stuff from May 8 that VAR 'could be suspended'. I can only assume it hasn't been

The main effect of VAR so far has been to kill the spontaneous celebration of a goal, and to irritate the crowd by keeping them hanging around, wondering whether to cheer or not. As there is now no crowd to irritate, there doesn't seem much point in having VAR.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thanks.

My understanding about the game yesterday is the goal line tech, which does not need to see the ball - it is some sort of telemetry - did not set off the alarm in the referees earpiece meaning the ball cannot have crossed the line. Listening on the radio, folk said they were almost certain the ball crossed the line but couldn't be sure. In contrast, VAR is not done by telementry - it is done by video.

I presume the ref has absolute faith in goal line technology and why not? He would have deduced 'nothing to see here' and that a VAR check would not have been done becaise that would have been absurd.

A bit of a Lord Denning situation (meaning that it seems they feel a VAR check should not be done to check goal line technology because it would be a catastrophe if goal line technology had failed, and knowing that would not be in the national interest).

I can understand the ref’s decision to trust Hawkeye; this is all he has aside from his eyes...if he couldn’t be sure with his eyes and Hawkeye didn’t give it..he can’t give it. But Regarding the VAR check, my brother and myself instantly questioned the decision from the tv pictures. Until now we have had the same faith in Hawkeye as the ref and the VAR...which has been close to 100%.

If we felt something was wrong, why then didn’t VAR? A very quick video rewind would have shown it was a goal, then a quick shout to the ref, problem resolved. The issue for me is more VAR’s lack of intervention. After all, this was a perfect example of a “clear and obvious error.”

 

[Nathan]

I just think the officials had total faith in the technology as, I believe, it had never given a false negative (nor a false positive).

It's very unfortunate it happened in the way it did, but you can be sure that there will be talks to prevent reoccurrence.

I think you are right, they had faith in the technology. But if there is chance a player could get in the way of one of the 7 cameras, there must be an element of doubt each time it doesn't go off, the ref must think (even if it is for a very split second) I wonder if the camera was obstructed by a player. Why not double check it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I just think the officials had total faith in the technology as, I believe, it had never given a false negative (nor a false positive).

It's very unfortunate it happened in the way it did, but you can be sure that there will be talks to prevent reoccurrence.

The only 'solution' is to increase the number of cameras.

But I doubt that would make any difference at all. If 7 cameras cannot see the ball then 70 cameras won't either, because the 7 will have all the angles covered.

They could insist on checking every goal by VAR, but the technology is exactly the same as hawkeye - it uses cameras.

What they should do (and this is how naive me assumed hawkeye worked) is to put a couple small markers inside the ball (3 will do but 5 would be lovely) each with a different radio signature, and radio image the ball. However, given that this is the first time Hawkeye has failed, there is no evident need for such an upgrade.

If Villa stay up on goal difference or by one point, and we finish 3rd to bottom . . . .imagine the scenes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think you are right, they had faith in the technology. But if there is chance a player could get in the way of one of the 7 cameras, there must be an element of doubt each time it doesn't go off, the ref must think (even if it is for a very split second) I wonder if the camera was obstructed by a player. Why not double check it.

Because what 7 Hawkeye cameras fail to see cannot be clarified by using 4 or 5 TV cameras. My understanding is the TV footage does not prove the ball crossed the lone.

 

[JJ McClure]

So other than the statement from Hawkeye has there actually been anything from PGMOL or whatever they're called or are they just hiding as usual?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I can understand the ref’s decision to trust Hawkeye; this is all he has aside from his eyes...if he couldn’t be sure with his eyes and Hawkeye didn’t give it..he can’t give it. But Regarding the VAR check, my brother and myself instantly questioned the decision from the tv pictures. Until now we have had the same faith in Hawkeye as the ref and the VAR...which has been close to 100%.

If we felt something was wrong, why then didn’t VAR? A very quick video rewind would have shown it was a goal, then a quick shout to the ref, problem resolved. The issue for me is more VAR’s lack of intervention. After all, this was a perfect example of a “clear and obvious error.”

You are 100% sure of that are you? I haven't seen the footage. Is there a link?

If this is correct then I don't understand how 7 Hawkeye cameras failed to give the goal.

Edit I just looked on line and all I see are still on the Sky page and comments about 'appears' to have crossed the line. No proof.

Clearly keepers should be made to not weave a towel or whatever that is into the netting, potentially obscuring a Hawkeye camera, though

 

[doogie004]

3 officials on the field and two supporting technologies and still the wrong decision made. A farce really especially in a game with so much riding on it for the two teams involved

Not just the two teams playing what about Watford , West Ham , Brighton and Norwich one of these teams could go down instead of villa by a point !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[southstandandy]

I can understand the ref’s decision to trust Hawkeye; this is all he has aside from his eyes...if he couldn’t be sure with his eyes and Hawkeye didn’t give it..he can’t give it. But Regarding the VAR check, my brother and myself instantly questioned the decision from the tv pictures. Until now we have had the same faith in Hawkeye as the ref and the VAR...which has been close to 100%.

If we felt something was wrong, why then didn’t VAR? A very quick video rewind would have shown it was a goal, then a quick shout to the ref, problem resolved. The issue for me is more VAR’s lack of intervention. After all, this was a perfect example of a “clear and obvious error.”

As mentioned above VAR can intervene to rule out a goal wrongly given, but per the VAR rules cannot be used to give a goal that has been wrongly missed (however rare) - it's being covered in the papers today that this rule change needs to be amended so that in such occasions as last night (although extremely rare) that they can inform the ref that the goal should have stood. Stupid as it is - they are currently not allowed to overide a call such as last night's. Expect this to be addressed at the next VAR review panel.

 

[Bodian]

None in the one I watched (Citeh). There agian I don't think there were any ambiguous moments.

I also suspect that if VAR isn't being used we wouldn't have been told.

I thought VAR checked and confirmed every goal and sending off - whether it was ambiguous or not? Maybe the cameras just didn't bother panning to the big screens as there was no crowd (maybe the big screens weren't therefore in use?)

 

[Bozza]

They could insist on checking every goal by VAR, but the technology is exactly the same as hawkeye - it uses cameras.

Every goal is checked by VAR, although many are just cursory as there are no obvious points of contention, so by the time the players have celebrated and returned ready for kick-off, the check is complete and we don't even know it has happened.

The problem is this was a non-goal.

 

[doogie004]

There has been 1 error in how many years?

Its still the best thing we have by a mile.

I see some are blaming the match officials/VAR - why would they doubt a previously perfect system?

Agree nobody wanted to ever see a Frank lampard goal that wasn’t ever again and yet that’s what we got .It seems so simple to of got it right (var check ) and yet stupid laws about when to use it stops it ludicrous. As usual with this country reacting instead of being proactive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

You are 100% sure of that are you? I haven't seen the footage. Is there a link?

If this is correct then I don't understand how 7 Hawkeye cameras failed to give the goal.

Edit I just looked on line and all I see are still on the Sky page and comments about 'appears' to have crossed the line. No proof.

Clearly keepers should be made to not weave a towel or whatever that is into the netting, potentially obscuring a Hawkeye camera, though

The tv showed a few angles, the one from the byline was particularly compelling and showed the ball was over the line. Hawkeye has also confirmed it crossed the line. Given their 7 cameras didn’t spot I presume they were either using the same feed as me, or the VAR, or a lying about their cameras. Either way, the video evidence is out there somewhere.

 

[Notters]

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

 

[southstandandy]

Every goal is checked by VAR, although many are just cursory as there are no obvious points of contention, so by the time the players have celebrated and returned ready for kick-off, the check is complete and we don't even know it has happened.

The problem is this was a non-goal.

Correct - it wasn't given so wouldn't be reviewed.