[Football] Hawkeye

[beorhthelm]

The fault lies with Oliver and the lino on the right hand side. The lino should have been able to see that the ball was over the line or at least that there was doubt. He should have alerted Oliver and they could have got VAR to take a look (also think VAR should have let them know there was an issue which, I think they could do based on the following from the EPL website.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297438

I have some sympathy, as Bozza alluded to, they have become reliant on the GLT technology which has never been wrong before.

Oliver just waved people away and pointed to the watch!!!

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.

 

[Bozza]

Couldn't agree more - but until they change this stupid rule to say that VAR can intervene in the event of Hawk Eye failing to register, we'll be stuck with it. Technically they followed the VAR guidelines to the current letter of the law, but to me common sence should ultimately have prevailed as you could see the guys in the VAR room acknowledging the error but not being 'allowed' to inform the ref under the existing guidelines. Expect this to be amended very quickly.

The suggestion is VAR could have intervened...

However, under the laws of football, the video assistant referee was allowed to review the incident, despite the obstruction caused by Nyland.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] confirmed the VAR was "able to check goal situations"​

....from >>> https://www.skysports.com/football/...-pgmol-insists-there-will-be-no-review-of-var

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're posting lots of general stuff about VAR which, with respect, illustrates that you don't know how it really works.

You've already said VAR doesn't check all goals. As I've said: they are, backed up by the PL: "All goals scored in the Premier League will automatically be checked by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR)."

You've now mentioned the referee calling for a VAR check. Again, this isn't how it works. For factual decisions, VAR informs the referee if there is a reason to change his onfield decision, the referee does not request a review.

Back to me. I didn't say "VAR does not check nongoals" - I have no idea on that point. What I said was that, as above, VAR DOES check every goal (you didn't think they did) so, in this instance, this would not have been checked under the "check every goal" procedure, as it wasn't given as a goal on the field.

Yes, OK sorry for that. It is easy to be imprecise. What I means was the 'goal' last night was not confirmed to the referee by VAR as a goal. So it hardly matters if VAR checks all goals or not if it doesn't initiate a conversation with the referee. To me the concept of checking a goal includes communicating to the referee that the ball did or did not cross the line. Yesterday this did not happen, so VAR did not complete a full check of the 'goal' by communicating any information to the referee. Apparently this is the correct current procedure.

When I said VAR doesn't check all goals, that was imprecise. I meant (as you surely realise) that VAR does not check all incidents that may or may not be a goal after the referee has declared it isn't a goal, but which we may find, by TV replay or whatever was actually a situation where the ball legally crossed the goal line and according to the laws should have been designated a goal. We normally, albeit inaccurately call such things 'goals'. A check is not a check if after looking and seeing an incorrect decision has been made by the referee this fact is not communicated to the referee unless the referee asks VAR to do so. To call it a check would be pedantry. It is a bit like the conversation we hear a million times where a handball or offside decision is given, and we can see the decision was wrong, and we say 'that wasn't offside'. Well, if it was given, it was offside, even though the decision was wrong. I apologies for having used imprecise shorthand.

However you appear to have have actually confirmed that VAR does not check every non goal by your own statement

I don't think we are actually in any disagreement about the rules or what happened yesterday, although you could argue that since you have disagreed with me, we must be in disagreement by definition .

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

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.

How do they know Hawkeye failed? How does the ref/VAR team know it has?

I dont think there has been any other cases of it not working ?

 

[kevo]

How do they know Hawkeye failed? How does the ref/VAR team know it has?

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.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Having carefully considered all the various inputs, reminded myself of the technological details of the Hawkeye system, reviewed the Laws of the game, referred to the PL & FA websites, reviewed in detail the terms of reference for VAR, and listened to expert opinion, I have reached a two-part conclusion:

1. If last night's decision turns out not to affect our league status: couldn't really give a f.
2. If last night's decision turns out to mean we get relegated instead of Villa by a point: Villa need to lose the grossly unjust extra point they have cheated their way to getting.

 

[kevo]

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?

 

[GOM]

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.

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

 

[Goldstone1976]

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?

£120m?

 

[Dick Head]

[TWEET]1273331349441650689[/TWEET]

 

[Fungus]

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.

So really it's Option 4 - Hawkeye knows but doesn't tell anyone?

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

VAR is there to correct clear and obvious errors. Everybody could see but hawkeye and the officials.
It was a little concerning reading in the statement that the camera could have been obscured by a player or a goalpost

 

[GOM]

Agree it wouldn’t be reviewed as a goal, but surely this comes under “clear and obvious error” and could have been reviewed as such?

Clear and obvious is only used for subjective decisions, not for checking Hawkeye.

There is an awful lot of people on this thread saying how VAR SHOULD work, but an lot of lack of knowledge as to how IT DOES work https://www.premierleague.com/VAR

 

[Acker79]

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Clear and obvious is only used for subjective decisions, not for checking Hawkeye.

There is an awful lot of people on this thread saying how VAR SHOULD work, but an lot of lack of knowledge as to how IT DOES work https://www.premierleague.com/VAR

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?

 

[Yoda]

Clear and obvious is only used for subjective decisions, not for checking Hawkeye.

There is an awful lot of people on this thread saying how VAR SHOULD work, but an lot of lack of knowledge as to how IT DOES work https://www.premierleague.com/VAR

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

 

[Bozza]

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?

I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding between me and my learned friend [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION]. I said "VAR reviews all goals". HWT says "VAR doesn't review all goals".

My definition of a goal, and the one I believe is used by the Premier League in your list above, is where a goal is awarded on the field of play by the referee. This wasn't one of those, so didn't go through the same review process. I now think HWT probably meant "VAR doesn't review all goals or possible goals".

However, in the Sky link I posted above somewhere - text below - it has been confirmed that VAR could have reviewed this incident but didn't do so...

However, under the laws of football, the video assistant referee was allowed to review the incident, despite the obstruction caused by Nyland.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] confirmed the VAR was "able to check goal situations" but did not intervene after "on field match officials did not receive a signal".​

...it's difficult to know how to interpret that, but one interpretation is that VAR didn't intervene as a goal was not given by the referee having been alerted by Hawkeye.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding between me and my learned friend [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION]. I said "VAR reviews all goals". HWT says "VAR doesn't review all goals".

My definition of a goal, and the one I believe is used by the Premier League in your list above, is where a goal is awarded on the field of play by the referee. This wasn't one of those, so didn't go through the same review process. I now think HWT probably meant "VAR doesn't review all goals or possible goals".

However, in the Sky link I posted above somewhere - text below - it has been confirmed that VAR could have reviewed this incident but didn't do so...

However, under the laws of football, the video assistant referee was allowed to review the incident, despite the obstruction caused by Nyland.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] confirmed the VAR was "able to check goal situations" but did not intervene after "on field match officials did not receive a signal".​

...it's difficult to know how to interpret that, but one interpretation is that VAR didn't intervene as a goal was not given by the referee having been alerted by Hawkeye.

Thanks. I seems there’s a clear disconnect between VAR and Hawkeye, I imagine the interaction between the two will be addressed when the system is reviewed at the end of the season.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think this is the crux of the misunderstanding between me and my learned friend [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION]. I said "VAR reviews all goals". HWT says "VAR doesn't review all goals".

My definition of a goal, and the one I believe is used by the Premier League in your list above, is where a goal is awarded on the field of play by the referee. This wasn't one of those, so didn't go through the same review process. I now think HWT probably meant "VAR doesn't review all goals or possible goals".

However, in the Sky link I posted above somewhere - text below - it has been confirmed that VAR could have reviewed this incident but didn't do so...

However, under the laws of football, the video assistant referee was allowed to review the incident, despite the obstruction caused by Nyland.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited [PGMOL] confirmed the VAR was "able to check goal situations" but did not intervene after "on field match officials did not receive a signal".​

...it's difficult to know how to interpret that, but one interpretation is that VAR didn't intervene as a goal was not given by the referee having been alerted by Hawkeye.

Quite.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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.