[Football] Bournemouth to sue hawk eye

[Worried Man Blues]

It beeps, it vibrates, it lights up, and the referee was looking at it because he suspected it had gone in. It should come with a sharp electrical shock!

 

[Knotty]

Sorry, but thats bonkers. There is no possible way of knowing how that match would've played out had the goal been given. The assumption that Sheff Utd would have won that game is exactly that - a blind assumption, based on nothing but a snapshot of what the score would have been in the 41st minute of that game. No bookie in the world would have paid out on a Sheffield win at that point.

And that also ignores the fact that Plucky have been utter shithouse the entire season, had 38 chances to accumulate points they needed, and failed. Pinning their relegation on ONE INCIDENT in a game they were not even involved in is beyond ridiculous.

They deserve nothing except the relegation they earned by being junk.

Exactly. Had the goal been given the match would have been restarted from the centre spot, not from the keeper’s hands, so the whole of the rest of the match would have been different, with all three outcomes possible.

The same thing applied when Maupay missed the pen against Leicester. Many were saying that would have won us the game had he scored. No way of knowing.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That was said. It is absurd that VAR can look at whether the ball went out for Connolly's goal at Burnley, but cannot look at a clear and obvious mistake by Hawkeye.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

It was said by people that VAR couldn't intervene, but the people that said it were wrong. The PGMOL said “Under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.”

In other words, VAR could intervene but for reasons that that statement doesn't make clear (I would guess because they were flummoxed and didn't think fast enough), they didn't.

 

[portlock seagull]

They should sue. Football needs to eat itself so let the squabbling begin and draw up a chair...damn, it’s pay per view!

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

It was said by people that VAR couldn't intervene, but the people that said it were wrong. The PGMOL said “Under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.”

In other words, VAR could intervene but for reasons that that statement doesn't make clear (I would guess because they were flummoxed and didn't think fast enough), they didn't.

Thanks! The levels of incompetence seem to have no bounds then.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sorry, but thats bonkers. There is no possible way of knowing how that match would've played out had the goal been given. The assumption that Sheff Utd would have won that game is exactly that - a blind assumption, based on nothing but a snapshot of what the score would have been in the 41st minute of that game. No bookie in the world would have paid out on a Sheffield win at that point.

And that also ignores the fact that Plucky have been utter shithouse the entire season, had 38 chances to accumulate points they needed, and failed. Pinning their relegation on ONE INCIDENT in a game they were not even involved in is beyond ridiculous.

They deserve nothing except the relegation they earned by being junk.

Mmmmm....OK.

I'll have to have another think about how I can relegate the Villa, then.

 

[blue-shifted]

Mmmmm....OK.

I'll have to have another think about how I can relegate the Villa, then.

Chances are they'll do the job for you

 

[Notters]

Exactly. Had the goal been given the match would have been restarted from the centre spot, not from the keeper’s hands, so the whole of the rest of the match would have been different, with all three outcomes possible.

The same thing applied when Maupay missed the pen against Leicester. Many were saying that would have won us the game had he scored. No way of knowing.

I don't disagree but surely you're statistically more likely to win from 1-0 up than from 0-0? I could be wrong.

 

[grubbyhands]

I agree. This is all about rules. They are so badly written it is embarrassing. In my experience you have to have one person with wit and vision to write rules, beta-test the crap out of them, and then have the strength of personality to persuade all the other cretins on the committee to agree. And if it goes tits up there is someone to carry the can.

My guess is there was/is no leadership about the rules of the game. The written version I saw a couple of years ago is actually illiterate. If is an absolute disgrace, and typically 'old school' middle management English. A bunch of stiffs get together for a liquid lunch and fine meal, them make a few suggestions about tweaking the sacred rules, possibly one twit suggests a radical change that hasn't been thought through, the others say what a tremendous chap he is and it is carried on a show of grubby hands. The *****.

That said the decision cannot and will not (and arguably should not) be overruled now. Instead B'Muff should be given a huge slice of next year's TV money from the shitehouse side that stayed up in their stead. Let's see....that would be....Aston Villa! Jobza Goodun.

Grubby Hands eh?

 

[Gazwag]

Exactly. Had the goal been given the match would have been restarted from the centre spot, not from the keeper’s hands, so the whole of the rest of the match would have been different, with all three outcomes possible.

The same thing applied when Maupay missed the pen against Leicester. Many were saying that would have won us the game had he scored. No way of knowing.

But isn't that football in the good old days before technology, the game we all loved and looked for ways to make us feel better by looking for scapegoats.

Fairest way I think would be to just relegate Villa as well and bring up both finalist in the play off.

 

[Farehamseagull]

Oh FFS. Modern football is so shit sometimes.

This was the slippery slope as soon as the clubs agreed to technology interfering with the game. Should have left it as it was for more than 100 years.

 

[Martlet]

There's no such thing as foolproof technology, just as there's no such thing as a perfect referee. Of course Bournemouth won't actually sue Hawkeye - they signed up to play in a league where that was the system, and I suspect they know they'll have to live with it. It's just a deflection tactic from their Board for all the flack that is no doubt coming their way.

That said, IMO, it does expose the stupidity of how football in the UK treats technology - whether VAR or Hawkeye. Rather than letting it help referees make the right decision, and hence reinforce the referee's authority (as it does in rugby and cricket), English football lets it make the decisions itself - and consequently it not only undermines the referee on the pitch, but also often gets it wrong.

 

[Badger Boy]

It is massively unfortunate for everyone involved that Villa stayed up by a single point. But the reality is a season is 38 games long, and this incident happened 9 games ago. Bournemouth had ample opportunities to pick up the points they needed to stay up and they failed to do so.

They might make a few quid from Hawkeye but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't, it'll be hard to argue a material loss given the circumstances.

 

[albion534]

Maybe they should sue their players for losing 22 games


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[father_and_son]

It is massively unfortunate for everyone involved that Villa stayed up by a single point. But the reality is a season is 38 games long, and this incident happened 9 games ago. Bournemouth had ample opportunities to pick up the points they needed to stay up and they failed to do so.

They might make a few quid from Hawkeye but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't, it'll be hard to argue a material loss given the circumstances.

The material loss is very demonstrable... The proximate cause of that loss isn't.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thanks! The levels of incompetence seem to have no bounds then.

Tha actual sequence of events was this.

1. Goal line technology (which is triangulation by cameras) ruled there was no goal.
2. The referee did not check the goal with VAR because there was no goal.
3. VAR did not alert the referee because goal line technology ruled there was no goal

er...

that's it.

The laws of the game do not mention VAR since it is a technique, like the wearing of contact lenses, provided to assist the referee:

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...1/law-10---determining-the-outcome-of-a-match

The Premier league https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297352 states:

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

However VAR can intervene over unseen incidents:

The VAR has a short window to intervene with unseen incidents.
If the ball is in play, VAR has until the next restart of play.
If the ball is out of play, VAR has until the second restart of play.
The FA's retrospective disciplinary process remains for incidents not captured by the match officials or VAR.

Surely an unseen goal is an unseen incident? Ah, but it wasn't a goal, because if goal line technology ruled it wasn't a goal then it wasn't a goal. That is the first bullshit rule (and it is an unwritten rule - not part of yer actual rules - in this case it is a convenient inference).

Moreover VAR cannot intervene over objective clear and obvious errors - only subjective ones (this is how the referees retain supremacy over VAR):

VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified.

That, my friends, is what is known technically as a load of old bollocks, designed to undermine excellent new technology and keep all the power in the hands of the referees, for no reason whatsoever other than to preclude the technology undermining their role. The charlatans' defence.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I would say the issue is with VAR. Yes hawkeye failed but VAR could see that the ball had gone in.

This, someone had money on that game

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

 

[studio150]

I think Bournemouth should sue, so that they can lose even more money when they lose their case, and get lumbered with Hawkeye's legal costs as well.

It's worth noting that Watford have remained silent and therefore have accepted their relegation far better than plucky Bournemouth seem to be doing.

 

[clockend1983]

It was bad but would it have affected the final standings if they had lost the game in question?
I may be wrong but they would be a point worse off
Same goal difference as Bournemouth but one more goal scored

 

[Surf's Up]

They're relegated - take it like (a man) men.