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?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Hawkeye
- Thread starter kevo
- Start date
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?
Given Hawkeye eventually flagged the goal, tv said it came through onto the ref’s watch at halftime, there’s merit in this argument.
I wouldn’t want to be a team which gets relegated one point from Villa and one point from safety.
[TWEET]1273331349441650689[/TWEET]
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,120
- Thread starter
- #46
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.
blue-shifted
Banned
The problem has come because we have entirely outsourced this part of the decision making to the technology. The ref and lino MUST have seen the ball was miles over the line. (I certainly screamed goal). VAR officials must have seen it as well, but nobody intervened as they were disempowered, (Oliver pointed at his watch)
My point is the tech should be there to assist the ref, not govern him. If the ref sees a clear goal, give it. Don't rely on your watch.
I'm not blaming the ref, he is doing what he's told. But what we need is that these tools are available at the refs request, like in Rugby, rather than him to delegate swathes of decision making to dodgy tech and other refs elsewhere with other views. The ref should be the ultimate authority. In this instance he should have been empowered to award the goal he surely saw.
My point is the tech should be there to assist the ref, not govern him. If the ref sees a clear goal, give it. Don't rely on your watch.
I'm not blaming the ref, he is doing what he's told. But what we need is that these tools are available at the refs request, like in Rugby, rather than him to delegate swathes of decision making to dodgy tech and other refs elsewhere with other views. The ref should be the ultimate authority. In this instance he should have been empowered to award the goal he surely saw.
blue-shifted
Banned
Yes. There is a cultural failing within the Premier League not to plan for low occurrence high impact events. For example, what to do with the league table, if for whatever reason a season can't be finished and what happens if the much vaunted and expensive technology fails in the real world.
They are too busy concentrating on how to market the game to the far east etc, than to get the basic administration in place.
southstandandy
WEST STAND ANDY
- Jul 9, 2003
- 5,662
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.
drew
Drew
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!!!
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!!!
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.
Yoda
English & European
The fact that camera's from behind and infront of the goal clearly show the ball being propped up between 'keeper & post should be enough, not even the camera on the line.
I know these aren't the camera's Hawkeye use, but I don't buy this statement saying 4 out of 7 were obscured.
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
This is utterly barmy.
If we insist on using technology to insist on disallowing goals because of foot positioning, armpits etc because it is deemed to be foolproof, how can it be that a perfectly good goal is disallowed because of technology?
The fatal flaw here is that VAR decides if a goal has been scored or not. There was no debate here as technology had already made the decision without recourse.
That has to be wrong.
If we insist on using technology to insist on disallowing goals because of foot positioning, armpits etc because it is deemed to be foolproof, how can it be that a perfectly good goal is disallowed because of technology?
The fatal flaw here is that VAR decides if a goal has been scored or not. There was no debate here as technology had already made the decision without recourse.
That has to be wrong.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,120
- Thread starter
- #55
The fact that camera's from behind and infront of the goal clearly show the ball being propped up between 'keeper & post should be enough, not even the camera on the line.
I know these aren't the camera's Hawkeye use, but I don't buy this statement saying 4 out of 7 were obscured.
Makes you wonder where their cameras were! Not behind the goal, or in line with the goal line (from either side)? There have been far worse 'goalmouth scrambles' where you could genuinely understand it, but this was clear as day.
Slightly silly comment (the last bit). Like saying that the main point of the police is to harrass black people, and since there are none in Piddinghoe there is no point in having police in Piddinghoe.
VAR is supposed to obviate the sort of fiasco we saw yesterday. I still don't get how Hawkeye's cameras (which have nothing to do with VAR) couldn't see it was a goal during the game, whereas the standard cameras (which are part of VAR) could see it was a goal, but were not used at the time to check.
[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] says it is because VAR does not check nongoals, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It was a non goal only because Hawkeye didn't register it as a goal. All that means is that Hawkeye takes precedence over VAR. But Hawkeye said at they time the could not tell if it was a goal. That is not the same as declaring it a non-goal. That is a systems failure.
And at the head of the failure was the referee who refused to call for a VAR check (which he could have done).
The problem as always is the dimbot officials, Hawkeye/VAR camera operators and laws of the game, NOT the technology. And before we go round and around again, the missed goal has been confirmed as a missed goal by Hawkeye, whose confirmatory data cannot be anything other than video data that is not their own (because they claim their 7 cameras cannot confirm it was a goal). The only video data not their own that they have now apparently consulted is the TV (VAR) data.
So VAR proves it was a goal, but the goal was not given because the referee decided to not check the VAR data. That's the long and short of it. If people used VAR properly . . . . but we have had this conversation many times. I am still of a mind that, either deliberately or subconsciously, referees are sabotaging VAR in order to maintain their primacy in the decision making hierarchy. A classic example yesterday....
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).
The fact that camera's from behind and infront of the goal clearly show the ball being propped up between 'keeper & post should be enough, not even the camera on the line.
I know these aren't the camera's Hawkeye use, but I don't buy this statement saying 4 out of 7 were obscured.
I agree. They are lying. I wonder why?
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.