Bournemouth now looking at compensations

[1066blade]

Cant see it myself, incident probably deemed too early in the game, and too long ago. They've had 9 games to improve their position.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

In their favour, not that I think it's a watertight case(!), they have concrete evidence that the Blades should've been in the lead against Villa.

Of course a lead doesn't equate to a win, and therefore it makes the rest of the case a bit of a stretch...

 

[Stretch]

I just hope someone pushes to have sight of the system data from the match, because I am convinced that they only turned the thing on after the goal. The system log would show that, surely?

In which case, based on Hawkeye's official explanation, we are into the realm of a cover up.

 

[Gavlar]

Its an interesting one and is like the Tevez case for me. Villa wont be relegated as a result but hawkeye may have to pay some compo.

 

[georgebernardshaw]

In their favour, not that I think it's a watertight case(!), they have concrete evidence that the Blades should've been in the lead against Villa.

Of course a lead doesn't equate to a win, and therefore it makes the rest of the case a bit of a stretch...

.....in S6, it’s treated as a win

 

[184blade]

I’d be interested to know what the premier league contract with Hawkeye says, surely the premier league have a clause In place for if Hawkeye don’t deliver their end of the deal? Which if it was switched off they didn’t.

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

.....in S6, it’s treated as a win

And a great away following, too, by all accounts.

 

[CW7]

It doesnt matter to us, we probably don't get compensation either way, but I hope to get some answers.

 

[Dkc]

No 'probably' about it, given that we'd remain in 9th place with an extra two points.

Isn't there already quite a lengthy thread on this very topic?

 

[nopigfansintown]

It all rests on whether it was turned on or not. If it was they've used the "industry standard" technology, and, in effect, done everything that could have been asked of them. If it wasn't - that is ruled out as a defence. VAR and the ref's interpretation are purely subjective so, although it's deeply annoying, there isn't a case there.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Cant see it myself, incident probably deemed too early in the game, and too long ago. They've had 9 games to improve their position.

I don't think they're after the Premier League for compensation. They'd go after Hawkeye for saying their product was almost infallible when it wasn't and they'd only go after the league or ref's if Hawkeye aren't responsible for enabling it prior to the games. That would seem to be the case for me, if it wasn't enabled then there is culpability and negligence.

 

[Blackheath Blade]

Cant see it myself, incident probably deemed too early in the game, and too long ago. They've had 9 games to improve their position.

Neither did fuckin Hawkeye !!

 

[Sheffsteel]

I don't think they're after the Premier League for compensation. They'd go after Hawkeye for saying their product was almost infallible when it wasn't and they'd only go after the league or ref's if Hawkeye aren't responsible for enabling it prior to the games. That would seem to be the case for me, if it wasn't enabled then there is culpability and negligence.

Would love to know the explanation of why the technology failed with all those cameras.

I listened to Talksport a few weeks ago...a retired ref came on and explained that the Hawkeye trial was (coincidentally at Villa Park) and all the refs tried their best to make the technology fail. He said they even hid the ball under their shirts and tried to crowd around it BUT it always picked up the ball no matter what they did.

Also it raises a point when Wilder said if the ball clearly hits the back of the net then bounced back into play.
If the technology failed again will the ref point at his watch saying he can’t give a goal because his watch hasn’t buzzed.

 

[LS16Blade]

I just hope someone pushes to have sight of the system data from the match, because I am convinced that they only turned the thing on after the goal. The system log would show that, surely?

In which case, based on Hawkeye's official explanation, we are into the realm of a cover up.

Agreed.

Nothing is going to change the result or the league table but there is something wholly unsatisfactory about the way this was brushed under the carpet, and it needs to have a light shone on it.

The Hawkeye statement that was published a couple of hours after the match was, to someone who should know, a classic lawyer's obfuscation. Behind the scenes, United's hierarchy has clearly requested further and better details/images of the incident in the period since. That much can be inferred from comments made by Wilder in a couple of his press conferences for subsequent matches. As is also clear from Wilder's comments, is that United's requests have been ignored.

In addition, where were the EPL and PGMOL in all of this? After one 'matchday' a couple of weeks, the ineffectual and usually invisible Mike Riley came straight out the next morning to concede that VAR had made 3 errors the night before. Of course, Man U and Spurs were a couple of the teams affected by those decisions so perhaps there was a greater imperative to jump into action?

Most of all, however, why has there been no focus on why the massively over-rated Michael Oliver - who stills have shown to have had a perfectly clear view of the incident - just pointed at his watch like a robot lacking a brain or eye-sight of his own, and in particular why the utterly incompetent pudding, Tierney, sat and watched it on a screen like millions of others but it simply didn't cross his mind to say to Oliver, who he had a constant dialogue with, "Mike, you might want to just stop and check that because it doesn't like right".

 

[PokerBlade]

I just hope someone pushes to have sight of the system data from the match, because I am convinced that they only turned the thing on after the goal. The system log would show that, surely?

In which case, based on Hawkeye's official explanation, we are into the realm of a cover up.

I try to avoid speculating but the fact that Hawkeye haven't simply released the angles is a huge concern in itself. They should be released as a matter of good practice but also if their version of events is true then it would help us plan on how to deal with these situations in future. Especially now we have VAR, officials would know that a similar situation could've been missed and go back to check. Instead the whole thing comes across as extremely evasive on their part, hoping it can be shrugged away with a token apology. I'm hoping Bournemouth go after them only so we get some proper answers.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Agreed.

Nothing is going to change the result or the league table but there is something wholly unsatisfactory about the way this was brushed under the carpet, and it needs to have a light shone on it.

The Hawkeye statement that was published a couple of hours after the match was, to someone who should know, a classic lawyer's obfuscation. Behind the scenes, United's hierarchy has clearly requested further and better details/images of the incident in the period since. That much can be inferred from comments made by Wilder in a couple of his press conferences for subsequent matches. As is also clear from Wilder's comments, is that United's requests have been ignored.

In addition, where were the EPL and PGMOL in all of this? After one 'matchday' a couple of weeks, the ineffectual and usually invisible Mike Riley came straight out the next morning to concede that VAR had made 3 errors the night before. Of course, Man U and Spurs were a couple of the teams affected by those decisions so perhaps there was a greater imperative to jump into action?

Most of all, however, why has there been no focus on why the massively over-rated Michael Oliver - who stills have shown to have had a perfectly clear view of the incident - just pointed at his watch like a robot lacking a brain or eye-sight of his own, and in particular why the utterly incompetent pudding, Tierney, sat and watched it on a screen like millions of others but it simply didn't cross his mind to say to Oliver, who he had a constant dialogue with, "Mike, you might want to just stop and check that because it doesn't like right".

Very much agree.

The whole episode was bizarre....so many questions...yet so few answers.
If Sky we’re unable to provide a visual of the goal line...then Sky would have known immediately that there was a problem with the technology.
No visuals have been provide at any time...so it begs the question was the machine turned on? There may have been human negligence involved.
Also found it bizarre that when they asked Micah Richards on Sky about his opinion. He was LAUGHING explaining he’s an ex Villa defender so he’s not bothered about how they obtain a result if i helps them stay up.

I’ve also heard many pundits say VAR and refs will never be perfect because everyone has different opinion.
Some have said “well Sheff Utd were lucky with the West Han and Spurs disallowed handball goals”
Their manager Smith in his post match interview suggested that theyve had so much bad luck with VAR that it makes a change to receive some luck.

They seem to ignore that the ghost goal against Villa was FACT....not opinion.
Also the disallowed West Ham/ Spura were correctly disallowed based on the current rules.
Im just pleased that the loss of 2 points has no financial effect on us.
Also there’s the valid point that if we went 1-0 up away at Villa....they would have been more attacking second half and we would have sat back.
So we might have ended up losing. Another argument is that although we had a goal unfairly disallowed a draw was a fair result based on chances and overall play.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

https://www.s24su.com/forum/index.php?threads/hawkeye-decision-at-villa-park.81270/

Edit: Oh, and wrong section

 

[flashinblade1889]

And a great away following, too, by all accounts.

They took 3,000 to QPR you know .........

 

[wardonia_blade]

Law 5 - Decisions of the referee (extract)

Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the spirit of the game and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. However, if at the end of the half, the referee leaves the field of play to go to the referee review area (RRA) or to instruct the players to return to the field of play, this does not prevent a decision being changed for an incident which occurred before the end of the half.

Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply.

If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play.

Bournemouth haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

[1066blade]

No 'probably' about it, given that we'd remain in 9th place with an extra two points.

Isn't there already quite a lengthy thread on this very topic?

Yes there is Dkc, my apologies I didn't spot it.

 

[Harrisblade]

Law 5 - Decisions of the referee (extract)

Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the spirit of the game and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. However, if at the end of the half, the referee leaves the field of play to go to the referee review area (RRA) or to instruct the players to return to the field of play, this does not prevent a decision being changed for an incident which occurred before the end of the half.

Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply.

If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play.

Bournemouth haven't got a leg to stand on.

None of that protects Hawkeye from litigation if it's failure caused the referee to make an error he wouldn't have made had the equipment been working properly

 

[blade too long]

Law 5 - Decisions of the referee (extract)

Decisions will be made to the best of the referee`s ability according to the Laws of the Game and the spirit of the game and will be based on the opinion of the referee who has the discretion to take appropriate action within the framework of the Laws of the Game.

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that it is incorrect or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. However, if at the end of the half, the referee leaves the field of play to go to the referee review area (RRA) or to instruct the players to return to the field of play, this does not prevent a decision being changed for an incident which occurred before the end of the half.

Except as outlined in Law 12.3 and the VAR protocol, a disciplinary sanction may only be issued after play has restarted if another match official had identified and attempted to communicate the offence to the referee before play restarted; the restart associated with the sanction does not apply.

If a referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball is next out of play.

Bournemouth haven't got a leg to stand on.

ha ha
this text, The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored.

the very nub of the matter, this decision was not the referees , it was in the hands of Hawkeyes failsafe system by prem rules he was reliant on receiving correct information

he didn't receive the correct information by Hawkeyes admission

 

[Dkc]

Law 5 - Decisions of the referee (extract)

The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final. The decisions of the referee, and all other match officials, must always be respected.

Bournemouth haven't got a leg to stand on.

Agree with the posts above. If the ref is not allowed to overrule Hawkeye, then it's Hawkeye's decision, not the referee's decision.

Presumably somewhere there's also a rule stating that the decision of Hawkeye is final, and must always be respected. But if Hawkeye wasn't turned on, then no decision was made.

Let's say there was no VAR for a minute. Would a goal scored from a blatantly offside position be awarded if the ref didn't see it and the linesman had nipped out for a fag?

I wonder if it states anywhere in the rules that Hawkeye must be switched on when the game is in progress

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

Hope Bournemouth take em to court,just so we can hear some facts.

 

[mancunianblade]

Hawkeye was on wasnt it? Assume like it was an issue with the watch?recall seeing photos day after of someone testing Hawkeye with a ball

 

[benn5712]

Ref could have consulted var monitors. Chose not to, no advice from 4th official either.
Shambles.
Leave it and move on to next season Blades.

 

[wavy-blade]

Just cus sum cunt didn't do there job right Villa stopped up , its fucking atrocious , sue that bastards !

 

[Chabuddy G]

They owe out £81m in transfer fees. It’s not a surprise.