Official Hawkeye reason given

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

is that the best they could come up with after a fortnight? I was expecting some crap about the earths magnetic field or sunspot activity. Basically, none of their cameras could see what three different sky cameras could. Var could have overruled it but didn't.

That apparently was written a day or so later according to the date of the statement or they have just put it up and back dated the statement.
 

"However, in this instance, due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR chose not to intervene."

Maybe someone at the premier league should be asked to explain why they made this choice
 
"However, in this instance, due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR chose not to intervene."

Maybe someone at the premier league should be asked to explain why they made this choice

At a guess, up to then GLT was 100% if they’d stopped the game to review it and it turned out VAR was correct they’d have got hammered.
GLT had never been brought into question before, why would they contest it?
 
At a guess, up to then GLT was 100% if they’d stopped the game to review it and it turned out VAR was correct they’d have got hammered.
GLT had never been brought into question before, why would they contest it?
In which case, the system needs reviewing. We’ve always assumed it was 100% correct. They have not explained what was unique about this one (it was not an abnormally crowded goal area for this type of decision). Until they do, can we trust the computer-generated images which make the decisions?
 
At a guess, up to then GLT was 100% if they’d stopped the game to review it and it turned out VAR was correct they’d have got hammered.
GLT had never been brought into question before, why would they contest it?
....because it was clear to everyone that something was amiss, and they had a break in play shortly afterwards which would have allowed them to check.
They could have checked it without stopping play and they wouldn't have got hammered at all.
 
In which case, the system needs reviewing. We’ve always assumed it was 100% correct. They have not explained what was unique about this one (it was not an abnormally crowded goal area for this type of decision). Until they do, can we trust the computer-generated images which make the decisions?

Since Hawkeye was introduced in tennis, I've always been intrigued that they never show a super slow motion replay of line calls to compare Hawkeye's prediction and the actual position of the ball. It seems as though in tennis they don't want to undermine the technology, but in football, refereeing decisions are constantly being questioned by slow motion replays.

It does seem that it's ok to question refereeing decisions but technological decisions can't be questioned - which is probably what happened in the Villa case ( even if it was obviously wrong).
 
It would be interesting what the response would have been had a Villa goal been missed, which in the end could have resulted in their relegation.
The power's that be must be hugely relieved it was littl'old Sheffield that was affected.
 
It would be interesting what the response would have been had a Villa goal been missed, which in the end could have resulted in their relegation.
The power's that be must be hugely relieved it was littl'old Sheffield that was affected.
I'm sure that will be brought up if Villa manage to stay up by a point.
 
Since Hawkeye was introduced in tennis, I've always been intrigued that they never show a super slow motion replay of line calls to compare Hawkeye's prediction and the actual position of the ball. It seems as though in tennis they don't want to undermine the technology, but in football, refereeing decisions are constantly being questioned by slow motion replays.

It does seem that it's ok to question refereeing decisions but technological decisions can't be questioned - which is probably what happened in the Villa case ( even if it was obviously wrong).
The tennis comparison is a good one - the players accept it, and it has got rid of a lot of heated arguments. That is why it would be good to know if Hawkeye is reliable for football. And if it isn’t, it would also be good to know how much is spent on it each season. After the Villa match, the least they should do is instruct referees and linesmen to be alert and to question possible errors.
 

The tennis comparison is a good one - the players accept it, and it has got rid of a lot of heated arguments. That is why it would be good to know if Hawkeye is reliable for football. And if it isn’t, it would also be good to know how much is spent on it each season. After the Villa match, the least they should do is instruct referees and linesmen to be alert and to question possible errors.
Or get the VAR team to respond to 'clear and obvious errors' as and when they see them happen?
 
....because it was clear to everyone that something was amiss, and they had a break in play shortly afterwards which would have allowed them to check.
They could have checked it without stopping play and they wouldn't have got hammered at all.
It was actually 12 seconds later, that's all. Enough time for Lunny's big toe to be offside three times.
 
Yeah, it’s not.

I want to know where it comes from initially. Obviously this chap is sharing it as part of a pro Newcastle takeover campaign on Twitter, but I heard this Halsey nonsense a couple of weeks back.
 
Good find, cheers!

My five minutes on Google were fruitless.
 
Portugal had a clear 'goal' not given yesterday.
Not sure if there was goalline technology?
Nope. UEFA do not use Hawkeye or VAR in qualifiers. Ronaldo's wobbler though was of epic proportions. This for me is why Messi is the better of the two. Doesnt go around crying like a baby. Sh*t happens. Villa would have been relegated if a 1/5000 chance event hadnt happened last season. In the grand scheme of things, Portugal will probably qualify anyway.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom