Official Hawkeye reason given

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

Grecian2000

Borderline mentalist.
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
7,320
Reaction score
7,812
Location
Amongst the cunts (don't you just hate 'em)
Go on then, who added this to Paul Tierney's Wikipedia page:

"On June 17, 2020, Tierney was the match VAR official for the first Premier League game after COVID-19 between Aston Villa and Sheffield United. A clear own goal was scored by the Aston Villa goalkeeper when he inadvertently fell over the goal line after catching the ball. The ball can be seen clearly over the line from multiple video replays. Hawk eye did not went off and the VAR did not review the non goal."

Perhaps a bit hasty as the grammar needs a bit of work, maybe change either the "clear" or "clearly" (don't have both anyway) and "did not went off" needs some work. Good effort though.
 

LS16Blade

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2016
Messages
438
Reaction score
1,462
The ongoing deafening silence from the Premier League is precisely what I expected.

They will have taken a decision on Wednesday evening to keep their heads down and not comment, in the reasonable knowledge that they only needed to tough it out for 48 hours before the Spurs v Man U match came around.

Premier League officials will have reasoned that as long as they could ride out the initial storm, the likelihood would be that as soon as that fixture came on to the radar, the mass media would move on and all attention would switch to what I'm sure many of them regard as the first proper match in the re-start.

Having read and listened to various sports media this morning, it appears that the Premier League have been vindicated in their decision to hide. The ghost goal is heading under the carpet, if not already there. In the corporate world that the Premier League inhabits, its basic crisis reputation management and it's worked a treat.

United must keep asking the questions.
 

FMBlade1

Active Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
1,650
Reaction score
2,384
Location
York
The ongoing deafening silence from the Premier League is precisely what I expected.

They will have taken a decision on Wednesday evening to keep their heads down and not comment, in the reasonable knowledge that they only needed to tough it out for 48 hours before the Spurs v Man U match came around.

Premier League officials will have reasoned that as long as they could ride out the initial storm, the likelihood would be that as soon as that fixture came on to the radar, the mass media would move on and all attention would switch to what I'm sure many of them regard as the first proper match in the re-start.

Having read and listened to various sports media this morning, it appears that the Premier League have been vindicated in their decision to hide. The ghost goal is heading under the carpet, if not already there. In the corporate world that the Premier League inhabits, its basic crisis reputation management and it's worked a treat.

United must keep asking the questions.
Absolutely. If we want to do something sign here:

https://www.change.org/p/english-premier-league-replay-the-sheffield-united-aston-villa-match

To add to Deadbat 's superb letter.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
320
Reaction score
436
It’s not even 1:9000 tbh. How many times has Hawk-Eye actually been called on to make a goal line decision in 9000 games? I dunno...300? 400? More?? Less?? If the actual error rate is, say, 1in 300 then it doesn’t look that clever now, does it?
This is a bloody good point. In those 9000 games, how many GLT decisions were made? How many of them were non-obvious (i.e. back of the net bulging etc.)? How many of them were close line-calls? How many of them were goal-mouth scrambles with, say, more than 4 players on the line? And so on. Once you start removing those items from the "9000 List" the odds of Hawk-Eye fucking up starts looking far less favourable.

One thing to say about the Palace goal was it was obvious from the camera with the view looking down from above that the ball was over the line.

I do not see how that view could have been blocked at Villa Park. And Sky, for some reason, did not show that overhead view immediately after the incident. They normally do.
They didn't show the overhead view as it wasn't working. Despite them saying it was. If its working, prove it. Prove the obstructions.
People need to stop banging on about the "overhead view" that Hawk-Eye didn't supply or Sky didn't show. That image isn't from a camera. It's CGI - special effects. It's a rendered image from the mathematical model they use to work out if the ball has crossed the line. If the system has lost the ball, for whatever reason, at the wrong moment, then this data won't be available and the render can't be produced.

Similarly, people need to not carry on talking about the Sky cameras picking it up and such. The Sky cameras did, clearly, which is why everyone in the entire worl knows it went over the line, including Hawk-Eye, Michael Oliver, Paul Teirney, the PGMOL, the EPL, UEFA and IFAB. Noone is saying the ball didn't cross the line. The footage was available to VAR who didn't review it. That has no bearing on Hawk-Eye, which uses dedicated, and very very different, cameras from the broadcast-spec ones Sky use.

Also, think about where the Hawk-Eye cameras are. It's not just people on the goal line that could block the view. I still find it bizarre that this is the first ever time that at least 6 of the 7 cameras had their view totally blocked at exactly the wrong second, but I can at least conceive that it is believable such an arrangement COULD occur. But lets face it, the ball was behind the line for more than just a split-second so it wasn't exactly momentary as Nyland was looking sheepish for at least 3 seconds as he got up off his arse, so how come the cameras didn't momentarily lose the ball and then pick it up again clearly over the line? THAT is the question we should be asking!

The ongoing deafening silence from the Premier League is precisely what I expected.

They will have taken a decision on Wednesday evening to keep their heads down and not comment, in the reasonable knowledge that they only needed to tough it out for 48 hours before the Spurs v Man U match came around.

Premier League officials will have reasoned that as long as they could ride out the initial storm, the likelihood would be that as soon as that fixture came on to the radar, the mass media would move on and all attention would switch to what I'm sure many of them regard as the first proper match in the re-start.

Having read and listened to various sports media this morning, it appears that the Premier League have been vindicated in their decision to hide. The ghost goal is heading under the carpet, if not already there. In the corporate world that the Premier League inhabits, its basic crisis reputation management and it's worked a treat.

United must keep asking the questions.
I mentioned to a friend of mine that, given the outcomes, i bet the EPL are glad that the Black Lives Matter protests etc. all happened. All the players taking the knee mean that focus will be on that show of support, so the EPL can keep quiet and hide behind that until this shitstorm blows over. Of course, as a result of that, i then got accused of equating the importance of #BLM to not being awarded a goal in a footy match and got the typical virtue-signalling lecture i've come to expect if you don't immediately throw yourself on the sword for such movements... but my point still stands. World events like #BLM enable the EPL to focus on the positive message of footballs support for an important equality movement, and all the while use it as a screen for the fact the Laws are in a state and the governing bodies are so incompetent they couldn't find their respective arses with both hands...
 

andy m

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
717
Reaction score
1,138
This is a bloody good point. In those 9000 games, how many GLT decisions were made? How many of them were non-obvious (i.e. back of the net bulging etc.)? How many of them were close line-calls? How many of them were goal-mouth scrambles with, say, more than 4 players on the line? And so on. Once you start removing those items from the "9000 List" the odds of Hawk-Eye fucking up starts looking far less favourable.



People need to stop banging on about the "overhead view" that Hawk-Eye didn't supply or Sky didn't show. That image isn't from a camera. It's CGI - special effects. It's a rendered image from the mathematical model they use to work out if the ball has crossed the line. If the system has lost the ball, for whatever reason, at the wrong moment, then this data won't be available and the render can't be produced.

Similarly, people need to not carry on talking about the Sky cameras picking it up and such. The Sky cameras did, clearly, which is why everyone in the entire worl knows it went over the line, including Hawk-Eye, Michael Oliver, Paul Teirney, the PGMOL, the EPL, UEFA and IFAB. Noone is saying the ball didn't cross the line. The footage was available to VAR who didn't review it. That has no bearing on Hawk-Eye, which uses dedicated, and very very different, cameras from the broadcast-spec ones Sky use.

Also, think about where the Hawk-Eye cameras are. It's not just people on the goal line that could block the view. I still find it bizarre that this is the first ever time that at least 6 of the 7 cameras had their view totally blocked at exactly the wrong second, but I can at least conceive that it is believable such an arrangement COULD occur. But lets face it, the ball was behind the line for more than just a split-second so it wasn't exactly momentary as Nyland was looking sheepish for at least 3 seconds as he got up off his arse, so how come the cameras didn't momentarily lose the ball and then pick it up again clearly over the line? THAT is the question we should be asking!


I mentioned to a friend of mine that, given the outcomes, i bet the EPL are glad that the Black Lives Matter protests etc. all happened. All the players taking the knee mean that focus will be on that show of support, so the EPL can keep quiet and hide behind that until this shitstorm blows over. Of course, as a result of that, i then got accused of equating the importance of #BLM to not being awarded a goal in a footy match and got the typical virtue-signalling lecture i've come to expect if you don't immediately throw yourself on the sword for such movements... but my point still stands. World events like #BLM enable the EPL to focus on the positive message of footballs support for an important equality movement, and all the while use it as a screen for the fact the Laws are in a state and the governing bodies are so incompetent they couldn't find their respective arses with both hands...
This is why is find their explanation difficult to swallow. Nyland was sat in the back of the net with the ball behind the line for 2 or 3 seconds. Surely as players moved around the cameras should have picked it up again.
Also Sky showed numerous camera angles with an unobstructed view of the ball over the line. How it that 7 cameras which are positioned specifically to view the goal line were obscured why Sky cameras were not?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
320
Reaction score
436
This is why is find their explanation difficult to swallow. Nyland was sat in the back of the net with the ball behind the line for 2 or 3 seconds. Surely as players moved around the cameras should have picked it up again.
Also Sky showed numerous camera angles with an unobstructed view of the ball over the line. How it that 7 cameras which are positioned specifically to view the goal line were obscured why Sky cameras were not?
Sounds like bullshit to me.
That first bit I can't explain. I understand how the Hawk-Eye technology works - how it locates the ball and works out it's position and how it can "remove" the players from the model (the ball is governed in it's movements by physics, players are not, so it's easy to predict the path of the ball, hence things not on that path can be ignored while ever there are enough cameras to keep tracking the ball) and so on... so while it smells iffy, I can accept that there is SOME arrangement whereby the ball is obscured from 6 of 7 cameras. There are other questions around that issue - like why is there not at least an overhead camera on a post looking directly down on top of the goal etc., but that isn't the issue in my eyes. The issue is why did the system seemingly give up trying to locate the ball, and not pick it up again after that momentary blocking of the view had passed?

The second point is that Sky specifically align a camera on the goal line, but the positioning of it doesn't have to be "accurate" in the same way the Hawk-Eye cameras do. Even if Hawk-Eye DID have a camera there, that might have been the 1 camera from 7 that could still see the ball, but because it couldn't be seen by another camera then it couldn't work out where the ball was (i.e. it was over the line but outside the post). You can't locate something in 3d space only knowing 2 points.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
149
Reaction score
862
Not sure if this has been mentioned before on this, or any of the other many threads on the matter, but a thought did occur to me - what if Villa had gone straight up the other end and scored or got a penalty?

Surely then VAR would have had to get involved and go back and check the build up to the goal.

Then they would have been forced to see what had happened and disallowed their goal/pen and awarded ours.

Though this is VAR we are talking about, so they would have probably given us a corner for their goalie taking the ball over the line and out of play... 😜
 

mattbianco1

king of avatars, since 2008
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
17,535
Reaction score
22,484
Location
Frecheville
No VAR intervention
As for the Video Assistant Referee, PGMOL, the organisation responsible for match officials, stated after the match that under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations.

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.
What a load of bullshit that statement is.
If your kids are fighting, you intervene to make it right. If they're playing nice and doing as they should, there's not reason to intervene.

You "intervene" to prevent something from happening.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
149
Reaction score
862
What a load of bullshit that statement is.
If your kids are fighting, you intervene to make it right. If they're playing nice and doing as they should, there's not reason to intervene.

You "intervene" to prevent something from happening.
So what they are actually saying is that they sat at Stockley Park and witnessed a clear goal and an obvious wrong decision and made the ACTIVE DECISION to do nothing about it. I use of the words “clear” and “obvious” for clear and obvious reasons. Basically they KNEW a blatant mistake had been made and that it was a goal and they CHOSE to IGNORE the fact. In what world is that the correct course of action?
 

Toronto Blade

Round the bend in the river
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
1,138
Location
Toronto,Canada
We need our players to question refs more over decisions as other clubs do.
The PL has made themselves look weak and incompetent. They won't act on a horrible decision made by the Ref ,Lino, Hawkeye and VAR which was shown around the world.
I wish that Wilder had kept the players in the room for the start of the 2nd half. Just long enough to and draw attention to the injustice, by making the 4th official go to the room and order them out. At least 5 minutes to delay the KO of PL's game that they were interested in Man C v the Arse.
 

Rochdaleblade

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
538
Reaction score
1,224
Why haven't Hawkeye produced the images with an occluded view? This is why I personally believe it is bullshit and they are probably trying to cover a dodgy transmitter.
Surely it's not too difficult to have a system whereby Hawkeye signals the ref either no goal or goal, therefore if there's no signal he knows it's no decision has been made - check VAR.
 

Sean Thornton

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
36,235
Reaction score
54,862
So what they are actually saying is that they sat at Stockley Park and witnessed a clear goal and an obvious wrong decision and made the ACTIVE DECISION to do nothing about it. I use of the words “clear” and “obvious” for clear and obvious reasons. Basically they KNEW a blatant mistake had been made and that it was a goal and they CHOSE to IGNORE the fact. In what world is that the correct course of action?
And that’s where the answers should come from.
 

oohaah

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2009
Messages
124
Reaction score
255
This is a bloody good point. In those 9000 games, how many GLT decisions were made? How many of them were non-obvious (i.e. back of the net bulging etc.)? How many of them were close line-calls? How many of them were goal-mouth scrambles with, say, more than 4 players on the line? And so on. Once you start removing those items from the "9000 List" the odds of Hawk-Eye fucking up starts looking far less favourable.



People need to stop banging on about the "overhead view" that Hawk-Eye didn't supply or Sky didn't show. That image isn't from a camera. It's CGI - special effects. It's a rendered image from the mathematical model they use to work out if the ball has crossed the line. If the system has lost the ball, for whatever reason, at the wrong moment, then this data won't be available and the render can't be produced.

Similarly, people need to not carry on talking about the Sky cameras picking it up and such. The Sky cameras did, clearly, which is why everyone in the entire worl knows it went over the line, including Hawk-Eye, Michael Oliver, Paul Teirney, the PGMOL, the EPL, UEFA and IFAB. Noone is saying the ball didn't cross the line. The footage was available to VAR who didn't review it. That has no bearing on Hawk-Eye, which uses dedicated, and very very different, cameras from the broadcast-spec ones Sky use.

Also, think about where the Hawk-Eye cameras are. It's not just people on the goal line that could block the view. I still find it bizarre that this is the first ever time that at least 6 of the 7 cameras had their view totally blocked at exactly the wrong second, but I can at least conceive that it is believable such an arrangement COULD occur. But lets face it, the ball was behind the line for more than just a split-second so it wasn't exactly momentary as Nyland was looking sheepish for at least 3 seconds as he got up off his arse, so how come the cameras didn't momentarily lose the ball and then pick it up again clearly over the line? THAT is the question we should be asking!


I mentioned to a friend of mine that, given the outcomes, i bet the EPL are glad that the Black Lives Matter protests etc. all happened. All the players taking the knee mean that focus will be on that show of support, so the EPL can keep quiet and hide behind that until this shitstorm blows over. Of course, as a result of that, i then got accused of equating the importance of #BLM to not being awarded a goal in a footy match and got the typical virtue-signalling lecture i've come to expect if you don't immediately throw yourself on the sword for such movements... but my point still stands. World events like #BLM enable the EPL to focus on the positive message of footballs support for an important equality movement, and all the while use it as a screen for the fact the Laws are in a state and the governing bodies are so incompetent they couldn't find their respective arses with both hands...
I seem to recall from previous incidents that VAR have their own cameras and are not entitled to use the Sky footage. Think of the 50 FPS arguments we were having a few months ago. So it could be feasible that if HawkEye was a genuine failure they may not have enough decent camera angles of their own to get a clear view of the goal (not required due to the famously infallible GLT). Having said that, this may just relate to the offside decisions where they use the camera on the 18 yard line and a blunt pencil to make a guess.
 

Ainsley Harriott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
7,856
Reaction score
15,610
Why haven't Hawkeye produced the images with an occluded view? This is why I personally believe it is bullshit and they are probably trying to cover a dodgy transmitter.
Surely it's not too difficult to have a system whereby Hawkeye signals the ref either no goal or goal, therefore if there's no signal he knows it's no decision has been made - check VAR.
I've emailed them today and asked them to prove the views were occluded. Pretty simple task. "Here's the still image, can't see the ball"

That will clear this up, slightly. But as it wasn't switched on, they won't prove a thing.
 

jt64

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
3,238
Reaction score
2,655
Location
stockport
Cameras were "occluded" (I learnt a new word this week. They could have said "obstructed" but that's too simple). They weren't obstructed by the goalkeeper as he was behind the post. Indeed, at the time the ball is over the line, Tyrone Mings is stood halfway over the line. Number 39 is also halfway over (picture below). Now if these cameras are placed at shin, waist and chest height then I'll accept the obstructed excuse. I'm guessing they aren't... So the excuse is bollocks. As we all know.

View attachment 83372
I don't find it completely unbelievable looking at it - if you draw lines out from the ball to show the areas where Nyland, Davies, the entirety of the woodwork etc are blocking the view of the ball, it's probably larger than you think given how close they all are and the angles in relation to the ball and each other.

But this is easy to resolve - they should surely have the data on file and can replay the incident in question.

Also can't believe the number of people that think Sky and Hawkeye use the same cameras
 

Lawrence

WF9 Blade
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
845
Reaction score
513
It’s not even 1:9000 tbh. How many times has Hawk-Eye actually been called on to make a goal line decision in 9000 games? I dunno...300? 400? More?? Less?? If the actual error rate is, say, 1in 300 then it doesn’t look that clever now, does it?
Maybe Hawkeye told a lie to save face! “cameras couldn’t see the ball” wonder who thought of that one, did they really think that everyone would say hey-ho that’s unfortunate 🤨 (show us the 7 pictures? You can’t because the cameras were not working, TELL THE TRUTH!) how many times do you see a premier League game have NO VAR CHECKS?

In live play watching the game we said “Is VAR working?” Villa players fell over just inside the area? NO CHECK! The possible hand ball in the area? NO CHECK! It Its sad that this high profile company can’t just tell the truth to the millions of sports fans across the world on what really caused this to happen. If it wasn’t working in the first half, tell the ref, tell United and Villa, tell the premier League, tell the fans (we have a problem with the goal line tech or VAR and we will fix it ASAP) we are not thick we do know that tech stuff goes wrong sometimes! tell us if some one forgot to turn the cameras on? it simple tell us the truth about what actually happened!

P.S I have an suggestion to easy solution that would sort this problem, but see what happens first 👍
 

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

Top Bottom