Official Hawkeye reason given

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

Karaoke Blade

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,510
Reaction score
2,610
Location
Intake, Sheffield
The Premier league have just responded to me with this "reason" which they believe puts an end to the discussion.


So they "chose" not to look at it. Great choose not to look at clear and obvious mistakes just spend 5 mins looking for miniscule offsides instead.
So they've admitted they pick and choose what to look at. As I said in another thread... the whole shit show is bent.
 

Niceguyeddie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
3,396
Reaction score
5,293
I'd like some one in the local media to ask the club if they are pursuing Hawkeye for answers on this
 

Bladesman

The Great Grumbleduke
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
31,033
Reaction score
32,109
Location
S11
The Premier league have just responded to me with this "reason" which they believe puts an end to the discussion.


So they "chose" not to look at it. Great choose not to look at clear and obvious mistakes just spend 5 mins looking for miniscule offsides instead.
Pathetic response.
 

Rochdaleblade

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
538
Reaction score
1,224
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.
 

Tony Currie

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
353
Anyone who saw the second goal in the Man U match last night knows how VAR favours the big teams. Two things happened for the VAR goal - ball went out of play 32 seconds before the goal and then an offside decision.

VAR looked at the offside and ruled it out - which the commentators on NBC both said was offside and was certainly greater than a toe! Later VAR came back and said the ball out of play was too far back in the sequence of play (even though MUFC never lost the ball).

It's all too inconsistent and convenient that the big clubs get the decisions while the little old blades have to wait ten minutes at Tottenham to have a perfectly good goal ruled out.
 

HodgysBrokenThumb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
4,588
Reaction score
8,622
The official explanation is beyond pathetic. The foolproof technology didn’t work in a circumstance that was far from abnormally crowded around the ball, and not one of the elite professional officials, including VAR, had the expertise, common-sense and/or authority to ensure correcting a blindingly obvious error. If that is the best they can come up with, then something is seriously wrong.
 

Bladesman

The Great Grumbleduke
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
31,033
Reaction score
32,109
Location
S11
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.
 

Grey Blade

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
397
Reaction score
503
"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
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
373
Reaction score
219
"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?
 

HodgysBrokenThumb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
4,588
Reaction score
8,622
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?
 

Flatulent_Bob

PC RoboFag...........and proud!
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
8,785
Reaction score
8,321
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.
 

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

Top Bottom