Hawkeye Decision at Villa Park

[XM657]

But VAR should've seen that there had been a clear and obvious error irrespective of Hawkeye and reviewed it. That's what annoyed me on the night, the fact they didn't even consider that something had gone wrong.

They didn't consider it because they are folk who work so rigidly with rules when push comes to shove they cannot think outside the box.
It's just come to mind, when it was realised the equipment wasn't on why didn't they get together with the two captains and managers to sort out what course should be taken, including is the game legitimate under Premier League Rules when the equipment is off or U/S.

 

[Worksop II]

The Laws of the game were not followed / implimented and Match / VAR Officials knew this .......

Hawkeye should be getting their hand in their pocket

and any cover up? - well thats a whole new ball of wax .....

 

[Deaneandagana]

Delighted they are taking a legal challenge, purely because this has the stink of a cover up. If hawkeye came out with their statement and then revealed the 7 occluded camera shots fine move on, but they havent produced any images. I dont believe they exist because I think simply the system wasnt switched on.

Which again fine if they came out and stated somehow the system wasnt switched on its bad luck you move on but I cant stand for a cover up and for me ther reply was BS. None of us should stand for a cover up, because if we accept it then it will lead t another cover up in future that might be even bigger, and then a bigger one after that.

Bournmouth aint getting a reprieve but may get a few quid for their troubles good luck to them, win or lose i dont really care I just want to see the 7 images or prove Hawkeye are a lying shower

I agree DB, nothing worse than a cover up especially given the financial impacts of their alleged negligence.
Sometimes you’ve got to hold your hands up admit fault, learn from it & move on.

 

[Tazzy]

I also blame the ref .After most united players ran to him he took it as gospel because his watch did not go off when he had a tv monitor to go and look at but decided not to

 

[Dkc]

If it was switched on, why haven't they shown us the images? I can only presume that it was switched off. Hawkeye is now an integral part of the game, and the match shouldn't have kicked off it it was not in operation. If Hawkeye was switched off that implies gross negligence.

The ball was clearly over the line. The players knew it, the goalkeeper knew it and the Sky commentary team knew it. The ref probably knew it too, but couldn't give a goal without getting the Hawkeye confirmation on his watch.

That's where this system differs from VAR. It's not about opinions at all. It's black and white. The ball was either over the line, or it wasn't. If we didn't have Hawkeye, the ref could well have given the goal. But he was forced to rely on Hawkeye and was not allowed to overrule the technology, which he beleived had ruled it was not a goal.

If Hawkeye wasn't turned on, then it didn't overrule the ref. No decision was made. If the ref knew Hawkeye was turned off, he would be within his rights to give a goal. But the ref thought it was functioning, and the lack of an alert meant the ball hadn't crossed the line.

If it was a thousand-to-one error the technology can be forgiven. After all, refs make poor decisions all the time, and even VAR doesn't always get things right. But if it was turned off, that's something else. Don't the PL rules say that Hawkeye must be turned on before a game can start?

If it was turned off you could argue that the game should be void. It would be akin to starting a game with one goal smaller than the other one, or the penalty area lines marked wrongly.

 

[Harrisblade]

Even if that "goal" hadn't any effect on league placings, it needs to be very seriously looked at as does the whole VAR system. Hopefully Bournemouth will sue and we at least get a proper, serious discussion about how VAR is used. It should not be used, for example, to call offside because of a big toe, big nose or big anything else. The referee on the pitch MUST be the sole arbiter, not some oik in a room in a galaxy, far, far away, with more TV screens than he can see with two eyes.

Then you have to ask why the PL have decided to deliberately go down the big toe/big nose route.
UEFA decided to stick to the 'clear and obvious error' original method and discount the 'too close to call without VAR' way of using it.

 

[Sean Thornton]

If it was switched on, why haven't they shown us the images? I can only presume that it was switched off. Hawkeye is now an integral part of the game, and the match shouldn't have kicked off it it was not in operation. If Hawkeye was switched off that implies gross negligence.

The ball was clearly over the line. The players knew it, the goalkeeper knew it and the Sky commentary team knew it. The ref probably knew it too, but couldn't give a goal without getting the Hawkeye confirmation on his watch.

That's where this system differs from VAR. It's not about opinions at all. It's black and white. The ball was either over the line, or it wasn't. If we didn't have Hawkeye, the ref could well have given the goal. But he was forced to rely on Hawkeye and was not allowed to overrule the technology, which he beleived had ruled it was not a goal.

If Hawkeye wasn't turned on, then it didn't overrule the ref. No decision was made. If the ref knew Hawkeye was turned off, he would be within his rights to give a goal. But the ref thought it was functioning, and the lack of an alert meant the ball hadn't crossed the line.

If it was a thousand-to-one error the technology can be forgiven. After all, refs make poor decisions all the time, and even VAR doesn't always get things right. But if it was turned off, that's something else. Don't the PL rules say that Hawkeye must be turned on before a game can start?

If it was turned off you could argue that the game should be void. It would be akin to starting a game with one goal smaller than the other one, or the penalty area lines marked wrongly.

The other question is of course why Stockley Park chose to ignore what their eyes were clearly seeing.

 

[Dkc]

The other question is of course why Stockley Park chose to ignore what their eyes were clearly seeing.

If they thought Hawkeye was turned on, they may have had no choice. I'm not sure if the VAR refs can overturn Hawkeye decisions, can they?

 

[Worksop II]

If they thought Hawkeye was turned on, they may have had no choice. I'm not sure if the VAR refs can overturn Hawkeye decisions, can they?

Did Hawkeye make a decision? .... if it was off, then it didn't

 

[Dkc]

If the ref on the field wasn't aware it was turned off, the VAR refs wouldn't have been aware either.

Could be wrong, but I think it only "makes a decision" or alerts the refs when the ball has crossed the line. I expect it doesn't do owt if the ball doesn't cross the line.

Hawkeye should rightly be under enormous pressure now to publish the "blocked view" pics, if they exist.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Chingo]

Seem to remember someone (commentator ?) saying ‘it’s switched on now’ as the players came out for the second half , agree that they should show the Hawkeye pics though

 

[Varkanoid]

Feel free to continue reading past the first sentence.

Feel free to re-read that I never mentioned a red card.

VAR isn’t allowed to check for that, unless it would be a red card.

The commentator said VAR was checking for a possible hand ball. The camera showed the ref checking his wrist, put his hand to his ear as though listening to instructions.
Only stating what was said on TV, watch it again.

 

[Eggy]

Time to let this go. Season is over. Unlikely to happen again.

 

[Punk Blade]

Feel free to re-read that I never mentioned a red card.

So if they had determined it was handball, what were you hoping they would do; give a goal, a penalty or tell the referee it wasn’t McCarthy?

 

[Geordie Blade]

The commentator said VAR was checking for a possible hand ball. The camera showed the ref checking his wrist, put his hand to his ear as though listening to instructions.
Only stating what was said on TV, watch it again.

Haha - are you suggesting that football commentators are a source of truth?

The FA rules about VAR are here.

 

[Chingo]

Time to let this go. Season is over. Unlikely to happen again.

It’s Bournemouth that are looking at taking legal action that has started it off again mate.

 

[Eggy]

It’s Bournemouth that are looking at taking legal action that has started it off again mate.

I don't know why cos most of the legal experts in the articles i've read have said they don't have a chance. They might get a couple of mill in compensation and that's about it, should they take action.

 

[Worksop II]

Time to let this go. Season is over. Unlikely to happen again.

Hawkeye ........ hold my Beer ....

 

[awblade]

Haha - are you suggesting that football commentators are a source of truth?

The FA rules about VAR are here.

A player can be sent off for handling the ball and denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. So it could have been a potential red card incident, I can't remember how close any of our players were

 

[Varkanoid]

NM

 

[SelbyBlade]

I don't know why cos most of the legal experts in the articles i've read have said they don't have a chance. They might get a couple of mill in compensation and that's about it, should they take action.

A couple of Mill in the Championship goes a lot further than in the Prem especially after the big boys have taken any prem worthy players they have. Rammo and Josh King will be gone I would think.

 

[Blade56]

If it was switched on, why haven't they shown us the images? I can only presume that it was switched off. Hawkeye is now an integral part of the game, and the match shouldn't have kicked off it it was not in operation. If Hawkeye was switched off that implies gross negligence.

The ball was clearly over the line. The players knew it, the goalkeeper knew it and the Sky commentary team knew it. The ref probably knew it too, but couldn't give a goal without getting the Hawkeye confirmation on his watch.

That's where this system differs from VAR. It's not about opinions at all. It's black and white. The ball was either over the line, or it wasn't. If we didn't have Hawkeye, the ref could well have given the goal. But he was forced to rely on Hawkeye and was not allowed to overrule the technology, which he beleived had ruled it was not a goal.

If Hawkeye wasn't turned on, then it didn't overrule the ref. No decision was made. If the ref knew Hawkeye was turned off, he would be within his rights to give a goal. But the ref thought it was functioning, and the lack of an alert meant the ball hadn't crossed the line.

If it was a thousand-to-one error the technology can be forgiven. After all, refs make poor decisions all the time, and even VAR doesn't always get things right. But if it was turned off, that's something else. Don't the PL rules say that Hawkeye must be turned on before a game can start?

If it was turned off you could argue that the game should be void. It would be akin to starting a game with one goal smaller than the other one, or the penalty area lines marked wrongly.

It would have been easily resolved if Villa had been honest and owned up to what happened. Leeds did it in the play-offs, Arsenal did it in the cup, de Canio did it for an injured player et al. Honesty from Villa? No chance, instead they celebrated sending their piers down in their place as if they had won the PL. And Smith straight after game in pitch side interview says it justified spending £120m and they need to strengthen again. Cheating scumbags, if crowds were allowed in next season could just imagine chants about being there instead of Bournemouth.

 

[Punk Blade]

er, a free kick ??!!

VAR doesn’t do that.

Goals, penalties, red cards, mistaken identity. That’s it.

 

[Withington Blade]

The other question is of course why Stockley Park chose to ignore what their eyes were clearly seeing.

Exactly, we were sold VAR on the basis this type of incident would never happen again.

 

[Geordie Blade]

A player can be sent off for handling the ball and denying a clear goal scoring opportunity. So it could have been a potential red card incident, I can't remember how close any of our players were

They would only consider it to be denying a goalscoring opportunity if the handball was the only thing that stopped one of our players getting the ball. Given that (i) the keeper could have easily just booted it away, and (ii) the keeper could have easily stepped back a couple of feet and waited, both without risking any of our players getting near the ball, there is absolutely no way that it could be considered to be denying a goalscoring opportunity.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

If the ref on the field wasn't aware it was turned off, the VAR refs wouldn't have been aware either.

Could be wrong, but I think it only "makes a decision" or alerts the refs when the ball has crossed the line. I expect it doesn't do owt if the ball doesn't cross the line.

Hawkeye should rightly be under enormous pressure now to publish the "blocked view" pics, if they exist.

Apparently his watch buzzed with the "goal" notification at half time

 

[Grey Blade]

Apparently his watch buzzed with the "goal" notification at half time

I was never sure if this was fact or supposition, but if it was fact the common sense solution was:-

At the end of the day, this event happened a couple of minutes before half time and there was a 15 minute gap to decide how to best resolve it. Even at half time when the world knew it was behind the line VAR could have awarded the goal and replayed the last couple of minutes of the half and they'd have received more priase than grumbles for correcting an obvious error. It was hoped it be inconsequential and so the powers that be did nothing. Now it's a bigger mess than it ever needed to be.

They could have had the half time break, played the remaining 2 or 3 minutes of the 1st half, had a drinks break and then continued with the 2nd half

 

[awblade]

They would only consider it to be denying a goalscoring opportunity if the handball was the only thing that stopped one of our players getting the ball. Given that (i) the keeper could have easily just booted it away, and (ii) the keeper could have easily stepped back a couple of feet and waited, both without risking any of our players getting near the ball, there is absolutely no way that it could be considered to be denying a goalscoring opportunity.

I'm not that fussed, I was just pointing out goalkeeper handball can be given as a straight red card and that VAR could be right in looking at it

 

[Addison]

Until a detailed explanation of what went wrong is published then there will be questions to answer.

1. Hawkeye say there was a technical fault because players bodies obscured the cameras. What has told them this? Some failure report on the cameras or system itself? If so why has this evidence not been forthcoming. So from a leaning perspective to avoid this again where are the cameras placed and should they be re sited or more cameras installed? If this is what happened then its reasonable to assume it could happen again?

2. We've been told its a one in a 9,000 games failure. Why is it? Systems are at risk of malfunction at some point. What is the built in contingency to deal with this occurrence - does one exist or was the assumption it could never happen?

3. PGMOL say the officials confirmed Hawkeye was turned on at the start of the game. Was this communicated to any one other than match officials? or was it just a check of the watch on the wrist? Was Stockley Park made aware of the system being turned on or isn't that part of the process. Who is responsible for making sure the system is turned on? Hawkeye, the match officials? The Home Club?

4. Its been suggested the ref's watch indicated a goal had been scored at half time. If true how is that possible if the cameras were obscured they could not possibly report a goal in this circumstance. If it didn't report a goal what message did the watch give out? Was the beep an indication that the system was being turned on or was it consistent with the check at the beginning of the game that the system was working? Is there a check at half time that the system is still working?

5. What is the learning from this that can be passed onto match officials so that assurances can be given to Clubs that this will not happen again. What process is in place to stop this if it does happen again?

6. Is there any true in the rumour that the Hawkeye system at Villa Park was due for servicing but it was not carried out due to Covid 19. Hawkeye say the system was tested when was this last carried out?

These are all reasonable questions to raise. Continued silence on the matter adds weight to the argument that there is more to this than meets the eye.