Hawkeye Decision at Villa Park

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

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.

Top post

 

[BanderSerge]

Last season at Villa park, 3 nil up with 10 mins to go. What was the final score?!

Once in a life time fluke by Henderson. Villa still wouldn’t have scored if we’d have been playing now. Utter dog shyte.

 

[Rufus Smalls]

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.

Some very good points made there.

It would be pertinent, as for all failed systems and processes, for the PL to carry out an audit of the Hawkeye system for that particular match/incident and actually publish their findings. But let’s not hold our breaths ........

 

[BanderSerge]

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

I blame CWAK they knew within 12 seconds we’d scored. Should have took the team off the second the ball was dead, till it was sorted.

 

[BanderSerge]

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

Yup, let it go? Same as we did with Segers. Tevez/Masherano. Arsenal in the cup. “Oh it’s only them muggy little northern twats. They’ve also got form for anybody and everybody pulling their pants down and dry bumming them. One more time won’t hurt, will it?” Yep, just it go, like we always do!

 

[Kenilworth]

Gone to Villa

 

[Dkc]

I blame CWAK they knew within 12 seconds we’d scored. Should have took the team off the second the ball was dead, till it was sorted.

I doubt the goal would have been awarded there and then, it would have set a dangerous precedent if so.

 

[HammerInPeace]

It appears that people are in two different camps over this.
I'm firmly in the camp that says you would have won that game & that Villa got a point that they weren't entitled to, which relegated Bournemouth, instead of them.
Luckily, it didn't affect your final table position.
Disgraceful that the goal was missed.

 

[S64 Blade]

Irrespective of what the final result would have been, you arguably couldn’t have asked for a better time for the incident of the ghost goal to have happened.

It was right before half-time allowing a period where the goal could be assessed and a decision made without really changing the cause of the game. Could Villa have really objected to the 2/3 minutes left of the half, at a retrospective 1-0 starting the second half? It’s incredibly unlikely we’d have gone into half time not winning, if the goal had been allowed.

The second half could have then commenced as it should have done with us leading 1-0. Then whatever would have happened thereafter would not have been up for debate. Maybe we would have won, maybe we would have lost 5-1, but there would not be this ongoing “what if” scenario.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Irrespective of what the final result would have been, you arguably couldn’t have asked for a better time for the incident of the ghost goal to have happened.

It was right before half-time allowing a period where the goal could be assessed and a decision made without really changing the cause of the game. Could Villa have really objected to the 2/3 minutes left of the half, at a retrospective 1-0 starting the second half? It’s incredibly unlikely we’d have gone into half time not winning, if the goal had been allowed.

The second half could have then commenced as it should have done with us leading 1-0. Then whatever would have happened thereafter would not have been up for debate. Maybe we would have won, maybe we would have lost 5-1, but there would not be this ongoing “what if” scenario.

I completely agree with that. Man City had an incident earlier in the season where play was brought back by three or four minutes (their possession game meant that the ball just didn't go out!). In which case, surely they could have easily done the same with this incident.

 

[Dkc]

I completely agree with that. Man City had an incident earlier in the season where play was brought back by three or four minutes (their possession game meant that the ball just didn't go out!). In which case, surely they could have easily done the same with this incident.

But that was Man City. We're talking about Sheff United here. Imagine if the 'ghost goal' had been scored by one of the Manc clubs or Liverpool. They could well have reviewed the decision at half time

 

[Killamarshblades]

Yup, let it go? Same as we did with Segers. Tevez/Masherano. Arsenal in the cup. “Oh it’s only them muggy little northern twats. They’ve also got form for anybody and everybody pulling their pants down and dry bumming them. One more time won’t hurt, will it?” Yep, just it go, like we always do!

Didnt we get compensation for Tevez?? And the arsenal game was voided? Segers - suppose we could have sued him as an individual but that would have come at the end of a court case proving he took bribes (cannot remember if he did have a trial or not)

 

[Killamarshblades]

But that was Man City. We're talking about Sheff United here. Imagine if the 'ghost goal' had been scored by one of the Manc clubs or Liverpool. They could well have reviewed the decision at half time

They couldnt and wouldnt though. If its not reviewed at the correct point in the game you cant then revisit it at half time, even as close as it was to half time against Villa. The mindset that the world is against us is frankly weird and bizarre imo. It got missed, there's clear a 'cover up' but all the league / authorities are doing is playing for time, soon as the new season starts etc people will stop banging on about it. It also feels pointless BMouth suing etc. There's no way of saying how the game would go, with over 50% of it left to play...the only thing to do would be to void the result and replay the game if it was agreed there was a mass injustice, and that's not going to happen. Time to move on

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

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

If this was the only mistake in a whole season it still needs investigating.

There have been several apologies for wrong decisions so the system definitely needs investigating.

Move on by all means, but not without learning from some dreadful mistakes.

Cover-ups and turning a blind eye do nothing but cheapen the game.

Kevin Gage on his Facebook page posted a very interesting table that showed EPL positions adjusted for mistakes made by VAR (not sure where he got it from nor how accurate it is but he normally posts decent stuff so I presume it's there or thereabouts)

Interesting.

There's a few £million we've lost ...

 

[Dkc]

Time to move on

You're not the first person to say that, but it's a good topic to debate, so what's the harm? No one's planning on holding a demo outside PL HQ. It makes a welcome change from discussing Covid and Black Lives Matter.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

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.

A red card can still be given for handball even if the keeper would still have been able to stop the ball another way. I take it in your two examples you mean he could have done those things after handballing it - but that doesn't affect the red card, which is applied before the keeper does anything else.
Only the intervention of a nearby defender can prevent a red card.

 

[Punk Blade]

On the handball debate, how does it being deliberate work for goalkeepers? For an outfield player it means moving your hand to the ball or having your arm in an ‘unnatural’ position. Goalkeepers can be subject to the same judgements if clearly outside their area and that is usually where red card offences occur. But if he is intentionally handling the ball because he can, but misjudges his position or speed around the edge of the area, is it deliberate handball?

I still can’t see Sunday being given as handball, never mind a red card. He was fumbling the ball right on his 18 yard line, barely touched it with his hands/arms and never had control of it.

 

[Deaneandagana]

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.

Point 1 you make is the key in all of this, let us the paying public see the evidence to support the camera failure

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

Goalposts aren't in the way as they always are. So that's one lie.

Goalkeeper is behind the line so he's not in the way either.

6 cameras blocked apparently in this incident.

Yeah, oreyt then. The camera used here isn't blocked is it?

Absolute bollocks.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Two attitudes to this are very odd to me, the first is this "don't object, don't make a fuss, move on, it's in the past" - we heard it and still hear it from a lot of fans about the Tevez case. Why is there this belief that you should get bent over and shafted by cheats, liers, incompetence or people who apply the rules in a biased way and then turn around and say 'thank you very much for the privilege of being allowed to take part'.
More than anything, involving the courts will remind the footballing authorities that they are not a law unto themselves and can be held to account. It's a shame it's necessary, but we all know football has been run by incompetent fools and the criminally corrupt for many years. Not only are huge sums of money involved, but football matters a great deal to a lot of people and the integrity of the sport is important.

Secondly, this idea that they have no chance in court because no one knows how the second half would have played out is simply ridiculous. That might be a conversation for fans, but a court will see it differently and consider all arguments. That argument taken to its conclusion means you can do absolutely anything with no accountability right up to the last 10 seconds of the match.
It isn't a criminal court, there's no 'beyond reasonable doubt' and there will be a burden of proof on Hawkeye to show that they did everything properly, rather than Bournmouth having to exclusively prove that the incident sent them down. I'm not a lawyer either, but if they're even considering it, then there must be a chance of winning and a court case would be a good thing for the future of the sport.

We should be interested in this, as it affects the future of football.
Football has brought this sort of thing on itself - previously it was all subjective judgements by the officials and the only question was whether officials/players were taking bribes or making bets. Now they've introduced exact standards using digital technology they can expect to be held to those exact standards.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

On the handball debate, how does it being deliberate work for goalkeepers? For an outfield player it means moving your hand to the ball or having your arm in an ‘unnatural’ position. Goalkeepers can be subject to the same judgements if clearly outside their area and that is usually where red card offences occur. But if he is intentionally handling the ball because he can, but misjudges his position or speed around the edge of the area, is it deliberate handball?

I still can’t see Sunday being given as handball, never mind a red card. He was fumbling the ball right on his 18 yard line, barely touched it with his hands/arms and never had control of it.

I remember Tracey having a handball given against him for apparently carrying the ball outside the area when kicking the ball out - against Leeds and if I remember correctly they scored from the freekick. The keeper can deliberately handle the ball in the area, he can't deliberately handle the ball outside the area. If he's grabbing at it, it's deliberate. You don't need control of it, "barely" isn't part of the rules and if it was over the line it was outside the box.
On Sunday, I can only assume the ball wasn't fully over the line, which is presumably the rule, rather than his fingers being over the line.

 

[ben1987]

Goalposts aren't in the way as they always are. So that's one lie.

Goalkeeper is behind the line so he's not in the way either.

6 cameras blocked apparently in this incident.

Yeah, oreyt then. The camera used here isn't blocked is it?

Absolute bollocks. View attachment 86830

It is absolute bollocks because there’s max 3 players near the ball and as you point out ones behind the line.

So they’re trying to tell us that once in 9,000 games there were 3 players around the goal line and managed to block their cameras.

You see more players around the goal line on almost every single set piece

 

[Blade56]

I remember Tracey having a handball given against him for apparently carrying the ball outside the area when kicking the ball out - against Leeds and if I remember correctly they scored from the freekick. The keeper can deliberately handle the ball in the area, he can't deliberately handle the ball outside the area. If he's grabbing at it, it's deliberate. You don't need control of it, "barely" isn't part of the rules and if it was over the line it was outside the box.
On Sunday, I can only assume the ball wasn't fully over the line, which is presumably the rule, rather than his fingers being over the line.

Don’t recall it happening to Tracy (might have but I can’t remember) but I seem to recall John Hope did it against Chelsea at the Lane and they scored from free kick.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Don’t recall it happening to Tracy (might have but I can’t remember) but I seem to recall John Hope did it against Chelsea at the Lane and they scored from free kick.

Damn, hope I'm not imagining this. I think it was Elland Road and it was a high scoring match, I think they scored three and we scored either three or two. Silent Blade ?

 

[Blade56]

Damn, hope I'm not imagining this. I think it was Elland Road and it was a high scoring match, I think they scored three and we scored either three or two. Silent Blade ?

If it was at Elland Road I wouldn’t have seen it, only been a couple of times.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

If it was at Elland Road I wouldn’t have seen it, only been a couple of times.

Found it. No, I've only been to Elland Rd once, I think, was on telly or a review dvd. It was Phil Kite and Leeds won 4-3.
From the 43rd second: (It also wasn't a correct decision)

 

[Sheffsteel]

It is absolute bollocks because there’s max 3 players near the ball and as you point out ones behind the line.

So they’re trying to tell us that once in 9,000 games there were 3 players around the goal line and managed to block their cameras.

You see more players around the goal line on almost every single set piece

Ex referee Mark Clattenburg was a guest on Talksport the day after our match with Villa.

He said he was present with several other refs at the Hawkeye presentation and demonstration...which he said was held at Villa Park.
He said they were invited to try and make the technology fail....so they crowded around the ball trying to block all angles.
He said some one even had the ball hid uo their shirt and what ever they tried.....Hawkeye always detected the ball.

Clattenburg said he doesn’t buy the explanation that the technology failed due to all the cameras being blocked. He was more understanding regards Michael Oliver but was very critical of the team in the VAR room saying it’s their job to monitor everything....they are there to assist the ref.

 

[Punk Blade]

I remember Tracey having a handball given against him for apparently carrying the ball outside the area when kicking the ball out - against Leeds and if I remember correctly they scored from the freekick. The keeper can deliberately handle the ball in the area, he can't deliberately handle the ball outside the area. If he's grabbing at it, it's deliberate. You don't need control of it, "barely" isn't part of the rules and if it was over the line it was outside the box.
On Sunday, I can only assume the ball wasn't fully over the line, which is presumably the rule, rather than his fingers being over the line.

My point is more around what is deliberate in the sense of a handball offence, not deliberate in handling the ball. If a goalkeeper deliberately, and legally, handles the ball in his own area, and he then realises that his momentum carried the ball out of the area a split second too late and released the ball, is that ‘deliberate’ in the sense of a handball offence, or accidental as his intention was only ever to handle the ball inside his area?

The rule is the position of the ball, and the lines count as the penalty area, so it would be all of the ball entirely outside the line.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

My point is more around what is deliberate in the sense of a handball offence, not deliberate in handling the ball. If a goalkeeper deliberately, and legally, handles the ball in his own area, and he then realises that his momentum carried the ball out of the area a split second too late and released the ball, is that ‘deliberate’ in the sense of a handball offence, or accidental as his intention was only ever to handle the ball inside his area?

The rule is the position of the ball, and the lines count as the penalty area, so it would be all of the ball entirely outside the line.

OK I understand what you're saying, but if the rule is based on whether he deliberately handles the ball and not whether he deliberately handles the ball thinking whether he can or not, then it's handball. You could say he still deliberately handled the ball when he was outside the area, even if he is unaware that he's outside the area.
That's how it's always been interpreted, anyway, hence my example above of Kite's handball, which is exactly the situation you describe.

 

[Punk Blade]

OK I understand what you're saying, but if the rule is based on whether he deliberately handles the ball and not whether he deliberately handles the ball thinking whether he can or not, then it's handball. You could say he still deliberately handled the ball when he was outside the area, even if he is unaware that he's outside the area.
That's how it's always been interpreted, anyway, hence my example above of Kite's handball, which is exactly the situation you describe.

I’m sure you’re right. The part I’ve highlighted is the crux of the issue for me, I’m not sure if the laws allow for this distinction when considering goalkeepers marginally outside their area. If it’s deliberately handling the ball in an area of the pitch that the laws don’t allow you to (everywhere for outfield players, outside your area for goalkeepers), then you’re right. I think there could be an argument made that unintentionally carrying the ball out of your area is akin to ‘ball-to-hand’ in whether it is a deliberate handball and therefore a handball offence, but I agree with you that isn’t the current wording or interpretation of the law.

In my mind’s eye the scenario was a goalkeeper rushing out to collect just inside the 18 yard line, sliding behind the 18 yard line and releasing just as the ball is over the line. That Kite decision doesn’t even look particularly close.