Official Hawkeye reason given

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

Toronto Blade

Round the bend in the river
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
2,447
Reaction score
1,439
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

Active Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2017
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
2,973
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

“No reasonable person would believe it”
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
42,631
Reaction score
65,097
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
135
Reaction score
278
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
11,897
Reaction score
21,677
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
4,052
Reaction score
3,618
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
1,160
Reaction score
755
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 👍
 

Klaatu Barada Nikto

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2019
Messages
5,688
Reaction score
6,941
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.

Hawkeye doesn’t just make a decision when it’s marginal, it goes off every time a goal is scored. So you only have to remove from the 9000 games where there has been no goals.
 

Ainsley Harriott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
11,897
Reaction score
21,677
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
What you mean is you find it unbelievable that they missed considering Hawkeye's own admission that they have an ability to remove players from the image.

And if a goalpost is an obstruction then I give up.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
325
Reaction score
450
Hawkeye doesn’t just make a decision when it’s marginal, it goes off every time a goal is scored. So you only have to remove from the 9000 games where there has been no goals.
I get what you mean, but that's not what I meant.

What I mean is that if the ball powers into the rear netting, noone is going to pay attention to Hawkeye. So whether it works or not is irrelevant.it isn't needed to make those decisions - it's only needed for the marginal goal-line calls.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
325
Reaction score
450
I can't believe the number of people that think Sky and Hawkeye use the same cameras
I can't believe the number of people taking Hawkeye PR bullshit at face value and think they have the ability to magically remove players to see the ball... Without understanding what that actually means! The cameras aren't magic fucking x-ray ball-seeing cameras!!
 

Peggy22

New Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
31
Reaction score
29
Obviously I seem to have a slight obsession with the linesman/assistant referee... apologies for that. But I watched the match on Now TV so couldn’t rewind and haven’t had chance to catch up with it on any other format so, can anyone help me out, and tell me where the assistant ref was, when we scored?
 

Worksop II

Defectum Heroicis
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
5,077
Location
Worksop
Obviously I seem to have a slight obsession with the linesman/assistant referee... apologies for that. But I watched the match on Now TV so couldn’t rewind and haven’t had chance to catch up with it on any other format so, can anyone help me out, and tell me where the assistant ref was, when we scored?
I reckon he was right on the line where he should be
 

HammerInPeace

F*cking reasonable c*nt..
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
2,762
Obviously I seem to have a slight obsession with the linesman/assistant referee... apologies for that. But I watched the match on Now TV so couldn’t rewind and haven’t had chance to catch up with it on any other format so, can anyone help me out, and tell me where the assistant ref was, when we scored?
In the shed with the other tools..
 

Bruce Wayne

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
14,319
Reaction score
22,411
Obviously I seem to have a slight obsession with the linesman/assistant referee... apologies for that. But I watched the match on Now TV so couldn’t rewind and haven’t had chance to catch up with it on any other format so, can anyone help me out, and tell me where the assistant ref was, when we scored?

He had a 100% clear view and must have seen the keeper take the ball behind the post. We have become far too reliant on technology and choose not too at least question something that doesn't look right. It's not as if there isn't technology to back up a technological mistake.
 

HammerInPeace

F*cking reasonable c*nt..
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
2,762
I can't believe the number of people taking Hawkeye PR bullshit at face value and think they have the ability to magically remove players to see the ball... Without understanding what that actually means! The cameras aren't magic fucking x-ray ball-seeing cameras!!
Today's 'Sun', no I didn't buy it, said something about the VAR people being reminded to look out for moments like that & to take action, or words to that effect.
Which somehow makes it worse. Being 'reminded' means that they SHOULD have done something, on that incident, doesn't it? Unless I read it wrong.
 

Ainsley Harriott

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2016
Messages
11,897
Reaction score
21,677
He had a 100% clear view and must have seen the keeper take the ball behind the post. We have become far too reliant on technology and choose not too at least question something that doesn't look right. It's not as if there isn't technology to back up a technological mistake.
Too reliant on technology is something I see everyday at work.

"This app on my phone says its raining right now"

Literally not a cloud in the sky. Use your fuckin eyes.
 

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

Top Bottom