Official Hawkeye reason given

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

Bladesman

The Great Grumbleduke
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
35,488
Reaction score
38,576
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
833
Reaction score
1,234
"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
399
Reaction score
240
"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
5,770
Reaction score
10,870
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
11,346
Reaction score
13,431
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.
 

Grey Blade

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
833
Reaction score
1,234
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?

Since Hawkeye was introduced in tennis, I've always been intrigued that they never show a super slow motion replay of line calls to compare Hawkeye's prediction and the actual position of the ball. It seems as though in tennis they don't want to undermine the technology, but in football, refereeing decisions are constantly being questioned by slow motion replays.

It does seem that it's ok to question refereeing decisions but technological decisions can't be questioned - which is probably what happened in the Villa case ( even if it was obviously wrong).
 

Barnette

Ayamonte
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
288
Reaction score
589
It would be interesting what the response would have been had a Villa goal been missed, which in the end could have resulted in their relegation.
The power's that be must be hugely relieved it was littl'old Sheffield that was affected.
 

Flatulent_Bob

PC RoboFag...........and proud!
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
13,431
It would be interesting what the response would have been had a Villa goal been missed, which in the end could have resulted in their relegation.
The power's that be must be hugely relieved it was littl'old Sheffield that was affected.
I'm sure that will be brought up if Villa manage to stay up by a point.
 

HodgysBrokenThumb

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
5,770
Reaction score
10,870
Since Hawkeye was introduced in tennis, I've always been intrigued that they never show a super slow motion replay of line calls to compare Hawkeye's prediction and the actual position of the ball. It seems as though in tennis they don't want to undermine the technology, but in football, refereeing decisions are constantly being questioned by slow motion replays.

It does seem that it's ok to question refereeing decisions but technological decisions can't be questioned - which is probably what happened in the Villa case ( even if it was obviously wrong).
The tennis comparison is a good one - the players accept it, and it has got rid of a lot of heated arguments. That is why it would be good to know if Hawkeye is reliable for football. And if it isn’t, it would also be good to know how much is spent on it each season. After the Villa match, the least they should do is instruct referees and linesmen to be alert and to question possible errors.
 

Harrisblade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Messages
10,077
Reaction score
7,558
The tennis comparison is a good one - the players accept it, and it has got rid of a lot of heated arguments. That is why it would be good to know if Hawkeye is reliable for football. And if it isn’t, it would also be good to know how much is spent on it each season. After the Villa match, the least they should do is instruct referees and linesmen to be alert and to question possible errors.
Or get the VAR team to respond to 'clear and obvious errors' as and when they see them happen?
 

MobileBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
5,160
Location
Beauchief
....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.
It was actually 12 seconds later, that's all. Enough time for Lunny's big toe to be offside three times.
 

Guesty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
6,220
Location
Woodseats
Yeah, it’s not.

I want to know where it comes from initially. Obviously this chap is sharing it as part of a pro Newcastle takeover campaign on Twitter, but I heard this Halsey nonsense a couple of weeks back.
 

Guesty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
6,220
Location
Woodseats
Good find, cheers!

My five minutes on Google were fruitless.
 

scouseblade

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
428
Reaction score
257
Location
Liverpool
Portugal had a clear 'goal' not given yesterday.
Not sure if there was goalline technology?
Nope. UEFA do not use Hawkeye or VAR in qualifiers. Ronaldo's wobbler though was of epic proportions. This for me is why Messi is the better of the two. Doesnt go around crying like a baby. Sh*t happens. Villa would have been relegated if a 1/5000 chance event hadnt happened last season. In the grand scheme of things, Portugal will probably qualify anyway.
 

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

Top Bottom