Official Hawkeye reason given

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

mattbianco1

Eternal optimist, starting to waver
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
20,102
Reaction score
28,305
Location
Frecheville
Exactly this, they should have been straight on saying 'that doesn't look right just pause while we look'.

Like when they take 3 minutes to determine if someone is 1mm offside. The difference in how that was done last night is borderline corrupt.

Mark Halsey has come out and said the same. He must've read my post ;)

 

PokerBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
10,168
The 1 in 9000 thing will be made up. They forgot to turn on the technology.
It is made up, if people think they're saying "there's a 1/9000 chance of this happening". It's just the first time this has happened in 9000 games that have used Hawkeye. It could be a one in a million or it could be a one in five thousand. It's not like every game (or even most games) have the goal line technology actually make a decision. It'd be interesting to know how many times it's actually been put in to effect rather than merely present.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
325
Reaction score
450
So i'm as pissed off about the result as the next Blade, but amidst allegations of corruption etc. I think it's probably worth there being some clarity on a few things - at least as much clarity as I have from my own understanding of the rules and technology. I should clarify I'm not a camera engineer, nor any kind of authority on Hawkeye, but that I think i've got a pretty good understanding of how the tech likely works based on my general knowledge of technology, physics, computers etc.:

1) Hawkeye cameras - the cameras themselves don't "remove" the players from the image. They aren't clever enough to disregard light rays reflecting off a (moving) player but to keep the ones from the posts, ball, etc. I suspect (strongly) the Hawkeye system uses high-speed, high-resolution cameras, the feed from all of which is combined using triangulation to locate the ball, and stereoscopy / photogrammetry techniques to remove the elements not required. The cameras themselves aren't magic - it's the controlling software doing the post-processing.

2) Occluded views - I can accept that there is at least one (more likely several) combinations of position of moving objects (ball, players, referee(s)) that mean that the line of sight from each of the 7 fixed cameras to the ball is blocked at a particular instant. Hawkeye say they only need 2 cameras to plot the ball position (see 1) above), and i guess as the cameras are in the stands then it doesn't necessarily need to be a player near the ball or in the goal mouth that is blocking the view? If this is the case, then I'm astonished that it has taken over 9000 matches for this particular and specific combination of occlusion to occur. I feel, with the benefit of reflection, that this is likely to be an oversight of the system development - football isn't like cricket, with less moving parts and moving people in a small area. Someone has probably said "noone will ever block more than 5 of the 7 cameras - she'll be right!". It was shortsighted, and why they don't also have an overhead camera on a post behind the goal looking straight down to feed into the Hawkeye system i don't know.

3) Other cameras - I suspect Hawkeye and Sky etc. aren't linked at all, and even if they were, the cameras used for broadcast pictures by Sky et al are unlikely to be of sufficient quality, frame-rate and resolution to be able to feed accurate data into the Hawkeye "model" of the ball position. The Hawkeye cameras will be in fixed positions, and their locations and various key dimensions no doubt programmed into the software to allow the calculations to take place, so the Hawkeye programme at each ground will be bespoke. the Sky cameras aren't likely to be in EXACTLY the same location every time - they might move an inch here or there, and that would be enough to mess up the calculations the computers will be doing to track the position of the ball.

4) VAR - the GDS / VAR implementation adopted by the FA and EPL differs from the rugby implementation in as much that rugby relies on the ref and asks VAR if there is a reason the refs decision shouldn't stand, whereas football asks more black-and-white, yes-or-no questions without recourse to the referees own opinion. In this case, My understanding is that VAR only reviews goal decisions or penalties etc. and the list of thinks VAR can intervene for is limited. If the GDS had gone off, VAR would have looked to confirm the ball was over the line. Under the EPL implementation, I don't think referees generally have recourse to "referring" the decision to VAR - again differing from the rugby system. Ditto the pitchside monitors etc.

5) Michael Oliver - his hands were, as I understand it, a bit tied by the above. The only recourse would have been if VAR thought there was a potential penalty, at which point the review would have taken place. Again, VAR doesn't seem to check goalmouth scrambles unless the goal goes in, or there is a potential penalty. If that review had happened, I don't know if the response would have been "Mike - no penno, but you do know the ball went across the line, right? Did the watch not go off for it?" or not. I don't lay any particular blame at his feet if i'm honest. Even if the liner had been in the right place and flagged for the ball going in, would he have overruled the GDS? Or would you just assume it had looked like it was over but the GDS must have said it wasn't quite over - and again, had that happened i don't think the protocols don't allow Oliver to "refer" to VAR.

Most of these issues can be solved, in my eye, by the simple recourse of the VAR being required to look at every incident in some way or another; by letting referees ask for VAR input in the same way rugby do (i.e. "I think that might have been a goal, and the players seem to think it was in despite the GDS not triggering. Can you confirm if the ball crossed the line, or if there is another reason I can't award the goal?"); by implementing pitchside monitors in the EPL as they do in the UCL and encouraging referees to use them; and finally by implementing some sort of "challenge" system as there is in tennis.
 

mattbianco1

Eternal optimist, starting to waver
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
20,102
Reaction score
28,305
Location
Frecheville
So i'm as pissed off about the result as the next Blade, but amidst allegations of corruption etc. I think it's probably worth there being some clarity on a few things - at least as much clarity as I have from my own understanding of the rules and technology. I should clarify I'm not a camera engineer, nor any kind of authority on Hawkeye, but that I think i've got a pretty good understanding of how the tech likely works based on my general knowledge of technology, physics, computers etc.:

1) Hawkeye cameras - the cameras themselves don't "remove" the players from the image. They aren't clever enough to disregard light rays reflecting off a (moving) player but to keep the ones from the posts, ball, etc. I suspect (strongly) the Hawkeye system uses high-speed, high-resolution cameras, the feed from all of which is combined using triangulation to locate the ball, and stereoscopy / photogrammetry techniques to remove the elements not required. The cameras themselves aren't magic - it's the controlling software doing the post-processing.

2) Occluded views - I can accept that there is at least one (more likely several) combinations of position of moving objects (ball, players, referee(s)) that mean that the line of sight from each of the 7 fixed cameras to the ball is blocked at a particular instant. Hawkeye say they only need 2 cameras to plot the ball position (see 1) above), and i guess as the cameras are in the stands then it doesn't necessarily need to be a player near the ball or in the goal mouth that is blocking the view? If this is the case, then I'm astonished that it has taken over 9000 matches for this particular and specific combination of occlusion to occur. I feel, with the benefit of reflection, that this is likely to be an oversight of the system development - football isn't like cricket, with less moving parts and moving people in a small area. Someone has probably said "noone will ever block more than 5 of the 7 cameras - she'll be right!". It was shortsighted, and why they don't also have an overhead camera on a post behind the goal looking straight down to feed into the Hawkeye system i don't know.

3) Other cameras - I suspect Hawkeye and Sky etc. aren't linked at all, and even if they were, the cameras used for broadcast pictures by Sky et al are unlikely to be of sufficient quality, frame-rate and resolution to be able to feed accurate data into the Hawkeye "model" of the ball position. The Hawkeye cameras will be in fixed positions, and their locations and various key dimensions no doubt programmed into the software to allow the calculations to take place, so the Hawkeye programme at each ground will be bespoke. the Sky cameras aren't likely to be in EXACTLY the same location every time - they might move an inch here or there, and that would be enough to mess up the calculations the computers will be doing to track the position of the ball.

4) VAR - the GDS / VAR implementation adopted by the FA and EPL differs from the rugby implementation in as much that rugby relies on the ref and asks VAR if there is a reason the refs decision shouldn't stand, whereas football asks more black-and-white, yes-or-no questions without recourse to the referees own opinion. In this case, My understanding is that VAR only reviews goal decisions or penalties etc. and the list of thinks VAR can intervene for is limited. If the GDS had gone off, VAR would have looked to confirm the ball was over the line. Under the EPL implementation, I don't think referees generally have recourse to "referring" the decision to VAR - again differing from the rugby system. Ditto the pitchside monitors etc.

5) Michael Oliver - his hands were, as I understand it, a bit tied by the above. The only recourse would have been if VAR thought there was a potential penalty, at which point the review would have taken place. Again, VAR doesn't seem to check goalmouth scrambles unless the goal goes in, or there is a potential penalty. If that review had happened, I don't know if the response would have been "Mike - no penno, but you do know the ball went across the line, right? Did the watch not go off for it?" or not. I don't lay any particular blame at his feet if i'm honest. Even if the liner had been in the right place and flagged for the ball going in, would he have overruled the GDS? Or would you just assume it had looked like it was over but the GDS must have said it wasn't quite over - and again, had that happened i don't think the protocols don't allow Oliver to "refer" to VAR.

Most of these issues can be solved, in my eye, by the simple recourse of the VAR being required to look at every incident in some way or another; by letting referees ask for VAR input in the same way rugby do (i.e. "I think that might have been a goal, and the players seem to think it was in despite the GDS not triggering. Can you confirm if the ball crossed the line, or if there is another reason I can't award the goal?"); by implementing pitchside monitors in the EPL as they do in the UCL and encouraging referees to use them; and finally by implementing some sort of "challenge" system as there is in tennis.
1592483559376.png
 

Niceguyeddie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
4,965
Reaction score
8,061
Mark.clattenburh says you can't block.the signal to the cameras.he was involved in testing and they tried everything and couldn't do it
 

mattbianco1

Eternal optimist, starting to waver
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
20,102
Reaction score
28,305
Location
Frecheville
Sent them an email :rolleyes:. Not expecting to hear anything back.


To whom it may concern,

As i'm sure you're aware, social media is in overdrive questioning the statement that you put out after the game last night.

It is claimed that the cameras were "occluded". If this is the case, for your company's reputation, you should be able to release the images, "proof" that the cameras were in fact occluded and it was impossible to see. This is what the fans need to see.

Corruption in the game is still a hot topic of discussion and many people feel this wouldn't have happened in the Man City v Arsenal game. The big clubs and media wouldn't have allowed it.

By issuing proof that the cameras were occluded and showing the goal line graphics that we have grown to love over the years, you will put not just the Sheffield United fans minds at rest, but the whole of football that it was in fact impossible to give.

The lack of "proof" being shown isn't helping your technology or your brand.

This is more than just 2 extra points for Sheffield United, or 1 less point for Aston Villa. There are jobs on the line in football and astronomical amounts of money on offer for European qualification and/or staying in the division.

If Aston Villa stay up this season on Goal Difference or 1pt, the team who gets relegated will no doubt seek legal advice against your company and technology. Same goes if Sheffield United miss out on European Qualification because of it.

Do the right thing. Show the proof, or if the truth is that the watch wasn't working etc. tell the truth. It would be better to clear your name now so that attention can be put towards the Premier League/VAR for an explanation as come the end of the season, this could become very messy.
 

PokerBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
10,168
So i'm as pissed off about the result as the next Blade, but amidst allegations of corruption etc. I think it's probably worth there being some clarity on a few things - at least as much clarity as I have from my own understanding of the rules and technology. I should clarify I'm not a camera engineer, nor any kind of authority on Hawkeye, but that I think i've got a pretty good understanding of how the tech likely works based on my general knowledge of technology, physics, computers etc.:

1) Hawkeye cameras - the cameras themselves don't "remove" the players from the image. They aren't clever enough to disregard light rays reflecting off a (moving) player but to keep the ones from the posts, ball, etc. I suspect (strongly) the Hawkeye system uses high-speed, high-resolution cameras, the feed from all of which is combined using triangulation to locate the ball, and stereoscopy / photogrammetry techniques to remove the elements not required. The cameras themselves aren't magic - it's the controlling software doing the post-processing.

2) Occluded views - I can accept that there is at least one (more likely several) combinations of position of moving objects (ball, players, referee(s)) that mean that the line of sight from each of the 7 fixed cameras to the ball is blocked at a particular instant. Hawkeye say they only need 2 cameras to plot the ball position (see 1) above), and i guess as the cameras are in the stands then it doesn't necessarily need to be a player near the ball or in the goal mouth that is blocking the view? If this is the case, then I'm astonished that it has taken over 9000 matches for this particular and specific combination of occlusion to occur. I feel, with the benefit of reflection, that this is likely to be an oversight of the system development - football isn't like cricket, with less moving parts and moving people in a small area. Someone has probably said "noone will ever block more than 5 of the 7 cameras - she'll be right!". It was shortsighted, and why they don't also have an overhead camera on a post behind the goal looking straight down to feed into the Hawkeye system i don't know.

3) Other cameras - I suspect Hawkeye and Sky etc. aren't linked at all, and even if they were, the cameras used for broadcast pictures by Sky et al are unlikely to be of sufficient quality, frame-rate and resolution to be able to feed accurate data into the Hawkeye "model" of the ball position. The Hawkeye cameras will be in fixed positions, and their locations and various key dimensions no doubt programmed into the software to allow the calculations to take place, so the Hawkeye programme at each ground will be bespoke. the Sky cameras aren't likely to be in EXACTLY the same location every time - they might move an inch here or there, and that would be enough to mess up the calculations the computers will be doing to track the position of the ball.

4) VAR - the GDS / VAR implementation adopted by the FA and EPL differs from the rugby implementation in as much that rugby relies on the ref and asks VAR if there is a reason the refs decision shouldn't stand, whereas football asks more black-and-white, yes-or-no questions without recourse to the referees own opinion. In this case, My understanding is that VAR only reviews goal decisions or penalties etc. and the list of thinks VAR can intervene for is limited. If the GDS had gone off, VAR would have looked to confirm the ball was over the line. Under the EPL implementation, I don't think referees generally have recourse to "referring" the decision to VAR - again differing from the rugby system. Ditto the pitchside monitors etc.

5) Michael Oliver - his hands were, as I understand it, a bit tied by the above. The only recourse would have been if VAR thought there was a potential penalty, at which point the review would have taken place. Again, VAR doesn't seem to check goalmouth scrambles unless the goal goes in, or there is a potential penalty. If that review had happened, I don't know if the response would have been "Mike - no penno, but you do know the ball went across the line, right? Did the watch not go off for it?" or not. I don't lay any particular blame at his feet if i'm honest. Even if the liner had been in the right place and flagged for the ball going in, would he have overruled the GDS? Or would you just assume it had looked like it was over but the GDS must have said it wasn't quite over - and again, had that happened i don't think the protocols don't allow Oliver to "refer" to VAR.

Most of these issues can be solved, in my eye, by the simple recourse of the VAR being required to look at every incident in some way or another; by letting referees ask for VAR input in the same way rugby do (i.e. "I think that might have been a goal, and the players seem to think it was in despite the GDS not triggering. Can you confirm if the ball crossed the line, or if there is another reason I can't award the goal?"); by implementing pitchside monitors in the EPL as they do in the UCL and encouraging referees to use them; and finally by implementing some sort of "challenge" system as there is in tennis.

My main question about the Hawkeye is whether it can pick up that it's lost track of the ball, so to speak. Or put another way, can Hawkeye tell that it can't make a decision, or does it carry on as though it's certain the ball did NOT cross the line? It's not like this was a particularly quick instant where the ball bounced on the line and out. Nyland was taking a nap on the post. So, without understanding it's in and outs, presumably the tech did attempt to make a reading at some point, and at that point, is anyone aware of its failing?

I'm not blaming Hawkeye though, unless it comes out they're bullshitting us about what happened. The fact is that it's a piece of technology that's far more accurate than a ref or linesman and just as quick. If all this means is that it's not 100% accurate then it's still been a huge improvement to the game overall. What I am annoyed about is that it seems like the governing bodies have been treating it as a perfect system and this is another case where it looks like VAR has been introduced without actually thinking about how it should be properly used.
 

carthesis

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
325
Reaction score
450
My main question about the Hawkeye is whether it can pick up that it's lost track of the ball, so to speak. Or put another way, can Hawkeye tell that it can't make a decision, or does it carry on as though it's certain the ball did NOT cross the line? It's not like this was a particularly quick instant where the ball bounced on the line and out. Nyland was taking a nap on the post. So, without understanding it's in and outs, presumably the tech did attempt to make a reading at some point, and at that point, is anyone aware of its failing?

I'm not blaming Hawkeye though, unless it comes out they're bullshitting us about what happened. The fact is that it's a piece of technology that's far more accurate than a ref or linesman and just as quick. If all this means is that it's not 100% accurate then it's still been a huge improvement to the game overall. What I am annoyed about is that it seems like the governing bodies have been treating it as a perfect system and this is another case where it looks like VAR has been introduced without actually thinking about how it should be properly used.
Fucking EXACTLY. People are focussing on the press release saying hawkeye can remove players from view so of course it can see everything, which is just bullshit.

I suspect it's entirely down to how the system is set up. I would hazard a guess we are asking it a very simple question at the end of the day - "did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?", and expect a boolean, binary, yes-or-no answer. Given that the "default" position for the bulk of the game is "the ball didn't cross the line", then I guess the alert will only trigger when the system registers that the ball DID cross the line (i.e it only ever gives a positive answer, and it keeping quiet is taken as a negative). Hence if it loses track, which it must do repeatedly throughout the entire game when the ball isn't in the penalty area, it just assumes the ball isn't in it's field of view and keeps quiet. Otherwise the ref's watch would be buzzing half the game, every time it gets kicked downfield.

Without knowing - obviously - exactly what logic is in their AI decision-making system, if i had to guess, i'd suggest they need a loop that says (simplistically) "if the ball is in the box, and heading in the general vicinity of the goal and ball-tracking is lost, then signal "CHECK" on the watch.". That way, if the ref is very clear on what happened (it was clearly caught by the keeper behind the defender), then the watch buzzes and the ref disregards it and carries on. If there is any doubt - i.e. in a situation last night - then the "CHECK" signal informs the ref that GDS CANNOT answer the yes-or-no question, rather than the default answer being "No", and then the ref has the liberty of referring to the liner and/or VAR.
 

SuperSonicBlade89

Mythic Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
247
Reaction score
293
Location
Sheffield
I questioned last night... Why am I a Blades fan? lol
Is it the fact I just love the controversy that comes from supporting them? I dunno.
I think all the injustices I've witnessed in the last 30 years have accumulated in mind and I just can't shake the opinion that it's a conspiracy.

1999 FA Cup V Arsenal. illegal throw in
2003 FA Cup V Arsenal. Graham Poll bashing Tonge
2006 Premier League Tevez situation.
2019 Premier League Lundstrums big toe
2020 Premier League Norwood ghost goal.

They are just some of the things that really bugged me over the years. Only 1 of those things was REALLY sorted and that was the 1999 FA Cup when Arsenal offered a replay.
 

LoughboroBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
13,211
Reaction score
26,707
Location
London
Had that 'goal' been scored by Liverpool, Man U or any other establishment club, though, it is inconceivable that it wouldn't have been sent to VAR, sorted out, and a goal awarded, and the different line that the PGMOL would have relied on from their guidelines would have been that it was a 'clear and obvious error' and therefore needed to be sent to VAR.

I guess a clear difference would have been had it been a goal for those clubs the entire team would have been swarming round the ref at the next pause in play, pressuring the ref to look at it again.
 

west_yorks_blade

In the Tufty Club
Joined
Jul 22, 2014
Messages
4,612
Reaction score
11,795
Sent them an email :rolleyes:. Not expecting to hear anything back.


To whom it may concern,

As i'm sure you're aware, social media is in overdrive questioning the statement that you put out after the game last night.

It is claimed that the cameras were "occluded". If this is the case, for your company's reputation, you should be able to release the images, "proof" that the cameras were in fact occluded and it was impossible to see. This is what the fans need to see.

Corruption in the game is still a hot topic of discussion and many people feel this wouldn't have happened in the Man City v Arsenal game. The big clubs and media wouldn't have allowed it.

By issuing proof that the cameras were occluded and showing the goal line graphics that we have grown to love over the years, you will put not just the Sheffield United fans minds at rest, but the whole of football that it was in fact impossible to give.

The lack of "proof" being shown isn't helping your technology or your brand.

This is more than just 2 extra points for Sheffield United, or 1 less point for Aston Villa. There are jobs on the line in football and astronomical amounts of money on offer for European qualification and/or staying in the division.

If Aston Villa stay up this season on Goal Difference or 1pt, the team who gets relegated will no doubt seek legal advice against your company and technology. Same goes if Sheffield United miss out on European Qualification because of it.

Do the right thing. Show the proof, or if the truth is that the watch wasn't working etc. tell the truth. It would be better to clear your name now so that attention can be put towards the Premier League/VAR for an explanation as come the end of the season, this could become very messy.
Dear Mr Bianco

Thank you for your email. We all had a really good chuckle about it on our daily zoom meeting.

Our marketing bumf makes all kinds of outrageous claims about accuracy which are of course total nonsense. You are showing unbelievable naivety if you think we can meet our claims, made solely to land some very lucrative business. Mission accomplished - you should see my sports cars!

That said, it's really not our fault if the officials are too stupid to switch the damn thing on.

Finally - I'd just like to say - Who the fuck are Sheffield United? None of us know anything about you and in any event, we have been given the clear brief to ensure that Manchester United keep 5th place in the PL. So our hands are tied.

Hope this helps and feel free to write to us again when ever you like, with all this isolation we need a good laugh from time to time.

Regards

mr Hawkeye
 

Yewsman

Smitten Blade
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
820
Reaction score
1,308
It's about time people were held to account for incompetence. A "statement" by Hawkeye just means they can say what they want. What we need is a proper, independent and full inquiry into:

1. why the ref's watch did not work;
2. was everything properly tested before kick off;
3. were the goal line cameras tested before kick off;
4. were the goal line cameras working at the time of the "goal";
5. why did not the assistant referee (Linesman) intervene to tell the ref there was a problem
6. what were the VAR people at Stockley doing at the time;
7. why did Oliver not ask them or they did not tell him to stop the game so they could look at the thing properly;
8. why were the officials at Villa Park and Stockley the only people in the country (well actually the world as it was a world wide audience!) who thought it was not a goal at the time as the TV cameras clearly showed it had crossed
the line?

Whoever is responsible for the cock up should be disciplined. This is not
a case of judgement like whether a player is 2 cms off side it's a complete
failure of the system. We are not going to get our extra 2 points but the club and its supporters deserve a full
explanation and apology.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
512
Reaction score
1,110
I hope I'm wrong, but what are the chances of future decisions in games being made to ensure that the goal not given has no effect on league positions at the end of the season.
 

SuperSonicBlade89

Mythic Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2019
Messages
247
Reaction score
293
Location
Sheffield
We are not going to get our extra 2 points but the club and its supporters deserve a full
explanation and apology.

An appology just isn't sufficient enough in my opinion. It won't change a thing. Don't get me wrong, it will make these modern overly sensitive people feel better.

Maybe do a replay from the 41st minute with United 1-0 up or just give the Blades 3 points and give Villa their bloody point. Or legal action. Etc etc. I don't care. Something needs to happen. We cannot just take this lying down. Especially based on discrimination of our name Sheffield United. "Oh they aren't a big team" "They won't earn money, compared to Man United" "European football will destroy Sheff United next season"
Let us be the judge on that on fair play and professionalism.

The Premier League yet to comment after nearly 1 full day just shows their lack of professionalism and the integrity gone.
 

dingledog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
3,716
Reaction score
1,859
Location
Holmfirth
An appology just isn't sufficient enough in my opinion. It won't change a thing. Don't get me wrong, it will make these modern overly sensitive people feel better.

Maybe do a replay from the 41st minute with United 1-0 up or just give the Blades 3 points and give Villa their bloody point. Or legal action. Etc etc. I don't care. Something needs to happen. We cannot just take this lying down. Especially based on discrimination of our name Sheffield United. "Oh they aren't a big team" "They won't earn money, compared to Man United" "European football will destroy Sheff United next season"
Let us be the judge on that on fair play and professionalism.

The Premier League yet to comment after nearly 1 full day just shows their lack of professionalism and the integrity gone.
They have replied, on their website. Just says 'tough shit, you aren't a big club' Bit of a paraphrase there, but you get my drift, apparently no one made an error, the error was in the Blades thinking they had scored.
 

B.Lade

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Messages
369
Reaction score
400
I have just read the Hawkeye website in great detail and can only come to one conclusion: the statement they put out yesterday evening following the disallowed goal is a blatant lie. Among many claims they make, all in the public domain, is that the technology is capable of 'removing players from the images'.
Maybe just maybe this is sales patter bllsht and they're not able to actually see through solid objects. I work in a large corporate and the first rule is 'never trust what the vendors tell you' 🤔
 

PokerBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
4,660
Reaction score
10,168
Fucking EXACTLY. People are focussing on the press release saying hawkeye can remove players from view so of course it can see everything, which is just bullshit.

I suspect it's entirely down to how the system is set up. I would hazard a guess we are asking it a very simple question at the end of the day - "did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?", and expect a boolean, binary, yes-or-no answer. Given that the "default" position for the bulk of the game is "the ball didn't cross the line", then I guess the alert will only trigger when the system registers that the ball DID cross the line (i.e it only ever gives a positive answer, and it keeping quiet is taken as a negative). Hence if it loses track, which it must do repeatedly throughout the entire game when the ball isn't in the penalty area, it just assumes the ball isn't in it's field of view and keeps quiet. Otherwise the ref's watch would be buzzing half the game, every time it gets kicked downfield.

Without knowing - obviously - exactly what logic is in their AI decision-making system, if i had to guess, i'd suggest they need a loop that says (simplistically) "if the ball is in the box, and heading in the general vicinity of the goal and ball-tracking is lost, then signal "CHECK" on the watch.". That way, if the ref is very clear on what happened (it was clearly caught by the keeper behind the defender), then the watch buzzes and the ref disregards it and carries on. If there is any doubt - i.e. in a situation last night - then the "CHECK" signal informs the ref that GDS CANNOT answer the yes-or-no question, rather than the default answer being "No", and then the ref has the liberty of referring to the liner and/or VAR.

Yeah, this is on my lines of thinking. It's not surprising that there's some weird arrangement of ball and player for which it can't track (although, having watched footage and the stills, it's weird at face value that this is the one that caught it out) but it does feel like nobody's thought about this kind of scenario and how either the AI or the refs should handle it. Like, and I don't know how easy any of this would be, if it say tracked when the ball was live on its cameras and had some way of feeding back "the ball hasn't left the area but it's no longer in sight of the cameras". Maybe this is one of those thought processes that's intuitive for people and not easy for machines but it doesn't seem like it. But let's say it doesn't have that, my problem then is that the officials apparently aren't aware of such possibilities to the point that both the on-field team and the VAR team utterly abdicate themselves of any responsibility for seeing something that was in plain sight.
 

Yewsman

Smitten Blade
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
820
Reaction score
1,308
Here is what appears on the PL website:

Incident
: In the 42nd minute in Wednesday's match at Villa Park, Aston Villa goalkeeper Orjan Nyland attempts to catch a free-kick from Sheffield United's Oliver Norwood but fumbles the ball and appears to carry it over the line.

The referee Michael Oliver does not award a goal after receiving no alert on his watch or earpiece from the Goal Decision System (GDS).

After the incident, Hawk-Eye, which manages GDS, said in a statement that seven cameras in the stands around the goal area were unable to identify the ball at that moment because of significant occlusion, meaning the position of Nyland, a Villa defender and the goalpost obscured the ball's position over the line from the cameras. Therefore, GDS was unable to alert the match officials.

"This level of occlusion has never been seen before in over 9,000 matches that the Hawk-Eye Goal Line Technology system has been in operation," Hawk-Eye said.

"The system was tested and proved functional prior to the start of the match in accordance with the IFAB Laws Of The Game and confirmed as working by the match officials.

"The system has remained functional throughout. Hawk-Eye unreservedly apologises to the Premier League, Sheffield United, and everyone affected by this incident."

No VAR intervention
As for the Video Assistant Referee, PGMOL, the organisation responsible for match officials, stated after the match that under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations.

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.

My Comments:
This raises more questions than it answers. But concentrating just on the VAR this explanation is quire ridiculous and wholly unsatisfactory. Someone needs to give a detailed and proper explanation and at least a full apology to the Club and its supporters.
 

GodricBlade

Insomniac
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
4,335
Fucking EXACTLY. People are focussing on the press release saying hawkeye can remove players from view so of course it can see everything, which is just bullshit.

I suspect it's entirely down to how the system is set up. I would hazard a guess we are asking it a very simple question at the end of the day - "did the whole of the ball cross the whole of the line?", and expect a boolean, binary, yes-or-no answer. Given that the "default" position for the bulk of the game is "the ball didn't cross the line", then I guess the alert will only trigger when the system registers that the ball DID cross the line (i.e it only ever gives a positive answer, and it keeping quiet is taken as a negative). Hence if it loses track, which it must do repeatedly throughout the entire game when the ball isn't in the penalty area, it just assumes the ball isn't in it's field of view and keeps quiet. Otherwise the ref's watch would be buzzing half the game, every time it gets kicked downfield.

Without knowing - obviously - exactly what logic is in their AI decision-making system, if i had to guess, i'd suggest they need a loop that says (simplistically) "if the ball is in the box, and heading in the general vicinity of the goal and ball-tracking is lost, then signal "CHECK" on the watch.". That way, if the ref is very clear on what happened (it was clearly caught by the keeper behind the defender), then the watch buzzes and the ref disregards it and carries on. If there is any doubt - i.e. in a situation last night - then the "CHECK" signal informs the ref that GDS CANNOT answer the yes-or-no question, rather than the default answer being "No", and then the ref has the liberty of referring to the liner and/or VAR.

What a great idea about the CHECK thing - wish I’d thought of it & posted it on the Dermot Gallagher thread 10 minutes earlier than you did on here. o_Oo_O
Needs referring to VAR.....
 

Sean Thornton

“No reasonable person would believe it”
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
42,631
Reaction score
65,097
PL website

"
No VAR intervention
As for the Video Assistant Referee, PGMOL, the organisation responsible for match officials, stated after the match that under IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations.

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. "

Bearing in mind the time it sometimes takes minutes to check, how quickly did the twat making the decision decide it wasn't to be reviewed? Can't have taken that long.


Rather than come clean, usual cover up job to protect the "brand" which for the genuine football fans is a grubby monstrosity, run by the self important for the self entitled.

Disgrace.
 

Pedro Verde

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
3,808
Reaction score
4,958
Location
In your head
With regard to the Goal Decision System I said at the time the incident happened that it wasnt working
Usaully when there is a goal line incident and the game is televised there is an image on screen
showing the ball and the goal line it removes all the players and you can immediately clearly see the position of the ball in relation to the goal line
If I noticed this at the time how come the clowns in the VAR room didnt realise there was a problem and review it
 

Lawrence

WF9 Blade
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
755
Why did Hawk-eye come out with a statement which maybe is not the full truth? and if so why couldn't they tell the truth, or maybe the statement was the truth to say that 7 cameras couldn’t see the ball because players and the post where in the way is in my opinion bull shit!, my thoughts are the Hawk-eye cameras where 1) not switched on 2) the cameras where not working from the start. I said to my son ‘no penalty’ when the ball hit one our players and then again later when one of their players went down just inside our area, and noticed that VAR did not check on either decisions? Why! Because the cameras where not working? further more on the goal incident they always run the virtualisation mages, (the coal-line tech) always concluding with the air-real view from above the goal? this did not happen., we where all waiting for it yes!
So why then did Hawk-eye (the company) come out with an unbelievable statement? has if anyone would believe that all 7 cameras could not see! (watch CW face when he talks about all 7 cameras failing to see) if the system was not working at the start, or shortly after the kick off did they inform United or Villa? did they inform the Premier League? They should have.
Hawk-eye should tell the truth about exactly what happened and except the consequences. We are talking a possible £100 million law suit If United fail to make Europe because of this. Hawk-eye innovations are running scared at the moment? Or they should be! Finally who thinks the Premier League are doing an in-depth investigation into what exactly what happened!
 
Last edited:

HighfieldBlade

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2015
Messages
6,979
Reaction score
13,425
Location
Leicester
So the official statement says the 7 cameras in the ground couldn't identify the ball due to "significant occlusion".
OK, then why not publish the images?

Also, I thought all the balls were microchipped to indicate when the ball had gone over the line. Is that right?
 

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

Top Bottom