Hawkeye - particularly observant, but not at Villa Park

[theonlywayisup]

Having a 'hawkeye' means being "particularly observant, especially to small details, or having excellent vision in general".

Not at Villa Park tonight.

The operator of the Premier League's goal-line technology system has apologised after an error denied Sheffield United a goal in their 0-0 draw at Aston Villa. Villa goalkeeper Orjan Nyland carried Oliver Norwood's 42nd-minute free-kick over the line. But referee Michael Oliver did not receive a signal to indicate a goal. Hawkeye said it "unreservedly apologises", and acknowledged that the ball had gone over the line.

[PH91]

Found it strange that, following the tv pictures, it wasn't simply communicated to the ref that the system had faulted and the goal given.

[dp00]

Found it strange that, following the tv pictures, it wasn't simply communicated to the ref that the system had faulted and the goal given.

Or they never went to VAR ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Haymaker]

Or they never went to VAR ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is VAR not responsible for things outside the goal and the Hawkeye tech responsible for the goal line?

The refs can only trust what the tech says.

[Sammy7nil]

Found it strange that, following the tv pictures, it wasn't simply communicated to the ref that the system had faulted and the goal given.

If only they had video technology to help the ref - Oh wait :greengrin

[Hibee Mac]

I suspect the way around this would to be allowing the VAR referee to signal for intervention if this happened again.

It's part in parcel with the system they use for Hawkeye that if there is a very specific situation with players/posts blocking all the Hawkeye camera angles then it won't work. It was inevitably going to happen I suppose but interesting that it's taken so long.

[HibernianJK]

This is the first time I’ve ever seen this technology play up and it’s a horrible decision but that happens with technology of every sort. The baffling part is that surely VAR could have a look and say yes this was over the line surely?

[Bristolhibby]

Is VAR not responsible for things outside the goal and the Hawkeye tech responsible for the goal line?

The refs can only trust what the tech says.

The Leagues need to rewrite their protocols.

“If there is a clear failure of the system. The VAR May intervene and inform the referee”.

There you go solved.

J

[Keith_M]

That ball was so far over the line it nearly had to pay to get back in to the stadium

[Lancs Harp]

I think Hawk Eye was still on furlough last night. Was a shocker.

[brianmc]

Instead of abdicating all responsibility in the favour of technology why didn't the officials just use their eyes?
It was glaringly obvious that the ball was over the line!
But instead of calling what he could clearly see as a goal the ref was happier to point at his wrist and shrug. "Not my job".

[Lancs Harp]

Instead of abdicating all responsibility in the favour of technology why didn't the officials just use their eyes?
It was glaringly obvious that the ball was over the line!
But instead of calling what he could clearly see as a goal the ref was happier to point at his wrist and shrug. "Not my job".

I wouldnt lay the blame with Michael Oliver last night, he may well have thought it was over the line or not been in a position to see it clearly, but imagine if he thought it was over the line and he over ruled what has up to now been a very reliable piece of technology and then replays showed he was incorrect. No ref is going to overrule Hawkeye, if anything VAR should have stepped in but apparently the rules dont at present allow for that (bet that changes rapido) Chris Wilder had sympathy with the ref and he must have felt very hard done by. Not the refs fault for me.

[where'stheslope]

At halftime last night they said they would get some answers to how the game was not stopped by VAR, as the ball was still in play the VAR ref should have informed the ref of the incident?
After halftime they said that Hawkeye had been reset, but surely someone would have to take a ball and check its working??
Today they said that Hawkeye has 7 cameras covering the goal but it was unsighted???
Everyone seen it on TV, and the goalkeeper had the ball in the side net behind the post, what is Hawkeye looking at????
Or for that matter what is the assistant ref doing, he was about 3 metres away from the goal line and looking directly across?????

[brianmc]

I wouldnt lay the blame with Michael Oliver last night, he may well have thought it was over the line or not been in a position to see it clearly, but imagine if he thought it was over the line and he over ruled what has up to now been a very reliable piece of technology and then replays showed he was incorrect. No ref is going to overrule Hawkeye, if anything VAR should have stepped in but apparently the rules dont at present allow for that (bet that changes rapido) Chris Wilder had sympathy with the ref and he must have felt very hard done by. Not the refs fault for me.

If he'd belived his eyes, in a similar incident, and 'wrongly' awarded a goal he would've quickly had word in his ear and the decision would be reversed.

By giving no decision he eliminated this possibility.

I thought it was really poor.

[Arch Stanton]

In tennis , Hawkeye is used after the event to show the actual trajectory of the ball - I would like to have seen that here.

The 'clear' view of the ball crossing the line was from a camera which wasn't in line, and as such can be misleading. Mind you, if definitely looked from that angle that the ball had crossed the line and the goalie brought it back.

However, in the 'in line' photo they showed, the ball and the post overlapped slightly which would surely mean the ball wasn't over the line. So, there you go. Tin hat already in place. :greengrin

[Scouse Hibee]

In tennis , Hawkeye is used after the event to show the actual trajectory of the ball - I would like to have seen that here.

The 'clear' view of the ball crossing the line was from a camera which wasn't in line, and as such can be misleading. Mind you, if definitely looked from that angle that the ball had crossed the line and the goalie brought it back.


However, in the 'in line' photo they showed, the ball and the post overlapped slightly which would surely mean the ball wasn't over the line. So, there you go. Tin hat already in place. :greengrin

I take it you never saw the image where the ball was in the keepers arms touching the inside of the post in the side netting 😂

Impossible for the ball to actually be there and not be behind the line!