Jump to content

Technology


Recommended Posts

Rather unclear statement here:

A PGMOL statement on Wednesday read: 'Under the IFAB protocol, the VAR is able to check goal situations, however due to the fact that the on-field match officials did not receive a signal, and the unique nature of that, the VAR did not intervene.'

 

So they can but they don't? I suppose if hawkeye had 100% success rate before then they have faith in it.

Or would they check if they received a signal when they weren't convinced it was over the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, skygod said:

It boils down, I think, to Michael Oliver having too much faith in Hawkeye. 

Now that it's been seen to be fallible, maybe referees in future will consult VAR where visual evidence - his and the lino's - casts doubt on the Hawkeye verdict. 

  

It's as if they've gone full circle and too reliant on the technology.  The match officials should still have the confidence to make the call if the technology is wrong - fundamentally it is the linesman's role to make that call and to utilise the technology to support his decision.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KillkieBoab said:

BBC saying this morning that the decision is to be reviewed. How the feck is that going to work?

Award the goal and go back and replay the rest of the match?

The error is to be reviewed. Looks like tough luck blades, we'll try to fix it so it doesn't happen again.

VAR will be told to review everything in and around the goal as an insurance policy against Hawkeye being blinded again.

 

Premier League referees will review the goalline technology error that denied Sheffield United a goal in their draw at Aston Villa, BBC Sport understands.

The Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) said the video assistant referee did not intervene because of the "unique" circumstances.

PGMOL will now discuss how a similar incident in the future can be handled.

It comes as former top-flight referee Mark Clattenburg said the controversy had highlighted a "fundamental flaw".

The situation occurred in the 42nd minute of Wednesday's 0-0 draw - the first Premier League match for 100 days, after the competition was halted by the coronavirus pandemic in March.

Sheffield United - who would have moved above Manchester United into fifth place with a win - thought they had scored when Villa goalkeeper Orjan Nyland carried Oliver Norwood's free-kick over the line. But referee Michael Oliver did not receive a signal to indicate a goal.

Hawk-Eye - the operator of the goalline technology - subsequently apologised but said the system "remained functional throughout".

The company added it was the first time such an error had occurred in more than 9,000 matches using the system.

However, speaking to BBC Sport, Clattenburg, said it showed technology "can fail at any time".

Clattenburg, who took charge of almost 300 Premier League games between 2004 and 2017, went on to apportion further blame for the failing to the video assistant referee system.

"I automatically expected the video assistant referee to come in," he said.

"He's probably thought: 'We have the technology in place. Why do we need to make a decision?' and that is the fundamental flaw. Technology is there to help, it is not there to make the final decision.

"The VAR has let the referee Michael Oliver down. If he had checked the goal, we would not be talking about it now. Referees can make mistakes; the VAR can't, because he has all the evidence there.

"I have had situations in the Premier League, where the watch would go off and give a goal when the ball did not enter the goal. This can happen sometimes, where it just malfunctions and people would not notice that.

"Overall I think it [VAR] has been letting referees down in the Premier League. The Premier League spend a lot of money on technology but if it is not used correctly, people lose confidence in it and they get frustrated. That's one of the biggest problems at the moment.

"Sheffield United could miss out on a European place because of two points they lost because of technology.

"It's not like a [normal] refereeing decision. You can say they balance out over a season - but not when you're talking about something that was so clearly wrong."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53096686

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2020 at 8:40 AM, Lroy said:

HawkEye saying all 7 cameras were obscured and this is the first failure in 8000 matches where the system has been used. If that's true, a 0.0125% failure rate for anything is remarkably impressive.

Aye, but, but it failed.

What was the failure rate when we relied on the match officials alone? Most of those criticising this in the media are the same ones that said we must have goal line technology after Lampard had his goal disallowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting.  They had VAR evidence the ball hadn't crossed the line, play has been called back before for goals.

Seems to me EPL, refs aren't looking to see if balls crossed the line, they've been told Hawkeye is infallible.

VAR refs aren't looking to overrule the 7 camera 3D Hawkeye system either, probably cos they were told it was infallible and they're a 2 eyed human.

I wonder how many times refs have claimed Hawkeye was wrong, when it was actually right?  Will be more than once!

IMO most likely reason is due to lockdown, 100 day halt in play, the Hawkeye system maybe hadn't been serviced correctly.

Edited by RAG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/18/2020 at 8:40 AM, Lroy said:

HawkEye saying all 7 cameras were obscured and this is the first failure in 8000 matches where the system has been used. If that's true, a 0.0125% failure rate for anything is remarkably impressive.

Your % calculation is flawed.

While Hawkeye has been operational  in these matches it would rarely be called into action to make a decision.

It's like saying my airbag in my car was fine for 8,000 miles I didn't need it but when I crashed it failed to deploy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...