Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hawkeye

Options
1…468910

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    the kelt
    Registered Users Posts: 1,892 ✭✭✭the kelt


    Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »
    Ok, so there is a guy called a 'Review Official' in the box that can instruct the ref that Hawkeye should be used (see OP of this thread).

    That is what seems to have happened here

    But the poor ref is left with an impossible task because of what is essentially a software failure with the system, i.e it showed a point but called it a miss.

    In this case I don't understand the need for this 'Review Official', surely between the ref and two umpires they should be in a position to decided if a score is good or if it need review.

    Is it a software malfunction though or was it human error. For example Lets say it goes to hawkeye and it clearly shows a miss, is it an automated system that then should flash up miss or is there someone whos responsibility it is then to press a button saying score or miss?

    Apologies of this has been answered already.


  • Options
    #153
    Ritchi
    Registered Users Posts: 319 ✭✭Ritchi


    I've heard that the officials have a little box beside them that gives them the hawkeye result instantly, so they will revert to that if their decision differs. Not sure if that's true though.


  • Options
    #154
    Mountainlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭Mountainlad


    How much are specsavers giving the GAA to have their name associated wiht Hawkeye I wonder?

    My own theory is that the review official has a mandate to use hawkeye when he can at least once a game so that Specsavers are getting value for money. Under no circumstances should that score have gone upstairs, it was a clear point that was awarded. End of. And that is a serious bug bear for me that I think it was commercial interests that dictated it's use.

    After all, does anyone ever remember as many doubts about points in Croke Park in 1 year ever? Hardly a coincidence it's being used so often.

    Though I have sympathy for the Limerick players and management team, I don;t they are entitled to nor that they should look for a replay. But that's for another thread.

    On Hawkeye in general, I think it's a reaction to a few incidents predominantly Sluddengate in 2010. But hawkeye would have been of no benefit in that instance, in exactly the same way as it wouldn't have aided Tipperary's appeals 10 months earlier. They felt they had to bring something into appease those reacting to the constant media scrutiny of decisions in matches.

    I don;t know how much it costs but I can't see that it is practical to roll out across the Country and think it masks over the real issue that greater training for umpires (and a higher standard of fitness for referees) are what is actually needed.

    Also, are they contmeplating constructing big screens in every ground where hawkeye is in use? I doubt it, and but for the big screen and the graphic we all saw yesterday I don't think we'd be having this debate today.


  • Options
    #155
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Mountainlad wrote: »
    How much are specsavers giving the GAA to have their name associated wiht Hawkeye I wonder?

    My own theory is that the review official has a mandate to use hawkeye when he can at least once a game so that Specsavers are getting value for money. Under no circumstances should that score have gone upstairs, it was a clear point that was awarded. End of. And that is a serious bug bear for me that I think it was commercial interests that dictated it's use.

    After all, does anyone ever remember as many doubts about points in Croke Park in 1 year ever? Hardly a coincidence it's being used so often.

    Though I have sympathy for the Limerick players and management team, I don;t they are entitled to nor that they should look for a replay. But that's for another thread.

    On Hawkeye in general, I think it's a reaction to a few incidents predominantly Sluddengate in 2010. But hawkeye would have been of no benefit in that instance, in exactly the same way as it wouldn't have aided Tipperary's appeals 10 months earlier. They felt they had to bring something into appease those reacting to the constant media scrutiny of decisions in matches.

    I don;t know how much it costs but I can't see that it is practical to roll out across the Country and think it masks over the real issue that greater training for umpires (and a higher standard of fitness for referees) are what is actually needed.

    Also, are they contmeplating constructing big screens in every ground where hawkeye is in use? I doubt it, and but for the big screen and the graphic we all saw yesterday I don't think we'd be having this debate today.
    I totally agree with all that. Just to illustrate the point, I was at a Junior B game last night and every time the ball went just inside or outside the posts every started to shout for Hawkeye. The game should be officiated the same way at all levels. Having Hawkeye just in Croker or one or two other grounds is just a 'fashion' statement.


  • Options
    #156
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    I totally agree with all that. Just to illustrate the point, I was at a Junior B game last night and every time the ball went just inside or outside the posts every started to shout for Hawkeye. The game should be officiated the same way at all levels. Having Hawkeye just in Croker or one or two other grounds is just a 'fashion' statement.
    Why? It's simply impossible to have Hawkeye in a Junior B game. Goal line technology was brought into the Premier League this season but you'd hardly expect it in the Isthmian league. Likewise with the video referee in rugby. You have it in the 6 Nations and Heineken Cup etc. but you certainly won't see it in the AIL.

    And Mountainlad, Hawkeye hasn't been used in every game so far. I know it wasn't used in any of Meath's games in Croke Park this season. And if it was the case that they tried to use it at least once for that reason, they'd hardly use it in the very first minute given that would be another 130 minutes of televised playing time after that (not including the extra time).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Mountainlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭Mountainlad


    Hammer Archer wrote: »
    And Mountainlad, Hawkeye hasn't been used in every game so far. I know it wasn't used in any of Meath's games in Croke Park this season. And if it was the case that they tried to use it at least once for that reason, they'd hardly use it in the very first minute given that would be another 130 minutes of televised playing time after that (not including the extra time).

    They saw their opportunity and took it, maybe wondering if they'd get it again. You can't use it when the ball goes straight over the blackspot.

    Maybe not in every game but very frequently.


  • Options
    #158
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    Mountainlad wrote: »
    They saw their opportunity and took it, maybe wondering if they'd get it again. You can't use it when the ball goes straight over the blackspot.

    Maybe not in every game but very frequently.

    In a hurling game, you can be sure not every point is going to go over the black spot!

    Not sure I agree with your conspiracy theory on this one!


  • Options
    #159
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Hawk Eye have made a statement.

    BSDmSlvIUAAGjTm.jpg:large


  • Options
    #160
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    MrJoeSoap wrote: »
    Hawk Eye have made a statement.

    BSDmSlvIUAAGjTm.jpg:large

    That doesn't make sense.


  • Options
    #161
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    MrJoeSoap wrote: »
    Hawk Eye have made a statement.

    BSDmSlvIUAAGjTm.jpg:large

    That seems like a very very basic mistake to have been made by the Hawkeye team.

    I wonder how much the GAA pays for Hawkeye. I hope they get some o the money they paid back for an error like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Mountainlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭Mountainlad


    InchicoreDude wrote: »
    In a hurling game, you can be sure not every point is going to go over the black spot!

    Not sure I agree with your conspiracy theory on this one!

    It's not a conspiracy theory really as nobody is conspiring to cheat anyone out of it, and it doesn't look good for specsavers really to be associated with what happened yesterday (though at the same time they're getting a lot of publicity with the whole "hawkeye should have gone to specsavers" joke thats being bandied about)

    I would be very surprised if it's not a factor in the frequency of it's use.


  • Options
    #163
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Rightwing wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense.

    Why?


  • Options
    #164
    MrJoeSoap
    Registered Users Posts: 15,117 ✭✭✭✭MrJoeSoap


    Rightwing wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense.

    Why?


  • Options
    #165
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    Rightwing wrote: »
    That doesn't make sense.
    On the contrary, it's actually a pretty plausible explanation. That doesn't mean it wasn't an absolutely stupid mistake to make, but it makes sense.


  • Options
    #166
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Hammer Archer wrote: »
    On the contrary, it's actually a pretty plausible explanation. That doesn't mean it wasn't an absolutely stupid mistake to make, but it makes sense.

    How?

    My understanding is the system got it right, but the word 'Miss' came up.... instead of point. A basic but critical error.

    I can't see what difference football or hurling would make for that?


  • Options
    #167
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    Rightwing wrote: »
    How?

    My understanding is the system got it right, but the word 'Miss' came up.... instead of point. A basic but critical error.

    I can't see what difference football or hurling would make for that?

    The size of the ball would surely mean that hawkeye would have to be set up differently for both???


  • Options
    #168
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    InchicoreDude wrote: »
    The size of the ball would surely mean that hawkeye would have to be set up differently for both???

    I see what you mean. We can expect more mistakes if they have to go changing every time.

    I'd still like to know how miss came up, when it was in.


  • Options
    #169
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I see what you mean. We can expect more mistakes if they have to go changing every time.

    Well I dont know, I am only speculating.

    It shouldnt be a big deal to change specifications according to hurling & football I;d imagine though. Perhaps the problem does not actually lie in the technology, but rather in people not checking the settings of the technology correctly.


  • Options
    #170
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Apparently on the RTE news there they said Limerick are going to appeal


  • Options
    #171
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    InchicoreDude wrote: »
    Well I dont know, I am only speculating.

    It shouldnt be a big deal to change specifications according to hurling & football I;d imagine though. Perhaps the problem does not actually lie in the technology, but rather in people not checking the settings of the technology correctly.

    On RTE website they said one of the 6 cameras was set for football size, meaning it incorrectly adjudged the ball to be touching the post, and returned a miss.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    marco_polo wrote: »
    On RTE website they said one of the 6 cameras was set for football size, meaning it incorrectly adjudged the ball to be touching the post, and returned a miss.

    I've lost all confidence in Hakw eye. Waste of money.

    Limk shouldn't appeal though, we lost fair and square.


  • Options
    #173
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    marco_polo wrote: »
    On RTE website they said one of the 6 cameras was set for football size, meaning it incorrectly adjudged the ball to be touching the post, and returned a miss.

    Makes sense. But a very very basic and silly mistake. It does raise questions about the processes surrounding the technology rather than the technology itself.
    I've lost all confidence in Hakw eye. Waste of money.

    Because of 1 mistake? Wow! I dont think there has been any technology in the history of the world that has been flawless. technology will always have faults, particularly in its early days of implementation.


  • Options
    #174
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,121 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    marco_polo wrote: »
    On RTE website they said one of the 6 cameras was set for football size, meaning it incorrectly adjudged the ball to be touching the post, and returned a miss.
    Well that makes a lot of sense

    Two ball sizes defined in the system, 'f' and 'h'
    The camera was setup to detect a ball sized 'f' , instead of 'h'
    Ball sized 'f', being bigger than 'h' was judged to have been out of the range of the posts and thus a miss.
    The graphic that was shown on the system was in fact the actual computer generated representation of the ball (size 'h') going between the posts correctly
    Thus the confusion between MISS and the graphic

    More user error than a software bug then


  • Options
    #175
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    InchicoreDude wrote: »
    Makes sense. But a very very basic and silly mistake. It does raise questions about the processes surrounding the technology rather than the technology itself.



    Because of 1 mistake? Wow! I dont think there has been any technology in the history of the world that has been flawless. technology will always have faults, particularly in its early days of implementation.

    There will be more ;),,,lots more.


  • Options
    #176
    InchicoreDude
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭InchicoreDude


    Rightwing wrote: »
    There will be more ;),,,lots more.

    But what evidence do you have on that? Hawkeye was deemed a big success up until yesterday and as Fr Tod explains in his post, it is very much a user error that can easily be corrected. I dont see how you could lose all confidence in it based on 1 blip.

    I'd actually love to see the point that annoyed Davy Fitz in the senior game on it.


  • Options
    #177
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    InchicoreDude wrote: »
    But what evidence do you have on that? Hawkeye was deemed a big success up until yesterday and as Fr Tod explains in his post, it is very much a user error that can easily be corrected. I dont see how you could lose all confidence in it based on 1 blip.

    I'd actually love to see the point that annoyed Davy Fitz in the senior game on it.

    How could you make such a basic mistake,,,,,then not even know there was a mistake and it in front of you. The software is fine, it's the people operating it. All they had to do was say a point, and no one would even know there was an error.


  • Options
    #178
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    They have probably never had to set it up for two different sports in the same arena so wouldn't be surprised if they didn't have a formal switching process.

    Still as a software developer myself, my eyebrows were raised a such a stupid basic error :p


  • Options
    #179
    kala85
    Registered Users Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭kala85


    what would have happened if in some of the football matches they set the ball size for a sliotar instead of a football???

    If the technology isnt reliable whats the point having it??


  • Options
    #180
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    kala85 wrote: »
    what would have happened if in some of the football matches they set the ball size for a sliotar instead of a football???

    If the technology isnt reliable whats the point having it??

    the technology appears fine, but it looks like it's too complicated for them :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,121 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    Rightwing wrote: »
    How could you make such a basic mistake,,,,,then not even know there was a mistake and it in front of you. The software is fine, it's the people operating it. All they had to do was say a point, and no one would even know there was an error.

    Who are they ?

    As I said earlier the use of the extra Replay Official that can call for a Hawkeye review if it is not called for by the umpire or ref seems a bit overkill to me but that is not the point here (excuse the pun).
    The point here is that the technology was summoned and the technology returned an incorrect result due to a misconfiguration.


Advertisement