Hawkeye

Fr Tod Umptious

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??

But the explanation given does not bring the technology itself into question.
User error caused the problem, not the technology

Rightwing

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

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.

they = the replay official chap. It was in front of his face, he should have seen that the sliothar went in. Did he even know it was hurling that was on ?

oppenheimer1

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??

In theory the software could return a point for a miss, but it would be less controversial. Hawkeye returns a miss if any part of the ball intersects, clips the virtual extended posts, it doesn't predict where the ball would have went had it hit it. So if the same mistake was made and the ball size was set to sliotar rather than football in a football match it is conceivable that the football could intersect the posts and be called a point. It should be noted that hawk eye has a position error of 3.6mm

What needs to happen is a system of checks and double checks needs to be implemented for the Croke Park set up. The set up in Croke Park is more difficult than other places as the system has to cope with two different ball sizes. The fact that so many parameters appear to require individual adjustment is a usability problem. There should be a simple switch in the software that applies default settings for the different games. All the operator should have to do is set "hurling" and thats it, and not have to configure each goal individually.

I don't think Limerick should be given a replay. There have been plenty of contentious decisions throughout the years where referees got scores wrong and it wasn't overturned even after clear video evidence. The Limerick score was too early in the game to say it would have made a clear difference to the result.

Fr Tod Umptious

Rightwing wrote: »

they = the replay official chap. It was in front of his face, he should have seen that the sliothar went in. Did he even know it was hurling that was on ?

But once the system returns a result, MISS or POINT then it is confirmed by the ref.
The Replay official cannot say, 'hold on I think Hawkeye got it wrong'
He has requested that the system give him an answer, he cannot then decide to dispute the answer.

Rightwing

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

In theory the software could return a point for a miss, but it would be less controversial. Hawkeye returns a miss if any part of the ball intersects, clips the virtual extended posts, it doesn't predict where the ball would have went had it hit it. So if the same mistake was made and the ball size was set to sliotar rather than football in a football match it is conceivable that the football could intersect the posts and be called a point. It should be noted that hawk eye has a position error of 3.6mm

What needs to happen is a system of checks and double checks needs to be implemented for the Croke Park set up. The set up in Croke Park is more difficult than other places as the system has to cope with two different ball sizes.

I don't think Limerick should be given a replay. There have been plenty of contentious decisions throughout the years where referees got scores wrong and it wasn't overturned even after clear video evidence. The Limerick score was too early in the game to say it would have made a clear difference to the result.

I agree. The Limk county board are an embarrassment. They can do very little right, no wonder it's 40 years since we won an AI

washman3

Rightwing wrote: »

That doesn't make sense.

Totally agree. Its basically a bulls###e statement.
Was any guy sent out yesterday morning to test the system by pucking half a dozen balls wide and over the bar at both ends.
Its not rocket science FFS.
If a mechanic fits a new part to a car he drives the f###ing thing to make sure its ok.

washman3

InchicoreDude wrote: »

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

Quite true. But this should not have come into the equation in this instance.
A sliothar has a diameter of say 100mm, a football is say 300mm.
So if the setting was for football and the sliothar grazed the post, i could understand their explanation. But the ball was hit from a fairly central position and was a good 12 to 18 inches inside the post. We could even see this from the television pictures at the time. So my point is, even if the setting was for football, grazing the post is not an valid explanation.
This is a gigantic cockup from Hawkeye or more likely those using it.
Their statement is pathetic and nothing more than a cover-up.
Would this excuse be accepted at Wimbledon.?

Rightwing

washman3 wrote: »

Quite true. But this should not have come into the equation in this instance.
A sliothar has a diameter of say 100mm, a football is say 300mm.
So if the setting was for football and the sliothar grazed the post, i could understand their explanation. But the ball was hit from a fairly central position and was a good 12 to 18 inches inside the post. We could even see this from the television pictures at the time. So my point is, even if the setting was for football, grazing the post is not an valid explanation.
This is a gigantic cockup from Hawkeye or more likely those using it.
Their statement is pathetic and nothing more than a cover-up.
Would this excuse be accepted at Wimbledon.?

It's truly a shambles. You couldn't make it up.

bren2001

washman3 wrote: »

Quite true. But this should not have come into the equation in this instance.
A sliothar has a diameter of say 100mm, a football is say 300mm.
So if the setting was for football and the sliothar grazed the post, i could understand their explanation. But the ball was hit from a fairly central position and was a good 12 to 18 inches inside the post. We could even see this from the television pictures at the time. So my point is, even if the setting was for football, grazing the post is not an valid explanation.
This is a gigantic cockup from Hawkeye or more likely those using it.
Their statement is pathetic and nothing more than a cover-up.
Would this excuse be accepted at Wimbledon.?

Grazing the virtual post is a miss. It was clearly outlined when Hawk Eye came in.

It was a big mistake by Hawk Eye and its operators. However, the reason they have given is valid imo. Watch the simulation again, the sliothar is very close to the virtual post, expand that to football size and it would easily touch the blue post.

Padkir

bren2001 wrote: »

Grazing the virtual post is a miss. It was clearly outlined when Hawk Eye came in.

It was a big mistake by Hawk Eye and its operators. However, the reason they have given is valid imo. Watch the simulation again, the sliothar is very close to the virtual post, expand that to football size and it would easily touch the blue post.

Completely correct.

Can't understand some of the outrage on here.

Pre Hawkeye, how many of those types of decisions have we had where the linesman just calls it wide and no-one is any the wiser.

One feck up in how many games when it is on it's trial period is not too bad I think. Especially considering they know what's wrong and can easily remedy. It was a user error, not an underlying bug in the system, therefore no different than an umpire / referee's human error.

It will be fixed and, as long as there's no repeat, all is good and thank god for Hawkeye!

The_Kew_Tour

Padkir wrote: »

Completely correct.

Can't understand some of the outrage on here.

Pre Hawkeye, how many of those types of decisions have we had where the linesman just calls it wide and no-one is any the wiser.

One feck up in how many games when it is on it's trial period is not too bad I think. Especially considering they know what's wrong and can easily remedy. It was a user error, not an underlying bug in the system, therefore no different than an umpire / referee's human error.

It will be fixed and, as long as there's no repeat, all is good and thank god for Hawkeye!

I have to agree.

I would love to have some sort of technology that could go back in time and see all the wrong decisions that Umpires gave in matches.

Im sure some year its cost team AI etc.

washman3

bren2001 wrote: »

Grazing the virtual post is a miss. It was clearly outlined when Hawk Eye came in.

It was a big mistake by Hawk Eye and its operators. However, the reason they have given is valid imo. Watch the simulation again, the sliothar is very close to the virtual post, expand that to football size and it would easily touch the blue post.

Yes, i see your point, i have watched it again on youtube several times. don't think it even grazed the post to be honest, and anyway the 'graze' was inside the post. i could kind of see the explanation if the graze was on the outside of the post. Watch the red line that tracks the flight of the ball.
Also the alleged graze did not take place on the extended virtual post, it was on the black area at the top of the actual post. So surely a graze on the inside at this area has to be a point.
In short, my opinion is that their explanation is not valid.
The ball was simply too far inside the post for a football setting to matter.

shawnee

Croke Park officials and there are many , should have managed this situation much better. When it was decided to stand down hawk eye because it had fouled up , it was obvious at this point that the score shown on the scoreboard was incorrect. This should have been pointed out to the ref and he could have amended his scorecard and the scoreboard a few minutes after the incident. It could definitely have been done at half time and Galway could not dispute the score. While I feel Limerick will not get a replay , I believe they are right to appeal this , if only to ensure that these guys who run the GAA learn to manage such incidents;)

washman3

Padkir wrote: »

Completely correct.

Can't understand some of the outrage on here.
One feck up in how many games when it is on it's trial period is not too bad.

Try telling that to the 25 Limerick youngsters that have busted their a###s since last January or February.
Would Roger Federer settle for a cockup like this at Wimbledon.
This system has cost huge money.

MrJoeSoap

washman3 wrote: »

Try telling that to the 25 Limerick youngsters that have busted their a###s since last January or February.
Would Roger Federer settle for a cockup like this at Wimbledon.
This system has cost huge money.

What would you do now, with regards Hawkeye? Leave aside the Limerick minors for a moment. Would you get rid of it, or fix the problem(s) and run with it?

I can't see for a second why anyone would want to scrap it. Before last Sunday it had been the best step the GAA have taken in a long time, and every effort should be put into restoring that.

marco_polo

washman3 wrote: »

Yes, i see your point, i have watched it again on youtube several times. don't think it even grazed the post to be honest, and anyway the 'graze' was inside the post. i could kind of see the explanation if the graze was on the outside of the post. Watch the red line that tracks the flight of the ball.
Also the alleged graze did not take place on the extended virtual post, it was on the black area at the top of the actual post. So surely a graze on the inside at this area has to be a point.
In short, my opinion is that their explanation is not valid.
The ball was simply too far inside the post for a football setting to matter.

It was less than the width of the sliotar away from the extended post? So a football size would certainly make a difference and it is consistent with the explanation given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHfKRPbGi8U

shawnee wrote: »

Croke Park officials and there are many , should have managed this situation much better. When it was decided to stand down hawk eye because it had fouled up , it was obvious at this point that the score shown on the scoreboard was incorrect. This should have been pointed out to the ref and he could have amended his scorecard and the scoreboard a few minutes after the incident. It could definitely have been done at half time and Galway could not dispute the score. While I feel Limerick will not get a replay , I believe they are right to appeal this , if only to ensure that these guys who run the GAA learn to manage such incidents;)

I doubt they knew if the graphic or the result was incorrect at that point just that it wasn't working.

Giant feic up either way and if they persist with it they better put in a raft of double and triple pre game checks to make sure it doesn't happen again, not that that will be much consolation to Limerick at this point.

keane2097

washman3 wrote: »

Yes, i see your point, i have watched it again on youtube several times. don't think it even grazed the post to be honest, and anyway the 'graze' was inside the post. i could kind of see the explanation if the graze was on the outside of the post. Watch the red line that tracks the flight of the ball.
Also the alleged graze did not take place on the extended virtual post, it was on the black area at the top of the actual post. So surely a graze on the inside at this area has to be a point.
In short, my opinion is that their explanation is not valid.
The ball was simply too far inside the post for a football setting to matter.

The issue is that - at least as far as I'm aware - when hawkeye is called in the ball touching the post in the slightest equals a miss.

In any case I'd imagine they use different trajectory calculations for the two types of ball, so it's not as simple as imagining a larger ball and saying it still would have gone over.

washman3

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

I would love to have some sort of technology that could go back in time and see all the wrong decisions that Umpires gave in matches.
.

What would be the point in that.? what would it solve.?
I have umpired at many games and there are many factors that can affect a decision, like sun in the eyes or a ball being rapidly pulled on etc.
Hawkeye is supposed to remove these factors but it failed miserably in this instance. A system that has cost an arm and a leg. And their explanation is pathetic.

washman3

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

What would you do now, with regards Hawkeye? Leave aside the Limerick minors for a moment. Would you get rid of it, or fix the problem(s) and run with it?

I can't see for a second why anyone would want to scrap it. Before last Sunday it had been the best step the GAA have taken in a long time, and every effort should be put into restoring that.

Stick with it of course. Like in a previous post i said its not rocket science at all. Get a guy on the morning of a game to puck/kick wides and points at both goals to check the system.
A band will do a sound check before playing a gig, they will not just switch on their equipment and assume everything is ok simply because the equipment lights up.
Seems like arrogance/laziness/assumption was a big factor here.

Roger_007

washman3 wrote: »

What would be the point in that.? what would it solve.?
I have umpired at many games and there are many factors that can affect a decision, like sun in the eyes or a ball being rapidly pulled on etc.
Hawkeye is supposed to remove these factors but it failed miserably in this instance. A system that has cost an arm and a leg. And their explanation is pathetic.

Anyone who thinks that technology is infallible is kidding themselves. There is no such thing as error-free software, ask anyone in the IT industry. It should only ever be used as an aid to a decision and not be allowed to make the decision. An official should look at the replay on Hawkeye and that official decide whether there was a score or not. This process works fine in rugby where TV official looks at the evidence and makes the decision. This whole problem is caused by the total reliance on the technology to decide.

washman3

Roger_007 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that technology is infallible is kidding themselves. There is no such thing as error-free software, ask anyone in the IT industry. It should only ever be used as an aid to a decision and not be allowed to make the decision. An official should look at the replay on Hawkeye and that official decide whether there was a score or not. This process works fine in rugby where TV official looks at the evidence and makes the decision. This whole problem is caused by the total reliance on the technology to decide.

And yesterday we had 2 officals looking at it, one from Hawkeye and the other a former top hurling referee with both failing to spot the error. The rugby process simply would not work here as decisions in that sport can take an eternity sometimes.
Anyone in IT will also tell you that if you fail to prepare your equipment, your equipment will fail.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Stick with it of course. Like in a previous post i said its not rocket science at all. Get a guy on the morning of a game to puck/kick wides and points at both goals to check the system.
A band will do a sound check before playing a gig, they will not just switch on their equipment and assume everything is ok simply because the equipment lights up.
Seems like arrogance/laziness/assumption was a big factor here.

I don't think you understand the technology at all to be honest (particularly its limitations) and you're not alone. This is one of the biggest risks with new technology. With Hawkeye it doesn't matter if the ball touches or grazes the inside, outside, top, bottom, side of the post on either side - once it touches the virtual post at all it is called a miss.

The error yesterday would have been very hard to check in a test. It would have required a tester hitting a sliotar over the post height into the hill sixteen goal within a footballs width of the side of the virtual post.

I think the explanation from hawk eye innovations is a reasonable explanation for the cock-up yesterday. Reasonable but unacceptable and procedures must be put in place to ensure that all equipment is calibrated for the game being played on the pitch in future.

washman3

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the technology at all to be honest (particularly its limitations) and you're not alone. This is one of the biggest risks with new technology. With Hawkeye it doesn't matter if the ball touches or grazes the inside, outside, top, bottom, side of the post on either side - once it touches the virtual post at all it is called a miss.

The error yesterday would have been very hard to check in a test. It would have required a tester hitting a sliotar over the post height into the hill sixteen goal within a footballs width of the side of the virtual post.

I think the explanation from hawk eye innovations is a reasonable explanation for the cock-up yesterday. Reasonable but unacceptable and procedures must be put in place to ensure that all equipment is calibrated for the game being played on the pitch in future.

Have you read all my posts or just one.?
My simple point is that the ball was so far inside the post, as we can see from ordinary RTE pictures, that even if Hawkeye was calibrated for a beach ball it would hardly have shown it to graze the post.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Have you read all my posts or just one.?
My simple point is that the ball was so far inside the post, as we can see from ordinary RTE pictures, that even if Hawkeye was calibrated for a beach ball it would hardly have shown it to graze the post.

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

washman3

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

I rewatched the video of the shot from behind the goal. From the angle of the RTE camera and because the camera is not in the direct flight of the ball you cannot determine the position of the ball relative to the post.

mattser

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

Would it help if they changed the colour of the sliothar ?

Rebelheart

This is an incredible cock-up by the clearly British soccer-focused Hawk-Eye company. They didn't account for the difference in size between a football and a sliothar? Was a single Irish person working for this company? My 98-year-old granny who never played sport in her life could tell the difference. You couldn't invent this sort of ignorance and unprofessionalism.

Does the GAA have any alternatives to the company responsible for this incompetence?

Corcaigh84

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is an incredible cock-up by the clearly British soccer-focused Hawk-Eye company. They didn't account for the difference in size between a football and a sliothar? Was a single Irish person working for this company? My 98-year-old granny who never played sport in her life could tell the difference. You couldn't invent this sort of ignorance and unprofessionalism.

Does the GAA have any alternatives to the company responsible for this incompetence?

It's just another example that we are in fact goverened by the incompetent Gaelic Football Association.

The sooner the hurling community have their own rulebook, referees and distinct body within the GAA, and overall treated differently to it's inferior relative, the better.

Rebelheart

No laughing!

Example of how Hawk-Eye will work in Hurling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_uhPZb_3c