Hawkeye

Rightwing

If birds can affect it, they should look for a refund and resign.

hardCopy

Rightwing wrote: »

If birds can affect it, they should look for a refund and resign.

Nobody is claiming Hawkeye is affected by birds. The debate has now somehow moved on to discussing a hypothetical replacement system designed by the boards GAA forum.

Being susceptible to avian interference is but one small hurdle this system would need to overcome.

jjjd

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

marco_polo

jjjd wrote: »

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

It was definately used a few times last week wasn't it? Can't remember which goals it was into though.I guess it is possible that the problem could have been present last week but a particular situation to expose it didn't arise.

MrJoeSoap

marco_polo wrote: »

It was definately used a few times last week wasn't it? Can't remember which goals it was into though.I guess it is possible that the problem could have been present last week but a particular situation to expose it didn't arise.

Fairly sure it was used twice, one of which was a Keaney effort into the Hill. Everyone knew that was wide though, surprised they even tried it.

mattser

GS11 wrote: »

Would that be a European or an African sparrow.

I don't know that. It may be a sparrow of the " Knights of NYIGH "

InchicoreDude

jjjd wrote: »

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

Good point but for all we know, the settings have to be done every time the system is turned on.

Rebelheart

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

antoobrien

Rebelheart wrote: »

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

It can't be proved that a score would have resulted had the post been there, so why would this be a problem?

TopOfTheRight

The rule in GAA has always been that if the ball goes over the top of the posts its a wide ball.
Hawkeye is working off this so it's going to happen sooner or later that 99% of the ball will be inside the post but the 1% that intersects the virtually projected post will register it as a wide.
Those are our rules and that's the systems that's in place.

keane2097

Rebelheart wrote: »

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

Why would this be a controversy? It was explained from the start that this would be the case. I don't recall anyone having had a problem with it.

You'll always have fellas coming in when something goes wrong kicking up a stink and complaining about everything. I don't suppose you could point me to a post where you highlighted this as an issue before the last three days could you?

Mountainlad

Is he not suggesting that rather than the ball going over the post it actually hits the inside and goes over.

But I suppose in that scenario the umpires would just ignore hawkeye? Should be obvious if it went over after hitting the post.

keane2097

Mountainlad wrote: »

Is he not suggesting that rather than the ball going over the post it actually hits the inside and goes over.

But I suppose in that scenario the umpires would just ignore hawkeye? Should be obvious if it went over after hitting the post.

Yeah obviously. There's no controversy to be had there at all.

antoobrien

Mountainlad wrote: »

Is he not suggesting that rather than the ball going over the post it actually hits the inside and goes over.

But I suppose in that scenario the umpires would just ignore hawkeye? Should be obvious if it went over after hitting the post.

As has been pointed out a ball going over the top of the post is a wide. For it to be counted as a point it needs to actually hit the post and go in, not some phantom post 5m above the top of the actual one.

Any controversy there can be solved with simple education as to the actual rule.

Mountainlad

antoobrien wrote: »

As has been pointed out a ball going over the top of the post is a wide. For it to be counted as a point it needs to actually hit the post and go in, not some phantom post 5m above the top of the actual one.

Any controversy there can be solved with simple education as to the actual rule.

Yep I know as much. Just that's what it seemed that your man was saying in the Times, but I'd be even more worried about the competency of our umpires if they couldn't tell that a ball had gone over the bar after it came in off the post.

I wouldn't question hawkeye's accuracy, just feel it's not the best solution to a problem that isn't the first that should be addressed with regard to officiating games.

antoobrien

Mountainlad wrote: »

Yep I know as much. Just that's what it seemed that your man was saying in the Times, but I'd be even more worried about the competency of our umpires if they couldn't tell that a ball had gone over the bar after it came in off the post.

I think the concern is to do with "rebounds" from over the top of the post, rather than ones that should drop between the two umpires.

Mountainlad wrote: »

I wouldn't question hawkeye's accuracy, just feel it's not the best solution to a problem that isn't the first that should be addressed with regard to officiating games.

I'd question some of the times it has been brought in to consideration to be honest, such as the two clear Dublin wides last week that were called back for hawkeye.

That said, the hawkeye system in use should have two presets: hurling and football. It sounds as if the settings have to be input manually, which is a bit hard to credit when the settings can be put on flash drives/sd cards and uploaded fairly easily.

Mountainlad

antoobrien wrote: »

I think the concern is to do with "rebounds" from over the top of the post, rather than ones that should drop between the two umpires.



I'd question some of the times it has been brought in to consideration to be honest, such as the two clear Dublin wides last week that were called back for hawkeye.

That said, the hawkeye system in use should have two presets: hurling and football. It sounds as if the settings have to be input manually, which is a bit hard to credit when the settings can be put on flash drives/sd cards and uploaded fairly easily.

Ah right well that's pretty idiotic then given it's always been the case that over a post is a wide.

petronius

I am surprised that the Hawkeye error last weekend wasnt highlighted on UK TV - Sky etc.
Since it was excused as Human error, when the idea of introducing hawkeye here, and at Premier league matches in England is to remove human error.
I am also surprised they didnt use it (or i didnt see if they did) to slag off Irish people

MrJoeSoap

petronius wrote: »

I am surprised that the Hawkeye error last weekend wasnt highlighted on UK TV - Sky etc.

It was on Sky Sports News.

tomasdeb

Padkir wrote: »

Why is miss silly? You take a shot and you either score or you miss...

"Wide" is more like what you'd hear. Agus bheadh "ar fóraoil" níos fearr fós dá mbeadh suim dá laghad ar úsáid na Gaeilge.

petronius

Go raibh maith agat mrjoesoap I didnt see it

Pity Sky (Sports) News dont give more coverage of GAA Results

MrJoeSoap

petronius wrote: »

Go raibh maith agat mrjoesoap I didnt see it

Pity Sky (Sports) News dont give more coverage of GAA Results

Sky Sports News only care about sports that they have the rights to, and to a lesser extent, the major sporting events that they don't. I'd prefer for them to stay away from GAA, that channel is one massive advertisement.

tomasdeb

Rebelheart wrote: »

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

Was wondering when someone would make this point. The rules state that the ball must pass between the posts. If it hits the post, it will either deflect inside, deflect wide or bounce back into play. Either way, Hawkeye would not be used as the outcome would be clear. But what happens if the ball goes higher than the posts, hawkeye is called and shows that the ball grazed the inside of the post? Hawkeye would give this as a wide but if the ball grazed the inside of a post in reality, it would deflect inside and result in a point. I'm open to correction but it appears as if this is not allowed for. Would be complicated but these guys claim that they're the best in the world.

As things stand, the explanation that football settings were used seems plausible but unacceptable.

The initial response from the GAA was that the visual graphic was incorrect but that the decision (i.e. wide) was correct. This was incorrect and compounded the problem. The issue happened in the first minute and there was time to resolve it while the game was still in progress if the GAA moved swiftly rather than relying on the inaccurate excuse that the ball was wide. Reminds me of the 1998 timing error which could have been resolved by restarting the match and playing the missing 5 minutes.

The sad fact is that everything would have been ok if the referee and umpires had been left to their own devices.

Bottom line, have the GAA sold themselves short with this company? They don't seem to be tuned into Gaelic Games at all. Even the word "miss" sounds alien. And if the GAA had any REAL interest in using the Irish language, here was a golden opportunity to use it. CÚILÍN and AR FÓRAOIL are all that we would have need to know!

Finally, I've just seen a wide ball given as a score in Thurles. If hawkeye is to stay (and that's a big IF), is it fair to have i t only at one venue?

MrJoeSoap

tomasdeb wrote: »

Was wondering when someone would make this point. The rules state that the ball must pass between the posts. If it hits the post, it will either deflect inside, deflect wide or bounce back into play. Either way, Hawkeye would not be used as the outcome would be clear. But what happens if the ball goes higher than the posts, hawkeye is called and shows that the ball grazed the inside of the post? Hawkeye would give this as a wide but if the ball grazed the inside of a post in reality, it would deflect inside and result in a point. I'm open to correction but it appears as if this is not allowed for. Would be complicated but these guys claim that they're the best in the world.

There is no way that any piece of technology that exists at the moment could accurately gauge whether a sliotar passing through or hitting an imaginary extension of a post would rebound inside the post and over the crossbar. We should be thankful that the technology exists to even gauge whether the sliotar is over the bar or making contact with the post. I've no problem with it being given as a wide, once it affects each team in the same way, which it would.

tomasdeb wrote: »

As things stand, the explanation that football settings were used seems plausible but unacceptable.

Agreed, 100%.

tomasdeb wrote: »

Bottom line, have the GAA sold themselves short with this company?

I don't think so. It's one mistake, that was unfortunately costly for the Limerick minors. This technology is used effectively and accurately in many other sports with little or no controversy.

tomasdeb wrote: »

They don't seem to be tuned into Gaelic Games at all. Even the word "miss" sounds alien. And if the GAA had any REAL interest in using the Irish language, here was a golden opportunity to use it. CÚILÍN and AR FÓRAOIL are all that we would have need to know!

This rests with the GAA, not Hawkeye. I'm sure the text displayed is fully customisable and would bet any money that the words were chosen by the GAA.

tomasdeb wrote: »

Finally, I've just seen a wide ball given as a score in Thurles. If hawkeye is to stay (and that's a big IF), is it fair to have i t only at one venue?

This is a trial period for Hawkeye, and if they decide it is successful it will be rolled out in other venues around the country, I understand. Was there a wide given as a score in the second game as well as the first, or are you referring to the Wexford v Antrim game? That was one of the most pathetic umpiring decisions I've ever seen, yet won't get 1% of the publicity that the Hawkeye error got. The sliotar came right down over the umpire at a low height and he still managed to get it wrong. At least the referee saw sense to overturn the umpire in this instance.

tomasdeb

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

There is no way that any piece of technology that exists at the moment could accurately gauge whether a sliotar passing through or hitting an imaginary extension of a post would rebound inside the post and over the crossbar. We should be thankful that the technology exists to even gauge whether the sliotar is over the bar or making contact with the post. I've no problem with it being given as a wide, once it affects each team in the same way, which it would.



Agreed, 100%.



I don't think so. It's one mistake, that was unfortunately costly for the Limerick minors. This technology is used effectively and accurately in many other sports with little or no controversy.



This rests with the GAA, not Hawkeye. I'm sure the text displayed is fully customisable and would bet any money that the words were chosen by the GAA.



This is a trial period for Hawkeye, and if they decide it is successful it will be rolled out in other venues around the country, I understand. Was there a wide given as a score in the second game as well as the first, or are you referring to the Wexford v Antrim game? That was one of the most pathetic umpiring decisions I've ever seen, yet won't get 1% of the publicity that the Hawkeye error got. The sliotar came right down over the umpire at a low height and he still managed to get it wrong. At least the referee saw sense to overturn the umpire in this instance.

I take your point that giving shots that hit the virtual post as wides is ok as long as its the same for both teams.

Time wil tell whether hawkeye will recover credibility. I would have been in favour of the technology but am not so sure now...

Yes, I would expect that the text is customisable if the GAA bothered to ask. The word MISS does strike me as odd - a bit like using "kick off" for a GAA match or "throw in" for a soccer match.

Yes, there was a wide given as a point in the second match also. Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome. Would have been an opportunity for hawkeye to earn his money...

Wonder how the GAA are going to sort out the minor mess. Seems unfair to be putting the onus on Galway to offer a replay. Wish they had corrected the error during the game and avoided all this.

washman3

Anyone just see the Hawkeye decision in the Mayo/Monaghan minor game.
Called upon for a Monaghan effort that was clearly about 2 feet wide. Not even questioned by anyone. Coincidentally into the Hill 16 end.:P
Just to prove how 'effective' the system works.!! Or maybe just an opportunity to advertise Specsavers... Pathetic.

MrJoeSoap

Hawkeye used successfully in the minor match this afternoon.

washman3

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Hawkeye used successfully in the minor match this afternoon.

A spectator sitting in row z of the upper cusack at the other end would have seen that was wise FFS. a ridiculous call in the first place.

MrJoeSoap

washman3 wrote: »

A spectator sitting in row z of the upper cusack at the other end would have seen that was wise FFS. a ridiculous call in the first place.

I was referring to the fact that it was used and made the right call. The call to use it in the first place is another issue.

Hammer Archer

washman3 wrote: »

Anyone just see the Hawkeye decision in the Mayo/Monaghan minor game.
Called upon for a Monaghan effort that was clearly about 2 feet wide. Not even questioned by anyone. Coincidentally into the Hill 16 end.:P
Just to prove how 'effective' the system works.!! Or maybe just an opportunity to advertise Specsavers... Pathetic.

Or maybe just to be absolutely sure it was wide