It was a shocking decision not to award the goal IMO, so fair play to Bournemouth for perusing it.
Bournemouth's board will meet later this week to discuss the possibility of pursuing a compensation claim against Hawk-Eye, whose mistake may have contributed to their relegation from the Premier League.
Hawk-Eye released a statement apologising after a blunder by Aston Villa's goalkeeper Orjan Nyland, who carried the ball over the line against Sheffield United in the first game back after lockdown, was not detected by their goal-line technology system.
Referee Michael Oliver received no signal to award a goal and play continued, the game finishing in a goalless draw.
Full artical below.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12037776/bournemouth-to-discuss-claim-against-hawk-eye-for-ghost-goal-during-aston-villa-vs-sheffield-united
Hawk Eye To Be Sued?
posted on 28/7/20
"seven cameras couldn't see a football crossing the line"
If Cameras hadn't have seen it, we wouldn't have videos showing us the truth!..
It was the in goal sensor and the ref's watch that were at fault, one or the other didn't do the job they were meant to do!..
posted on 28/7/20
I suspect that a degree of inaccuracy is written into the terms - no way would they leave themselves exposed given the money in football. Surely.
posted on 28/7/20
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 11 minutes ago
Is it Hawkeye that gets sued, or ..... the official using it?
Kinda hard to sue a machine,... but the FA is responsible, so maybe they get to pay up....whatever the suit demands?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkeye doesn't have a human interaction like VAR...which is why it failed and couldn't be corrected
Over reliance on an almost perfect tech...
posted on 28/7/20
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
posted on 28/7/20
comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 34 seconds ago
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, though as there’s seemingly no legal case to answer here, it would be a tough one to prove any error if the owners hadn’t admitted any.
posted on 28/7/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 34 seconds ago
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, though as there’s seemingly no legal case to answer here, it would be a tough one to prove any error if the owners hadn’t admitted any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damned thing works in tennis which is much more demanding.
Why did it fail here?
posted on 28/7/20
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 34 seconds ago
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, though as there’s seemingly no legal case to answer here, it would be a tough one to prove any error if the owners hadn’t admitted any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damned thing works in tennis which is much more demanding.
Why did it fail here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly think the ref forgot to turn his watch on til half time. They'd never hang him out to dry though, so the excuse of a player blocking the camera was used. Funnily enough, the Sky Sports cameras encountered no such difficulties
posted on 28/7/20
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 34 seconds ago
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, though as there’s seemingly no legal case to answer here, it would be a tough one to prove any error if the owners hadn’t admitted any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damned thing works in tennis which is much more demanding.
Why did it fail here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it more demanding though? The chance that anything could block the camera in tennis is so much lower. You'd have to say that are significantly more variables around a goal line, than on a tennis court.
posted on 29/7/20
comment by Jay. (U16498)
posted 3 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by JustCallMeTed (U21528)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by add912 (U9189)
posted 34 seconds ago
They stated the level of accuracy and it was tested with the premier league and deemed good enough to implement. I believe that it was voted.
It was never considered 100% accurate.
That said, if it was due to them setting up the system at the ground incorrectly then maybe they have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good point, though as there’s seemingly no legal case to answer here, it would be a tough one to prove any error if the owners hadn’t admitted any.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Damned thing works in tennis which is much more demanding.
Why did it fail here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it more demanding though? The chance that anything could block the camera in tennis is so much lower. You'd have to say that are significantly more variables around a goal line, than on a tennis court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True.... and if the FA was smart enough it would use more cameras from different angles! Just to cover that fact..
posted on 29/7/20
I think it was considered 100% accurate from the point of view of the results it gives...& really there's no reason it shouldn't be, - on the basis that it was working properly at the time (i.e. actually switched on & signalling)
But therein lies a whole different problem - hardware not software maybe