HoganStand GAA Football and Hurling

National Forum

Hawk Eye

(Oldest Posts First) - Go To The Latest Post

You need to Login to Post

Replying To Alwaysencourage: "I think the point is that Hawkeye is a poor system.The ball did not go over the post at all.It wasn't that high.Obviously because it signalled nil on day that's what the decision was but doesn't mean it was right.Its not the first time it has been wrong.What other sports use systems like this?Does rugby have a system for penalty kicks, drop goals or conversations and what is it?Doesn't seem to be as much controversy there with these kicks?" Thank you very much… that was exactly the point I was making… Hawk Eye is a very poor system..! ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 14:11:07 2563435 Link
Replying To Alwaysencourage: "I think the point is that Hawkeye is a poor system.The ball did not go over the post at all.It wasn't that high.Obviously because it signalled nil on day that's what the decision was but doesn't mean it was right.Its not the first time it has been wrong.What other sports use systems like this?Does rugby have a system for penalty kicks, drop goals or conversations and what is it?Doesn't seem to be as much controversy there with these kicks?" Thank you very much… that was exactly the point I was making… Hawk Eye is a very poor system..! ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 14:14:08 2563436 Link
From the video of Comers point, its not easy to say if its over the post or not, it was higher than the post. trying to stop and play the video as the ball is going over I would think that it did go partly over the post. While Hawk eye does need to be revamped as it has been proven to be wrong before, I think in the incident it was probably correct and not a massive error. From umpiring myself, it is hard to call it from the distance the video was back and for the neutral lads in further up in the stands, to where you are behind and under the post. Many a time that exact shot would have happened and you would have lads on the sideline going mad saying it was a score and the ball would have clearly gone over the post, sometimes it can look over and other times people don't know the rules. Comer was indicating it was over but Armagh were saying it was wide, both naturally would say that.. Tribes88 (Galway) - Posts: 10 - 01/08/2024 14:39:48 2563440 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "This is the point I'm trying to make here but a lot here can't grasp it… You are right about any part of the ball no matter how tiny being over the post then Hawk Eye will indicate it as a wide which is ridiculous.. But if the rule as stated by another poster is correct about any ball over the hight of the posts deemed to not be a score then the GAA need to rewrite this rule as it's a joke… I admit to never having heard of this and find it hard to be correct.." You seem to have a real problem in accepting facts. Firstly, a ball which travels directly over a post clearly hasn't travelled between the posts. That's down simply to the meaning of the words 'over' and 'between'. It's nothing to do with Hawkeye or the Rule Book. Hopefully this attempt at showing it will work better than my last one: o \|\| The ball is going over the post. It's not going between them. Attempting to guess whether or not it would have bounced off the inside of the post and dropped over the crossbar, if the post was a bit taller, is not the role of Hawkeye, an umpire, referee, or anybody else. Hawkeye is therefore correct in ruling 'Níl' if it deems the ball has passed over a post. Secondly, you're clearly wrong to award such efforts as points yourself. Everybody but you can see this. Thirdly, if you find it hard to believe that the other point I made about the Rule Book is correct, then just look it up yourself. It's in Rule 3.1 of Part 2 of Treoir Oifigúil: 'A point is scored when the ball is played over the crossbar between the posts by either team'. Again, a strict interpretation of this means that any effort that travels above the height of the posts should not be given as a point, even if it's directly over the centre spot of the crossbar, since the shot was too high to actually travel between the posts. And again, I'm sure this is not the intention of the rule, and I think any referee or umpire would be wrong not to award a point in such circumstances. But that doesn't change what the rule actually says. I happen to deal with legislation in my day job, and I can spot from a million miles how that's an anomaly which could bring unintended consequences. But that's definitely what the rule says, so you shouldn't find it hard to believe that I'm correct in pointing it out. Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2487 - 01/08/2024 15:18:12 2563450 Link
When I'm umpiring and the ball goes over the post on the wide side I signal wide, if it goes over to the inside I signal a score… no in between..simple , but Hawk Eye can't do this as if any tiny part of the circumference of the ball is touching the post it will call a NILL.. and this is plainly wrong… Anybody who thinks that this is right is just plain daft…. Hawk Eye has chalked of numerous scores that have cost teams dear but the GAA chose to ignore its failures…! ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 15:22:19 2563453 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "I'm completely right" Nah you're wrong. Galway9801 (Galway) - Posts: 1942 - 01/08/2024 15:59:14 2563456 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "When I'm umpiring and the ball goes over the post on the wide side I signal wide, if it goes over to the inside I signal a score… no in between..simple , but Hawk Eye can't do this as if any tiny part of the circumference of the ball is touching the post it will call a NILL.. and this is plainly wrong… Anybody who thinks that this is right is just plain daft…. Hawk Eye has chalked of numerous scores that have cost teams dear but the GAA chose to ignore its failures…!" My final say here. Under Rule, a ball that travels over a post should not be given as a score. Whether the ball travels over the outside of the post, or the inside of the post, is immaterial. Hawkeye is therefore not wrong to not award a score if it deems the ball has travelled over any part of a post. As things stand, you are wrong to award a point in such circumstances. What you're doing is operating in the way you think it should be done. And in fairness, maybe there's some merit to the belief that it should be that way, if there was a way to reliably and accurately predict how the ball would have bounced off a taller post. However, even if it should be that way, it's not that way, and therefore you're still wrong. Very final thought is that if you really can tell with 100% accuracy which way a ball would have dropped off a taller post, then anybody who says Hawkeye should be abandoned is indeed right. They should just give the job to you instead. :) Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2487 - 01/08/2024 16:09:29 2563458 Link
The administrators on this forum are simply guilty of dereliction of duty allowing that Cavan lad air time. People leaving this site in droves due to his nonsensical ramblings and refusal to accept factual comment Claretandblue (Westmeath) - Posts: 1833 - 01/08/2024 16:13:05 2563459 Link
Replying To Pikeman96: "You seem to have a real problem in accepting facts. Firstly, a ball which travels directly over a post clearly hasn't travelled between the posts. That's down simply to the meaning of the words 'over' and 'between'. It's nothing to do with Hawkeye or the Rule Book. Hopefully this attempt at showing it will work better than my last one: o \|\| The ball is going over the post. It's not going between them. Attempting to guess whether or not it would have bounced off the inside of the post and dropped over the crossbar, if the post was a bit taller, is not the role of Hawkeye, an umpire, referee, or anybody else. Hawkeye is therefore correct in ruling 'Níl' if it deems the ball has passed over a post. Secondly, you're clearly wrong to award such efforts as points yourself. Everybody but you can see this. Thirdly, if you find it hard to believe that the other point I made about the Rule Book is correct, then just look it up yourself. It's in Rule 3.1 of Part 2 of Treoir Oifigúil: 'A point is scored when the ball is played over the crossbar between the posts by either team'. Again, a strict interpretation of this means that any effort that travels above the height of the posts should not be given as a point, even if it's directly over the centre spot of the crossbar, since the shot was too high to actually travel between the posts. And again, I'm sure this is not the intention of the rule, and I think any referee or umpire would be wrong not to award a point in such circumstances. But that doesn't change what the rule actually says. I happen to deal with legislation in my day job, and I can spot from a million miles how that's an anomaly which could bring unintended consequences. But that's definitely what the rule says, so you shouldn't find it hard to believe that I'm correct in pointing it out." The rule doesn't actually say that anything above the posts is not a score it's more like you spotting an anomaly that no ref or umpire would implement… I will continue to umpire in the same way that has served me well and I have never got anything only compliments from any referee that has been officiating…. Doing it any other way might only cause confusion and controversy just in the way Hawke Eye has done….. ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 16:52:39 2563465 Link
Replying To Galway9801: "Nah you're wrong." "Nah I'm completely right " ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 16:55:03 2563466 Link
Replying To Claretandblue: "The administrators on this forum are simply guilty of dereliction of duty allowing that Cavan lad air time. People leaving this site in droves due to his nonsensical ramblings and refusal to accept factual comment" Are there any administrators here? Inconsistent censors. GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7582 - 01/08/2024 17:28:13 2563474 Link
Replying To GreenandRed: "Are there any administrators here? Inconsistent censors." Because they know I'm talking sense but it doesn't suit the narrative of some… Some people just can't handle it when they hear a proper view point ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 17:41:01 2563478 Link
Replying To GreenandRed: "Are there any administrators here? Inconsistent censors." No need for censors unless you are very easily offended…. Everything I said about Hawk Eye is totally correct and it's not my fault if you haven't the intelligence to see that… it's pretty obvious a lot of other posters are able to see the points I make are valid… Hawk Eye is flawed .. accept it..!!! ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 01/08/2024 18:14:41 2563484 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "When I'm umpiring and the ball goes over the post on the wide side I signal wide, if it goes over to the inside I signal a score… no in between..simple , but Hawk Eye can't do this as if any tiny part of the circumference of the ball is touching the post it will call a NILL.. and this is plainly wrong… Anybody who thinks that this is right is just plain daft…. Hawk Eye has chalked of numerous scores that have cost teams dear but the GAA chose to ignore its failures…!" Aye but, you the man. Saynothing (Tyrone) - Posts: 2133 - 01/08/2024 21:04:57 2563505 Link
Replying To Saynothing: "Aye but, you the man." I can see him now! Gesturing to the clouds! Onion_Sack (Dublin) - Posts: 249 - 01/08/2024 22:51:38 2563519 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "So over the height of the posts but directly over the black spot you think that's not a score….that's basically what you have just said… and why would anyone want the decisions by the referee or umpire to be incorrect…? Are you mad or just smoking the wrong stuff by any chance…?" I have not time to look up the rule. If it says between the up rights then it is worded wrong. It would also be very difficult to know if the full ball was above the posts. One way or the other I really don't care how this is going to be adjudicated. However to have Hawk Eye deemed flawed on this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Incidentally I don't smoke any thing and if having an opinion on people not wanting to advance decisions making on scores and a few other issues like red cards makes me mad then I guess I am mad. Canuck (Waterford) - Posts: 2854 - 02/08/2024 02:02:14 2563533 Link
Replying To Onion_Sack: "I can see him now! Gesturing to the clouds!" I'm afraid you can't see anything… good lad ForeverBlue2 (Cavan) - Posts: 2811 - 02/08/2024 12:02:00 2563563 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "No need for censors unless you are very easily offended…. Everything I said about Hawk Eye is totally correct and it's not my fault if you haven't the intelligence to see that… it's pretty obvious a lot of other posters are able to see the points I make are valid… Hawk Eye is flawed .. accept it..!!!" Was talking about admins censoring stuff, not your Hawkeye opinions. Though you are quite fond of a good rant! GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7582 - 02/08/2024 12:27:09 2563568 Link
Replying To ForeverBlue2: "No need for censors unless you are very easily offended…. Everything I said about Hawk Eye is totally correct and it's not my fault if you haven't the intelligence to see that… it's pretty obvious a lot of other posters are able to see the points I make are valid… Hawk Eye is flawed .. accept it..!!!" Despite my better intentions, I'm back to make one further statement. A short one. I don't think anybody has ever argued here that Hawkeye is not flawed. Cleary there have been periodical issues with it, and well-documented ones at that. However, the issue is in regard to other things discussed in association with that, such as your absolute steadfast refusal to accept what the Rule Book says, how that applies to Hawkeye rulings if it deems the ball has passed directly over a post, and also your insistence that you're "right" in doing things wrong when you're umpiring. You've already shown umpteen times that you're incapable of separating these things in discussion, and you're doing it again here. Good day. Pikeman96 (Wexford) - Posts: 2487 - 02/08/2024 15:10:57 2563602 Link
Maybe the seagull distracted the hawk? GreenandRed (Mayo) - Posts: 7582 - 02/08/2024 15:50:56 2563606 Link