Whether it's a sliothar or a football there's no point in Hawkeye concluding that it would've come back off the post. It's either a point or it's wide!

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 4088 - 21/08/2013 14:48:25    1465134

Keeper and hill. If the ball of whatever size was lower it would hit off upright. With Hawkeye it uses the premise that the uprights are higher and rather than say ball is over it calls wide as If shot on same line only lower it would not have been a score.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 21/08/2013 15:40:28    1465183

Royaldunne,

Can Hawkeye also predict what would happen if it rebounded back into play after hitting the imaginarily extended post???

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 4088 - 21/08/2013 15:54:26    1465197

if a goalpost was blowing in the wind and the sliothar went in , when if the post had not been blowing it would have gone wide. does hawkeye take a perpendicular line straight up from the butt of the post and then decide if the sliothar was in or our or does it take the actual position of the post at the time of the shot (obviously here I am talking about a shot that is lower than the top of the goalposts. In my humble opinion if a shot is higher than the top of the posts it should be regarded as wide anyway, regardless of whether or not it is between the (virtual) posts. hence my longing for an upper crossbar. I mean part of the skill of the game should be to keep the ball low enough so it goes between the posts.

s goldrick (Cavan) - Posts: 5520 - 21/08/2013 16:24:51    1465217

Keeper. There is the reason why actual debate cannot take place for too long on these forums. Childish remarks. Hawkeye is designed for those shots that clear the the height of the posts or come in at a acute angle .if it clears the top of the post as its done for past125 odd years it doesn't rebound . But officials had to call it one way or another. This gives a clear accurate reading once the settings are set properly for the size of ball. Jesus sure you might not take penicillin just cause a minority are allergic don't mean it ain't saved millions of lives.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 21/08/2013 16:36:00    1465228

Royaldunne,

I'm in favour of continuing using Hawkeye. My aim was merely to illustrate how pointless it is to say that if it was a football as opposed to a sliothar (Hawkeye's explanation for the cause of the error) it would have hit an extended goalpost & rebounded. Now if that seems childish to you maybe it's just that you don't like when someone disagrees with your point of view? THAT would be childish.

keeper7 (Longford) - Posts: 4088 - 21/08/2013 16:52:33    1465250

Anyone can disagree with my POV. One thing though in hurling the sloitair can go over or wide without rebounding a lot easier than a football as it is smaller. Same applies to the invisible goalposts. It shows it is a sensitive piece of engineering. And properly designed.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 21/08/2013 17:20:20    1465281

hill16no1man

...it is given if it travels over the post,as its the same as the ball being on the line is classed as in play it has to be over the line to be out of play simliar to a ball to be wide must be outside the post if directly over its a point.
so why couldnt the hawkeye worker not just tell the ref in his head piece that the wording is wrong award a point?...

I certainly agree with you that the common sense solution last Sunday would have been for someone with appropriate authority to advise the ref that the sliotar had indeed passed between the virtual posts and to award the point. To be fair, I'd say the graphic stating the "miss" surprised the Hawk-Eye techies even more than the crowd in attendance and play resumed very shortly afterwards so I'd say there wasn't adequate time to make this decision.

I'd also agree with you to an extent in relation to the ball crossing the line for a goal / wide / line ball etc. My understanding of this is that the whole of the ball must cross the line for it to be a goal / wide / 45 / 65 / line ball and this is similarly applied to points, whereby the whole of the ball must pass between the post (and above the crossbar, of course). To have it any other way is too arbitrary whereby a player my claim that more of the ball was over the post - therefore it should be a point while a defender would naturally claim more was outside the post. To take it to its natural conclusion, a forward would argue that a small fraction of the ball was over the post so it should be a point and the defender would argue none of the ball was over the post. This is just the opposite end of the spectrum in saying that the whole of the ball was inside the virtual post and I think this is the way it's applied. I seem to remember a point being disallowed by Hawk-Eye for that reason earlier in the season (was it against Canning in the Leinster final, maybe?).

Kurt_Angle (Dublin) - Posts: 567 - 21/08/2013 17:42:58    1465302

royaldunne
County: Meath
Posts: 4660

1465183
Keeper and hill. If the ball of whatever size was lower it would hit off upright. With Hawkeye it uses the premise that the uprights are higher and rather than say ball is over it calls wide as If shot on same line only lower it would not have been a score.

but the differance is if it goes straight over the post it is a score,if it hits the post its not a score so the technology is flawed as it cant read that

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 21/08/2013 18:33:49    1465330

kurt angle

but the rule is that if it goes over the post it is a point thats always been the rule in gaa,

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 21/08/2013 18:37:04    1465333

Hill may have been. But again that's subjective to opinions of official some called score others did not. At least with Hawkeye there is consistency. If it was lower rebound if higher miss. No reward for something that just cause its a foot higher its given.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 21/08/2013 20:08:57    1465385

Just got the latest on the whole crosseyes technology. Seemingly the Galway goalie dangled a CD he got off his aul lad from the crossbar. It skewed "the settin's". The brother's a Guard and he guarantees it works. It has to be a Mick Flavin CD though.

Maroonatic (Galway) - Posts: 1065 - 21/08/2013 20:44:50    1465407

hill16no1man
but the rule is that if it goes over the post it is a point thats always been the rule in gaa,

That has certainly been the rule in the book. The reality on the ground is that an umpire cannot say with any degree of certainty whether a ball went directly over a post or not. And there is no point in any rule about all the ball being inside the post, or only part of it because the umpires cannot tell the difference. It is simply not possible for them to be accurate about it. The truth is that if a ball goes above the post, the umpire is guessing about whether it would be inside or outside. Reasonably accurate guessing for the most part, but guessing none the less.
Now hawk-eye is not perfect by any means. It is also giving an approximation of the flight of the ball and where it would have been when it passed over the posts. But it is a damn sight more accurate that someone standing at the butt of the post staring up into the sky at a ball 30ft up in the air, and trying to decide if it would have gone through imaginary posts which in reality stop 10 ft short.
If fact, with hawk-eye we can actually start to decide on how much of the ball needs to pass through the posts before a score is allowed. Does all the ball have to be inside the posts? Half of it? Only a bit of it. That is a seperate debate and doesn't matter hugely in the end as the rules will be the same for both teams? Hawkeye allows us to do that. Not with 100% accuracy it is true. But with far far more accuracy that we have with the alternative- the naked human eye.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 21/08/2013 21:35:14    1465438

anfearbeag

yes but why has hawkeye not been made to give a point if the ball is in line with the posts.
surely the gaa told them this was the rule why can they not just set it to say score if it is in line

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 21/08/2013 21:41:27    1465445

royaldunne
County: Meath
Posts: 4663

1465385
Hill may have been. But again that's subjective to opinions of official some called score others did not. At least with Hawkeye there is consistency. If it was lower rebound if higher miss. No reward for something that just cause its a foot higher its given.

you cannot just make up the rules royaldunne,the rule is there that if the ball goes directly over a post its given as a point thats fact.if its lower rebound yes but if its higher the hawkeye system should be set to give a score not amiss ,the gaa paid them enough money surely they should set it up right

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 21/08/2013 21:44:18    1465448

if hawk-eye (when callobrated correctly!) sees that the ball has made any contact with the post (or would have if the post was 100m high) then it goes down as a miss.

cavanman47 (Cavan) - Posts: 5244 - 21/08/2013 21:54:25    1465464

hill16no1man

Thata a good question and one that should be asked of the decision makers in Croke Park and the makers of hawk-eye.
However that should not be used as a criticism of hawkeye itself. That is just how it is set up, and the settings can be changed as necessary. It is all computer generated after all, and that can be calibrated to define a score as anything they want - all the ball inside the post, half of it inside, any of it touching the post. Whatever you like.
In fact the rule itself is vague - it says it is a score if the ball goes over the post, but doesn't say how much of the ball needs to be over the post. And as I pointed out, up until now it didn't matter because umpires were not accurate enough to decide how much of the ball wnet over the post, or indeed if it went over the post at all.
This needs to be debated, and probably will need a tweaking of the rules to cover hawkeye.
But as I said, that does not mean that hawkeye is a failure. It is still far, far more accurate than the alternative.

anfearbeag (Meath) - Posts: 1134 - 22/08/2013 08:13:00    1465475

Hill that's the point week in week out scores that went wide are given by some old guy who thinks it's gone over top and at other end a good shot waved wide. Hawkeye gets rid of that once its set up right.

royaldunne (Meath) - Posts: 19449 - 22/08/2013 09:09:30    1465500

anfearbeag
County: Meath
Posts: 538

1465475
hill16no1man

Thata a good question and one that should be asked of the decision makers in Croke Park and the makers of hawk-eye.
However that should not be used as a criticism of hawkeye itself. That is just how it is set up, and the settings can be changed as necessary. It is all computer generated after all, and that can be calibrated to define a score as anything they want - all the ball inside the post, half of it inside, any of it touching the post. Whatever you like.
In fact the rule itself is vague - it says it is a score if the ball goes over the post, but doesn't say how much of the ball needs to be over the post. And as I pointed out, up until now it didn't matter because umpires were not accurate enough to decide how much of the ball wnet over the post, or indeed if it went over the post at all.
This needs to be debated, and probably will need a tweaking of the rules to cover hawkeye.
But as I said, that does not mean that hawkeye is a failure. It is still far, far more accurate than the alternative.

oh i agree im not for one minute saying the actual technology itself is wrong
its the hawkeye company i blame if they set or made the technology to read a miss when in the gaa rule book its a point
amazed the media has not copped onto this and put these questions to a gaa official

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 22/08/2013 11:55:00    1465638

royaldunne
County: Meath
Posts: 4665

1465500
Hill that's the point week in week out scores that went wide are given by some old guy who thinks it's gone over top and at other end a good shot waved wide. Hawkeye gets rid of that once its set up right.

agreed but the technology is not set right if it gives a wide when it should be a point for a ball being in line with the post
as the ref would not need to go to hawkeye if the ball actualy struck the post as the umpires would see it
where as if it goes above the post it should read point not miss as is the rule

hill16no1man (Dublin) - Posts: 12665 - 22/08/2013 11:57:18    1465640