Hawk-Eye selected by Premier League

, 11 April, 54comments  |  Jump to most recent
The Premier League have announced that they will pilot goal-line technology from Hawk-Eye at all 20 top-flight stadia next season.

The British-developed system that is already a staple of officiating in tennis and cricket, was chosen ahead of the system from GoalControl, the German firm appointed by Fifa for the forthcoming Confederations Cup and the 2014 World Cup in Brazil.

Hawk-Eye will use seven cameras to provide near-instant notification to match officials as to whether or not the whole ball has crossed the goal-line, with the goal of eliminating controversies over close decisions made by referees' assistants.

Quotes or other material sourced from Everton FC



Reader Comments (54)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Lyndon Lloyd
1 Posted 11/04/2013 at 18:25:49
A useless fact I Tweeted a few minutes ago: Dr Paul Hawkins, Hawk-Eye's developer, was in my class at school. And, no, none of his brilliance appears to have rubbed off on me in the six years we shared a classroom...
Mark Stone
2 Posted 11/04/2013 at 18:38:25
About time
Tony Cheek
3 Posted 11/04/2013 at 19:39:29
A step forward , but still leaves football in the dark ages IMO. Would like to see video deciding offsides and wrong sendings off. But definitely a step in the right direction!
Tony Cheek
4 Posted 11/04/2013 at 19:47:10
....and just a thought Lyndon, seeing he was a mate of yours. Have a little word , and he might rig the ones at Goodison, about 10cm will do. They owe us a couple from earlier this season anyway!
Colin Glassar
5 Posted 11/04/2013 at 19:51:38
Can this hawk eye thingy look into BK's pockets?
Sean Patton
6 Posted 11/04/2013 at 19:52:38
Any chance of getting some backdated decisions as I have a long list of mistakes here to refer to the panel.
Colin Glassar
7 Posted 11/04/2013 at 20:02:35
The goal Vic scored against Newcastle for starters.
Phil Sammon
8 Posted 11/04/2013 at 20:06:24
One giant leap in the wrong direction.

Tony Cheeks - Are you a Yank mate?

This is the death of football. Goal line technology. Then what? Technology for offsides? Technology for red cards? Technology for penalties?

It won't be long before coaches are throwing flags into play and calling time-outs. In 15 years the game will be unrecognisable.

Am I the only one who thinks football is perfect as it is?

I'm sick of going to games and people watching the big screen more than the game. Sick of people watching through their camera phones as they record? Sick of the twat who sits two seats away from me listening to his fucking headphones all game.

This is football! The game we love. Don't ruin it.

Tony Cheek
9 Posted 11/04/2013 at 21:11:31
I can see what u mean Phil, mobiles drive me crazy too, But cant see why videot would ruin football, all other sports have moved on. Even rugby uses video with great effect. It would take 5 secs for a ref to get a message about an offside. And are we not all pissed off with bad decisions or certain clubs getting more than their fair share of decisions.
Andy Mack
10 Posted 11/04/2013 at 21:36:45
"M is for mistakes we sometimes make, surely a bit of controversy is part of the game's appeal" - HMHB, Referee's Alphabet

Don't really want it, what makes football, football is the sense of injustice. I'd rather have "steevie gerrard swan dive cam" that automagically kicks players in the nuts and awards a yellow card for theatrical dives, automatic red if they also grab the ball before the ref has blown any whistle of stops play.

Steavey Buckley
11 Posted 11/04/2013 at 22:22:32
Already there are TV replays. Just plug in, ready to go.If a person has a TV and access to match day viewing. Could be used for dodgy off side decisions. And definite penalty decisions. They all take about 1 minute. The time it takes for players to vent their frustrations with referees who appear to have given wrong decisions.
Dennis Stevens
12 Posted 11/04/2013 at 22:34:42
I'm happy with the introduction of goal-line technology. If the ball has crossed the line it's left the field of play – letting the ref know for sure just means he has to decide whether it's a goal or whether some infringement has happened.

I would not like to see the introduction of replays during play as it would ruin the match – the ball doesn't always conveniently go dead when a critical decision needs to be made. All that should happen with goal-line technology is that the ref gets some accurate information to help him make the right decision.

Robert Collins
13 Posted 11/04/2013 at 23:45:18
Phil Sammon @ 953

I wouldn't mind at all if they introduced technology/Hawkeye for wrestling/grappling in the box, remember Carrager on Lescot and what Fellani as had to suffer at clubs like Stoke, the refs aren't interested, bring it on!

Roman Sidey
14 Posted 12/04/2013 at 03:42:30
Everything Phil said I second. Fuck the Hawk-eye off. Don't even think about bringing in video replays. And, as a final measure, ban mobile phones from all events - sport, concerts, homecomings.

Technology ruined cricket, it was the final nail in the coffin of rugby league (in Australia at least, but not sad about that to be honest) and is an absolute parody in American sport.

Can anyone imagine how shit the week would be if we didn't get our moan on about a bad call costing us, or nearly costing us, or whatever? It's what makes football great.

A simple game for humans. Played by humans. Watched by humans. Run by humans.

Anto Byrne
15 Posted 12/04/2013 at 04:39:43
A video referral system might work, catch the divers and the cheats. A game played by humans and here I was thinking they were robots.
Tony Cheek
16 Posted 12/04/2013 at 05:25:27
Hear what you are saying Roman, then you can stand in the pub at the end of the season and talk about the points we SHHOULD have had this season that might just have got us in the top fouy.
Unfortunately football is sometimes a game, played by cheats, watched by humans and run by morons.....!
Kevin Day
17 Posted 12/04/2013 at 07:53:59
Anyone remember Bolton 1997??

Goal line technology would of got us relegated back then. This can go either way for any team.

James Morgan
18 Posted 12/04/2013 at 07:54:22
Why are people in football so scared of moving forward? It's like and ingrained fear of change and technology.

"We don't want them there computer thingies round ere, the devils work they are I tell ye!"

Get with the times!

You will get used to it, and to say there will be nothing to discuss is bollocks, if Moyes is still here we will still talk about his shit subs and how badly gash Naismirh is.

I'm not advocating cameras on every single decision, I'm just sick of losing points unfairly, particularly goals ruled wrongly offside. And don't say they even themselves out!

Patrick Murphy
19 Posted 12/04/2013 at 09:13:32
I always believed that Southall was fouled in the build up to the Bolton goal anyway, so it shouldn't have stood for that reason. I don't understand why so many people think technology is a bad thing, I've seen so many games decided by the 'errors' of the officials generally in favour of the usual suspects that I welcome anything that aids those officials to make the right calls and thereby allowing the skills of the players to be rewarded rather than the reputations of a small band of players/clubs influencing the decisions.
Steve Carse
20 Posted 12/04/2013 at 09:45:02
I can understand the clamour for hawk-eye in tennis where it's continually needed. Also in cricket where the task of judging an lbw or the faintest of outside edges is often impossible. But instances where the question of whether the ball was or wasn't over the goal line are so rare I can't see the justification, not when the far bigger problem is with offside calls.

Everyone can probably recall all the controversies over the last decade when a ball was over the line but a goal not given (and vice-versa). The number of such instances in the PL must still be in single figures. Compare that with the number of times a goal has been disallowed for offside incorrectly or the number of times a goalscoring chance has been denied because a player has incorrectly been blown up for being offside.

And the technology for deciding these situations already exists through the use of a TV monitor. For instance, the line across the pitch denoting the position of the last outfield player, as already used by Sky etc, could be in constant use during a game and the calls made by an official looking at the monitor, with the game continuing unless the ref is told by this official of an offside, either through his ear piece or, better still, a pitch-side light.

Paul David
21 Posted 12/04/2013 at 10:23:28
Steve

What happens when the ref blows up for off-side when the tele shows he wasn't?

Brent Stephens
22 Posted 12/04/2013 at 10:27:00
Yeh, fuck this new technology stuff. We used to just go and watch the game but now we have effing internet and those sodding online forums - ah, well, er...
Phil Sammon
23 Posted 12/04/2013 at 09:48:00
James Morgan

"Get with the times! You'll get used to it."

I've got used to diving, has that made football better?

I've got used to players demanding £250k p/w, has that made football better?

That argument is so weak Steven Naismith could outmuscle it.

Football has enough dead time as it is. Of 90 minutes the ball is only in play for 60ish most games. The last thing we need is more stoppages.

As for all this, 'It'll add a new sense of drama'. Please. If you want big screen entertainment then take yourself to Tom Cruise' latest offering.

As much as I love Everton, I fully expect myself to be supporting a Conference side in the next 15 years. The top flight is really starting to reflect everything I hate in society, where 'fans' care more about transfer fees, wages, who their star player is shagging than the football on the pitch. Then you've got Adrian FUCKING Chiles imparting his views on the latest 'hilarious' haircuts to grace the Premier League.

The game is run, funded and supported by corporate goons and YouTube experts.

All hope and enthusiasm is fading fast...and I'm only 28.

Brent Stephens
24 Posted 12/04/2013 at 10:31:56
Roman "A simple game for humans. Played by humans. Watched by humans. Run by humans". We might just want to reflect on the last bit of that in relation to certain Chairmen!
Tony Dove
25 Posted 12/04/2013 at 10:32:24
Unbelievable waste of money. For the very rare occasions it's an issue, just use the TV replay.
Tony Marsh
26 Posted 12/04/2013 at 09:06:58
Phil and Roman, how would you to feel if at the end of the season Everton missed out on a 4th place finish because of a Anichebe type incident v Newcastle cost us a win in the final game of the season? We end up in the Europa League playing Plodiv instead of Champions League playing Porto?

It has to happen because officials in this country can't be trusted to make the right decisions unless in favour of certain clubs. I mean, come on, did you see the Hibs goal the other week? Probably goal of the century chalked off as not having crossed the line yet it was at least a yard over if not more. This shite cannot be allowed to carry on with so much at stake.

Paul David
27 Posted 12/04/2013 at 10:33:41
I hate that prick Chiles. You can see Keane wincing every time he says something embarrassing, which is every 10 seconds.
James Morgan
28 Posted 12/04/2013 at 11:20:01
Phil, talking about wages and diving and comparing to goal line technology is weak, mate.

One is a negative facet that has crept in to the game, which I don't like myself, the other is an idea brought in to support referees and bring a positive change.

If we lost to the shite in a cup final because of a goal not given, what would you think then?

I agree on Chiles, I'd love to punch him right in the kidneys!

Phil Sammon
29 Posted 12/04/2013 at 12:01:26
I was only highlighting how things we get used to are not necessarily good for the game.

If we lost to the RS in a cup final due to a good goal not been given then I would obviously be distraught. That still wouldn't make me think we need technology.

Nick Entwistle
30 Posted 12/04/2013 at 12:12:21
Phil, there's no stoppages. It doesn't go to the big screen or anything like that. The ref will know if it has crossed the line within a second with a beep to his ear.

I think the argument that is yet to happen is when exactly all the ball has crossed the line.. For me, and I think most, a goal is when the part of the ball touching the grass is no longer on the white line, but the rules state that it needs to be further than this with the closest part of the ball to the line no longer above the line... yep, I'm crap at explaining.

James Morgan
31 Posted 12/04/2013 at 12:25:17
Ok Phil, fair enough, but down the line I can't imagine anyone stopping and thinking "damn this technology, it's ruined the game!" Unless it got ridiculously anal, that is.

For me, goal line cameras, quick offside decisions by the fourth official, and retrospective punishment for divers/terrible tackles would be enough.

Paul David
32 Posted 12/04/2013 at 12:33:03
Technology should definitely be used to retrospectively punish cheats and I can't believe that it isn't but goal line technology is enough during a game.
Robbie Muldoon
33 Posted 12/04/2013 at 12:52:18
2 extra points against Newcastle, 2 points behind Chelsea is where we would be now.
Ross Kerry
34 Posted 12/04/2013 at 13:11:46
Referees favour the top teams, computers and cameras have no such bias and they are immune to pressure from Ferguson and his ilk. This is a good thing and it’s only the beginning.
Nick Entwistle
35 Posted 12/04/2013 at 13:14:03
Then you have the argument for the time keeping to be taken away from the referee. Personally I don't think it is needed, but neither do I see it right that a ref only blows up once an attack has come to an end, or that he waits to see how a corner kick develops. When time is up, it's up.
Roman Sidey
36 Posted 12/04/2013 at 13:17:34
I disagree, Ross. Bringing in technology like this is just one more thing they can manipulate and have no one else question (I feel like Winston Smith saying that).

It's not about moving forward, it's not about thinking we'll win more games because of it. It's about ruining sport and the spectacle. I know it's only goal line technology now, but the offside camera replays will come too.

Someone mentioned the lbws in cricket. When the third umpire came into cricket, they weren't allowed to use it for lbw. Only run-outs, stumpings and catches. Now, it's everything.

Anyone who thinks technology won't drastically change the game and ruin it for the spectator, AND take away the integrity of the officials involved just needs to watch one game of televised NRL. The referees are an absolute waste of space in that sport.

Ross Kerry
37 Posted 12/04/2013 at 13:54:26
Roman, if the ref and his assistants got it right I could agree with you, They don’t and they probably never did, but now we all know it. Technology will transform the game, it will be used for everything, and it will overcome the teething issues that you describe. The spectacle of the game is undermined when the result is unfair, 2 + 2 must equal 4.
Andy Callen
38 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:12:03
I’m not a fan of the idea of football adopting goal line technology, or any other technology for that matter, unless all teams across the globe have access to the same technology. What happens when after next season a team is relegated from the PL – they will no longer be able to use the technology until they win promotion again – it all seems pointless. Also, will it be able to be used for England home games? Especially considering UEFA/ FIFA have licensed a different version?

Anyway, for those that are complaining that it will slow the game down, this is incorrect. If the ball crosses the line a signal will be sent to the ref, who will then signal the goal has been awarded. Unless the ref signals a goal, the game will simply continue – it’s that old rule of playing to the whistle. NSNO

Steve Carse
39 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:22:30
Paul David (036). But the ref wouldn't be blowing for offside. It would all be done by an official looking at a monitor and only stopping the game when there has been an offside.
Paul Hardcastle
40 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:50:09
Nick Entwistle #061: "For me, and I think most, a goal is when the part of the ball touching the grass is no longer on the white line."

OMG.

I've always thought there was something odd about the way you viewed the game and pontificated on these pages... now you've confirmed it!!!

Just one question: If it's not touching the grass at all — ya know, like flying into the top corner — is it only a goal when it lands on the grass?

Brian Harrison
41 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:55:13
Seems like some fans don't want any technology used to make sure the correct decision is arrived at. I don't understand the logic of their thinking, if technology is there then use it. I mean maybe they would argue that we shouldn't use computers or mobile phones.

I also agree with Wenger: it shouldn't stop with goal-line technology — it should be used for offside as well. Blatter has used the extra 2 officials instead of technology and it has been a disaster. So where we can take human error out of the equation then we should.

Phil Sammon
42 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:52:07
I think a few people are missing the point here - or us Luddites aren't explaining ourselves well enough.

This isn't about goal line technology. It's about the precedent it sets.

Do we really want every decision going to a referral? So every decision results in 35,000 fans looking at a big screen, clapping like trained seals.

Football is full of imperfections. Players, referees and even us fans - sometimes they make all your wildest dreams come true, sometimes you curse their very existence. That is exactly how it should be.

I fear the main issue here is people thinking their team get shafted and believing that bringing in an exact science will right these wrongs.

Maybe it will - but it will be at the expense of the beautiful game.

I hear pundits saying that referees NEED to get these decisions right. That it's the difference between relegation and promotion - that people's livelihoods are at stake.

Well I'm sorry, but that's sport for you. If you choose to get involved in that industry then these are the risks you take.

So far, the only decent argument I've heard for technology in football is that it will stop favouritism towards the bigger teams. The FA could go a long way towards curing that problem themselves. Nothing makes me cringe more than when you lip-read a referee saying, "Wayne, calm down" or "Stevie, if you're gonna two foot him keep it below the knee." Phil Dowd is an absolute pecker for it. They are there to officiate a game, not to make friends. Call players by their number and cut out all this nonsense.

Let referees make statements after the game. I don't want them to be going on MOTD - but a written statement would be much appreciated. It even gives them the chance to say, 'Look, I got that one wrong.' These are humans after all.

We are going to end up with no referee and play being officiated from some little rats nest in the rafters. That's not the game I played in the park growing up.

John Gee
43 Posted 12/04/2013 at 14:58:35
There are very few incidents to justify the amount it will cost to implement Hawkeye. I'm ambivalent about it, as long as it doesn't interrupt the flow of the game which I don't think it will.

What I would like to see is video referral and retrospective refereeing introduced. Maybe each manager could suggest up to 3 incidents per game that he wants reviewing. It wouldn't change the result but it could punish/exonerate players. Might force some of these childish dickheads a bit more honest.

Phil Sammon
44 Posted 12/04/2013 at 15:25:45
Brian Harrison

'If the technology is there then use it.'

Why don't we give players metal clad boots and magnetise the football?

Why not rig the nets up to a massive amplifier so it makes a wicked cool noise every time a goal is scored?

Yeah, yeah, technology!

Brian Harrison
45 Posted 12/04/2013 at 15:33:48
Phil Sammon

I think you have answered your own doubts you say "the main issue is fans thinking their teams get shafted and this will right the wrongs" exactly Phil!! you even agree that it will get the right decision so where is the problem.

This will in no way impact on the beautiful game, it wont stop players displaying their skills but it will ensure that the decision on whether a goal has been scored will be correct.

Jimmy Kelly
46 Posted 12/04/2013 at 15:26:54
My issue with this is the possible effects of one team benefitting from a decision being made correctly by video ref and the other being shafted by a poor decision by the human ref because it can't be referred.

I agree with Patrick above, I always felt that Bolton's 1997 goal not being given was justice, because of a foul in the build up. How annoyed would you be if it went to a video ref who clearly saw the foul but had to ignore it and then gave a goal because he did have the power to overrule the ref on the line call.

Also those saying the ref could be informed within a second are joking surely? Many of the close calls take a good few views before a decision can be reached, and even then it's not always conclusive.

Phil Sammon
47 Posted 12/04/2013 at 15:57:17
Brian Harrison

Yes Brian, technology will indeed get some decisions right that would otherwise be have been given wrong. I don't think anybody ever in the whole wide world has ever questioned that fact so god knows why your laying it at my door.

I have, quite clearly I thought, stated that I believe this use of technology will destroy football as we know it. If you want an exact science then please, go fuck about on a calculator.

Tony Cheek
48 Posted 12/04/2013 at 17:33:28
Things my old man use to say..."I`ll never buy a bleeding cassette, I like my reel to reel tape recorder". Ten years later, "I´ll never buy one of those CDs, I like my cassettes too much." Ten years later, He died, but just know he would have said " I´ll never buy an Ipod, like my CDs too much. Get the point?
Roman Sidey
49 Posted 12/04/2013 at 18:57:00
Ross, I spotted the difference in our mentality and came to a conclusion as to why we're so opposed on this issue. "Unfair". Life is unfair, and sometimes football is too.

Jimmy Kelly raised a great point about when video technology inevitably comes in. One incident is reviewed and awarded/disallowed. Another, the ref just makes a decision and it's the wrong one. Massive can of worms and it happens every week in Australia.

What Phil described is actually what happens. A stadium full of fans having to watch a screen at one end for some corporate logo to flash red or green and then they're allowed to cheer.

Right decisions, wrong decisions, with the exception of the Derby, it usually evens out.

For the record, with video technology we would have lost the derby this season.

Ross Kerry
50 Posted 12/04/2013 at 19:45:14
Roman, I’m sure you are right about the impact of technology on RL and circket. My view is that football is a much bigger beast and it will get it right, but not without teething problems. It is the thin end of a wedge that will get bigger over time, if a computer gives an offside decision with 100% accuracy then why is that a bad thing?

As for the derby, video technology would have seen Suarez sent off before there was any debate about a goal that he should not have been on the pitch to score, we'd have won.

Sean Patton
51 Posted 12/04/2013 at 19:59:13
Indeed Ross plus the video ref would have seen that his teeth were miles offside.
Colin Glassar
52 Posted 13/04/2013 at 17:44:50
I'm all for technology as long as it can be used retrospectively. I want Hamilton's, bummed in, disallowed goal against the rs analysed and reinstated.
Chris James
53 Posted 13/04/2013 at 20:24:26
I don't think this one bit of tech itself is going to make a massive difference – how many of these decisions occur during the season that aren't called correctly? 2/3?

The issue is more what comes next. For starters, they're going to want to make more of these Hawkeye installations to get some value back to cover the costs – I'm sure we'll be seeing more data on speed / exact positioning of shots/goals, goalkeeper's movement at penalty shoot outs, etc.
Then maybe starting to watch the dead ball line for corners...

The big one of course is the use of video (technology already well in place with multiple camera angles) which is divisive but probably inevitable ultimately. For my twopenneth I think the discussion of controversial decisions is a large part of being a football fan and removing this does feel like it would chip away at the soul of the game.

That said, I and thousands of others are no doubt feeling somewhat cheated this year especially by a succession of bad decisions that could ultimately cost us a CL spot.

One solution would be to follow the Tennis approach and offer teams a number of official appears per match (say 3 for the sake of argument), these could be for anything from free-kicks and yellow card decisions up to penalties and disallowed goals. If a decision was appealed then the 4th official (or a TV specialist) would run the video and feedback to the referee whether the decision was supported or overruled. The match would then continue with the correct decision. If the challenge was correct you get to keep the appeal, if not you lose it.

By limiting the number of appeals you're left to cover only the most contentious issues of the match and so not slowing play repeatedly and also making the teams think about how they react.

In an ideal would you could also tie these appeals into player behaviour – ie, if players remonstrate with and surround the referee that could count as demanding an official appeal and any out of order language or confrontation against the ref could even lose the team a challenge – both of which would cut down on the scenes of players contesting every little thing.

Ultimately this sort of setup could be better for the game as it would take a bit of pressure of referees who do currently have a pretty impossible job.

Dean Adams
54 Posted 13/04/2013 at 21:31:12
We have had technology changing the game for years. Just look at the ball itself. How many changes have they made? Would we want that heavy leather boulder with laces in it for the modern game? Or what about boots, shirts, shin pads. All changed dramatically over the years. Technology is sometimes helpful, so why not just go with the flow?

It really depends on how this tech is used and how far they want to take it. I just see some moves as positive and some negative. As long as the balance is right then I will be happy to see the blatant cheating removed from the game. How do people feel about the Tiger Woods situation. Has technology created a monster? All cheating is wrong and if we can cut it down to a minimum then I for one will be glad of its use.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb