Hawk Eye

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Saint Mayhew

Saint Mayhew

Member
Apr 29, 2012
102
0
16
St. Marys, Southampton
Just saw the hawk eye tests at St Marys on Sky Sports. Looks like a good bit of kit, cameras and sensors and all that set up and then when the ball crosses the line the ref has a special watch that will receive the GOAL message. No message = no goal !! This should solve a few goal line issues I think
 
Can't believe it hasn't been tried before. Think it's great we are trialling this at St Mary's .

Hope the technology does a good job and is an asset to the game and decisions made
 
If i'm right the other company testing are the ones with the computer chip inside the ball.
 
Surely the chip inside ball idea would be way more expensive? I know the cameras for Hawk-eye won't be cheap, but still, sensors of that kind would cost a fair bit.
 
Mr_Saintly said:
Surely the chip inside ball idea would be way more expensive? I know the cameras for Hawk-eye won't be cheap, but still, sensors of that kind would cost a fair bit.
Click to expand...

I think it's the better idea tbh.
 
To be honest I don't think the Hawk-Eye folks will be learning anything they didn't already know at St Mary's, it's just a bit of jumping through hoops for FIFA. The big question for both is "do they work 100% of the time", I don't know the answer but there are a lot of tricky challenges with both technologies that are not easy to get around. Can I see goal line technology being ready for the 2012-13 season? In a word...no.
 
Multi ball systems and in a few cases even in the ground the size of st Mary's players able to hoof the ball on to the stadium roof(think that was west ham) must mean the in ball technology will be expensive and can the technology survive being booted about.
Glad football is finally joining the 21st century
 
saintlyhero said:
Multi ball systems and in a few cases even in the ground the size of st Mary's players able to hoof the ball on to the stadium roof(think that was west ham) must mean the in ball technology will be expensive and can the technology survive being booted about.
Glad football is finally joining the 21st century
Click to expand...

The tech has already been tested, the ball worked fine. This is just the official test.
 
Mr_Saintly said:
Maybe more accurate, but there can't be a lot in it. What makes you say that out of interest?
Click to expand...

Just much more simple, few sensors in the goal and a computer chip in the ball. Hawk eye has cameras, sensors etc etc.
 
Beef_Dripping said:
Just much more simple, few sensors in the goal and a computer chip in the ball. Hawk eye has cameras, sensors etc etc.
Click to expand...

More than a few mate! I think I read someone it would use 24 goal-line sensors. 12 in the frame and 12 bedded around the line and back of net to detect from different angles. Plus then also chips inside any balls prepared for match-day. You only need one ball somehow, and I don't know how, to slip through the checks and for example, you end up with a ball-boy chucking on a ball (as multi-ball is allowed in PL) without a chip in it to throw the whole method into disrepute. Of course the PL could just ban the multi-ball technique and just have the checked and verified balls kept over with the 4th officials.

I'll say HawkEye purely because it is already used by other sports, oh and it's English. Would be nice for the English to get something from FIFA for a change... <whistle>
 
Doing The Lambert Walk said:
More than a few mate! I think I read someone it would use 24 goal-line sensors. 12 in the frame and 12 bedded around the line and back of net to detect from different angles. I'll say HawkEye purely because it is already used by other sports, oh and it's English. Would be nice for the English to get something from FIFA for a change... <whistle>
Click to expand...

I just don't like the whole cameras clamped to the side of the stadium look tbh. <laugh>
 
Beef_Dripping said:
I just don't like the whole cameras clamped to the side of the stadium look tbh. <laugh>
Click to expand...

Not sure that is how it would work! Potentially, but another method I saw was this:

I would've thought if we were going to use cameras and methods such as HawkEye it would be very similar to this:


[video=youtube;bBI1Eu_efQw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBI1Eu_efQw[/video]




This is a demonstration of the GoalRef technology using a chip in hand-ball, the proposals are no different for football:
(Don't worry it does have an English voice-over)


[video=youtube;fqfC-L2yLD8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqfC-L2yLD8[/video]
 
Here is the GoalRef method being put into practice by the inventors, and being shown to some Referees in Tokyo:

[video=youtube;yhEnLxaGYcU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhEnLxaGYcU&feature=relmfu[/video]
 
Beef_Dripping said:
If i'm right the other company testing are the ones with the computer chip inside the ball.
Click to expand...

Doing The Lambert Walk said:
Correct. Goal Ref they are called. A Danish/German company I think.

Works with the chip in the ball and sensors in the frame of the goal and on the inside of the goal.
Click to expand...

It's not a chip in the centre of the ball. That couldn't be done. You can't keep a chip in the absolute centre of the ball, what with the sudden accelerations, decelerations, and impacts that the ball undergoes. The German developed GoalRef system utilises several sensor chips inside the surface of the ball, and in the woodwork, as you have pointed out. It is said to be a faster system, being able to send back an absolute Yes or No inside the time that HawkEye manages. It is said to be very reliable in measurement and is quite a bit cheaper to implement than HawkEye. It also does not rely on line of sight as HawkEye does.

However, HawkEye is well proven in other sports. It is predictable, usable, and almost 100% hardware reliable. The system is said to be something like 99.8% reliable in measurement. GoalRef is said to be a tad higher, but is almost entirely unproven and there is no real game data to suggest that the sensor chips in the ball are reliable under duress. There is also the issue that the chip sensors could possibly affect the flight of the ball, and that is an absolute no-no. My gut feeling is that the sensors won't quite be reliable enough at the moment, as the ball deforms and springs back, along with the other accelerations and impacts.

Another gut feeling I've had is that FIFA have been stalling on implementing goal line technology for this length of time in order to give GoalRef enough development time to get in the frame, NOT for any principled opposition to it. With my cynical head on, having two competing systems means that costs will be lowered and there can be the odd brown envelope lurking should it become necessary to sweeten the odd decision. I'm not suggesting either of the companies would offer, but FIFA officials might hint.
 
Saint Mayhew said:
Just saw the hawk eye tests at St Marys on Sky Sports. Looks like a good bit of kit, cameras and sensors and all that set up and then when the ball crosses the line the ref has a special watch that will receive the GOAL message. No message = no goal !! This should solve a few goal line issues I think
Click to expand...

Any hackers out there already working out how to send fake GOAL messages!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back