HawkEye is the proven system to date. As it seems to recognise the difference between human traffic and a ball. No system though is going to be infallible. My understanding is that with any of the systems under test it only takes maybe nanoseconds for the signal to engage. I think they will have to test it for a season or so just to iron out any pitfalls. I have to say though that the chip in the ball would be my choice if it could be proved that kicking the hell out of the ball did not adversely affect it's efficiency. The reason I say that is because it could be used on the byeline as well. Although it still wouldn't be able to tell you who the last one to touch the ball was!
My cynical side says that until FIFA (or one of the board's offspring) have a share in the selected business, a decision will be stalled! Why on earth don't we just use TV replays for the time being. Sure it's not 100% but it would definitely remove the total howlers from the game such as Pedro Mendes' effort against Roy Carroll at OT a few years back. Cost would be zero and as we've already seen that technology and TV footage still produce different results in cricket's use of Hawkeye, the controversy will simply switch from "the Ref got it wrong" to "Hawkeye got it wrong" anyway!
I read somewhere that the hawkeye camera set-up costs about £250k for each ground - quite an outlay! Though I guess if introduced it will be the prem/football league that will shell out. I make that £23 million for the whole football league. That said it is a one-off cost whereas goal ref would probably result in ongoing costs (i.e. balls would not be used more than once and would need to be recycled / reproduced, re-tested etc etc. A massive payout for whatever company wins a contract if it is adopted! And then the global market....
I don't think this is the case actually, as it relies on magnets in the goal frame. The hawkeye system seems far preferable to me, assuming both systems are equally effective, as it doesn't involve using a special ball.
I agree with Saint Alban, Hawk Eye maybe be an expensive one off cost (but probably not that far ahead of Goal Ref when you factor in outfitting all the balls used in the football league with the required sensors), but also there would be an ongoing cost of outfitting new balls. I can't see why Hawk Eye could not be used to watch touch lines also, it's used to track the ball all over a tennis court. Add on the fact it is proven in multiple sports and Hawk Eye is the winner for me.
If Hawk Eye was used to watch the sidelines aswell, you would need about 20 cameras. How **** would they look clamped to the stadium.
Indeed to follow up on my point, Hawk Eye would be much more suitable than Goal Ref for this purpose, assuming the cameras are not just pointing at the goals. Whether or not it is desirable to use the technology for touchline calls is another matter.
I don't know how big the cameras are, but couldn't they just be placed under the roof or somewhere pretty hidden away or otherwise blended into the rest of the stadium.
As it's temporary I'm guessing they've just attached them the quickest cheapest way possible, I'm sure if they were to become permanent then they would make them look nicer. Probably paint em red and white or something
I fear you might be right. One thing I don't understand with Hawk-Eye (and if you do please enlighten me) is that you are going to need camera vision to be able to process what is happening. No problem in tennis, cricket etc where there is going to be a maximum of one person in the way. If you have a goal line incident where the keeper is lying on the ball and half the players are jumping over the line trying to push it in, it's not going to be easy. And if they can't solve that incident then they'll get rejected by FIFA.
Hawk-Eye uses line of sight. GoalRef doesn't. So if there are too many bodies for Hawk-Eye to see enough, the truth can't be seen. GoalRef apparently can be totally surrounded by players and still be detected, because of the sensors embedded in the ball's subsurface. As I've said before, I don't think the GoalRef sensors will stand up to the battering. Testing, testing..!
All you need to solve that problem is more cameras. If you have cameras all around the goal, in front, behind, and to the sides, then it's extremely unlikely enough of them will be obscured to render the system unreliable. Also it's worth remembering that Hawk Eye can accurately predict the trajectory of the ball, for example in LBW decisions in cricket, even when the ball is stopped from completing its journey. So even if it can't see the ball as it crosses the line, it should be able to accurately judge whether it did or not. There are more complex issues than in cricket or tennis but I see no reason why they shouldn't be overcome.
I'm not sure it just requires more cameras for the HawkEye system to operate better. It just needs enough and more cameras aren't worth the extra. The system works on the time honoured principles in geometry. However, for that to happen with great accuracy, every camera must be fixed accurately and every bit as importantly, rigidly. Can't have cameras waving about in the wind, or vibrating along with the frequency of a stadium roof when a crowd gets going, or a gale blows around the stadium. Hence, I don't believe HawkEye is mounted in the goal framing either, like the GoalRef system, because if someone belts the ball against the bar, before it ricochets into the goal, the framework will be ringing like a bell for several seconds. Another reason why I think the GoalRef system could come unstuck. EDIT: They've been testing again today.
