Hawkeye

washman3

Roger_007 wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that technology is infallible is kidding themselves. There is no such thing as error-free software, ask anyone in the IT industry. It should only ever be used as an aid to a decision and not be allowed to make the decision. An official should look at the replay on Hawkeye and that official decide whether there was a score or not. This process works fine in rugby where TV official looks at the evidence and makes the decision. This whole problem is caused by the total reliance on the technology to decide.

And yesterday we had 2 officals looking at it, one from Hawkeye and the other a former top hurling referee with both failing to spot the error. The rugby process simply would not work here as decisions in that sport can take an eternity sometimes.
Anyone in IT will also tell you that if you fail to prepare your equipment, your equipment will fail.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Stick with it of course. Like in a previous post i said its not rocket science at all. Get a guy on the morning of a game to puck/kick wides and points at both goals to check the system.
A band will do a sound check before playing a gig, they will not just switch on their equipment and assume everything is ok simply because the equipment lights up.
Seems like arrogance/laziness/assumption was a big factor here.

I don't think you understand the technology at all to be honest (particularly its limitations) and you're not alone. This is one of the biggest risks with new technology. With Hawkeye it doesn't matter if the ball touches or grazes the inside, outside, top, bottom, side of the post on either side - once it touches the virtual post at all it is called a miss.

The error yesterday would have been very hard to check in a test. It would have required a tester hitting a sliotar over the post height into the hill sixteen goal within a footballs width of the side of the virtual post.

I think the explanation from hawk eye innovations is a reasonable explanation for the cock-up yesterday. Reasonable but unacceptable and procedures must be put in place to ensure that all equipment is calibrated for the game being played on the pitch in future.

washman3

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't think you understand the technology at all to be honest (particularly its limitations) and you're not alone. This is one of the biggest risks with new technology. With Hawkeye it doesn't matter if the ball touches or grazes the inside, outside, top, bottom, side of the post on either side - once it touches the virtual post at all it is called a miss.

The error yesterday would have been very hard to check in a test. It would have required a tester hitting a sliotar over the post height into the hill sixteen goal within a footballs width of the side of the virtual post.

I think the explanation from hawk eye innovations is a reasonable explanation for the cock-up yesterday. Reasonable but unacceptable and procedures must be put in place to ensure that all equipment is calibrated for the game being played on the pitch in future.

Have you read all my posts or just one.?
My simple point is that the ball was so far inside the post, as we can see from ordinary RTE pictures, that even if Hawkeye was calibrated for a beach ball it would hardly have shown it to graze the post.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Have you read all my posts or just one.?
My simple point is that the ball was so far inside the post, as we can see from ordinary RTE pictures, that even if Hawkeye was calibrated for a beach ball it would hardly have shown it to graze the post.

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

washman3

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

oppenheimer1

washman3 wrote: »

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

I rewatched the video of the shot from behind the goal. From the angle of the RTE camera and because the camera is not in the direct flight of the ball you cannot determine the position of the ball relative to the post.

mattser

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

RTE pictures give no sense of depth, it is next to impossible to call how close the ball travelled past the post from the two angles RTE had. In fact the camera shot from the Hogan stand is next to useless because you cannot see a white sliotar against the white concrete background that is Hill 16.

Would it help if they changed the colour of the sliothar ?

Rebelheart

This is an incredible cock-up by the clearly British soccer-focused Hawk-Eye company. They didn't account for the difference in size between a football and a sliothar? Was a single Irish person working for this company? My 98-year-old granny who never played sport in her life could tell the difference. You couldn't invent this sort of ignorance and unprofessionalism.

Does the GAA have any alternatives to the company responsible for this incompetence?

Corcaigh84

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is an incredible cock-up by the clearly British soccer-focused Hawk-Eye company. They didn't account for the difference in size between a football and a sliothar? Was a single Irish person working for this company? My 98-year-old granny who never played sport in her life could tell the difference. You couldn't invent this sort of ignorance and unprofessionalism.

Does the GAA have any alternatives to the company responsible for this incompetence?

It's just another example that we are in fact goverened by the incompetent Gaelic Football Association.

The sooner the hurling community have their own rulebook, referees and distinct body within the GAA, and overall treated differently to it's inferior relative, the better.

Rebelheart

No laughing!

Example of how Hawk-Eye will work in Hurling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_uhPZb_3c

bren2001

Rebelheart wrote: »

This is an incredible cock-up by the clearly British soccer-focused Hawk-Eye company. They didn't account for the difference in size between a football and a sliothar? Was a single Irish person working for this company? My 98-year-old granny who never played sport in her life could tell the difference. You couldn't invent this sort of ignorance and unprofessionalism.

Does the GAA have any alternatives to the company responsible for this incompetence?

1. Hawk eye was only introduced into soccer this year.
2. It has been used in cricket, tennis and snooker for several years.
3. They did take into account the size of the football and sliothar, the operator forgot to change the set up at the hill 16 end.

Yes, there are a few other alternatives. However, they have spent several million on this. Also, the software operated correctly. I see no reason to not continue with the Hawk Eye trial and look forward to when it is extended to the likes of Semple etc.

stooge

it was a terrible mistake made all the more noteworthy by the fact the match finished level in normal time. If either team had gone on to win by 3/4 points it wouldnt have been such a big deal. However, I think the makers of hawkeye should be given a little sympathy. I would say that all of their currently deployed systems cater for only one ball size bar the one in Croker which has to cater for two sports and two ball sizes.

dilallio

One wonders if sh1téhawk being introduced at all Premiership grounds at the weekend played a factor here due to less-experienced staff / fewer numbers being present in Croke Park.

The referee definitely played for a draw, giving both teams very soft frees near the end of normal time.

Why would a referee do this in a minor game considering many players were struggling with cramp, and where no replay would take place in the event of a draw??? There was no advantage to the GAA / RTE in extra-time being played.

Unless of course they knew about the issue before the end of the minor game.

As extra-time is considered a new game, it's plausible that they saw this as the best solution in a bad situation.

These young-lads have trained all year for this and it's very unfair to go out of a competition in this manner. The only chance of a replay is if Galway offer one. The rules don't allow for a replay due to an incorrect score.

I hope i'm wrong, but I can't see Galway offering a replay - the players were very annoyed after the game at the Limerick supporters booing when Galway were taking frees.

keane2097

washman3 wrote: »

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

A football doesn't fly the same way as a sliotar.

Driveby Dogboy

washman3 wrote: »

Would this excuse be accepted at Wimbledon.?

:pac:

bren2001

washman3 wrote: »

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

Ive watched the rte pictures but it aint 3d. There is no way in telling when the ball just passes over the crossbar. It starts very central and moves towards the post quite quickly.

If you look at the Hawk Eye graphic you can clearly see that the sliothar is extremely close to the virtual post.

Rebelheart

bren2001 wrote: »

1. Hawk eye was only introduced into soccer this year.

But, according to Morning Ireland this morning (c. 8.35am) - the report which got me posting - on the weekend of the Limerick match Hawk-Eye was involved in some major first for it in British soccer and had thus not been focused on hurling in Ireland.

bren2001 wrote: »

3. They did take into account the size of the football and sliothar, the operator forgot to change the set up at the hill 16 end.

Fair enough. But that's like my saying I've taken into account the rules of the road, but I just amn't implementing them.

bren2001 wrote: »

Yes, there are a few other alternatives. However, they have spent several million on this. Also, the software operated correctly. I see no reason to not continue with the Hawk Eye trial and look forward to when it is extended to the likes of Semple etc.

I, too, feel that something impartial needs to be in place to settle all arguments and placate even the most tribal of followers. However, I am concerned that this company, whose technology has been given a unique position as impartial, can throw faith in something impartial aside by being unprofessional in its management of the system.

I must disagree with you that the software operated correctly. It did not operate correctly, because it depends on humans inputting variables, incorrect ones in this case. The software does not exist without that human-dependent input.

I would like to see a professional impartial service extended around Ireland, but not until such remedial difficulties - the difference between a sliothar and a football! - are dealt with competently and professionally.

ArmaniJeanss

Rebelheart wrote: »

But, according to Morning Ireland this morning (c. 8.35am) - the report which got me posting - on the weekend of the Limerick match Hawk-Eye was involved in some major first for it in British soccer and had thus not been focused on hurling in Ireland.

It was the first weekend of use in English soccer, so by definition every decision it made was a 'first'.

You may be right that the company was over focussed on the EPL; make a mistake there and the company is in trouble whereas a mistake in GAA won't register a blip outside Ireland.

nice_guy80

bloody foreigners

coming over here and ruining our games...

hardCopy

A lot of overreactions to this IMO.

The system called one point wrong. Human refs and umpires call things wrong all the time and life goes on.

Players are used to the fact that a bad call can go for you or against you. There's no need to scrap the system or have a replay.

Rightwing

washman3 wrote: »

Have you watched the RTE shot from behind the Hill 16 goal. The player that struck the ball was very central to the posts and the ball was a good 12-18 ins inside the post. There's no side trajectory in that case as the player was so central to the posts. I would post the link if I could.

You are right....this whole thing is a con. The sliothar was well inside the post, I don't where this toughing the posts is coming from.

Hammer Archer

washman3 wrote: »

Quite true. But this should not have come into the equation in this instance.
A sliothar has a diameter of say 100mm, a football is say 300mm.
So if the setting was for football and the sliothar grazed the post, i could understand their explanation. But the ball was hit from a fairly central position and was a good 12 to 18 inches inside the post. We could even see this from the television pictures at the time. So my point is, even if the setting was for football, grazing the post is not an valid explanation.
This is a gigantic cockup from Hawkeye or more likely those using it.
Their statement is pathetic and nothing more than a cover-up.

Yes it was a gigantic cock up by Hawkeye, no one's denying that. But you can't say how far away from the virtual post the sliotar was using only TV cameras. It's simply impossible given the fact that the camera wasn't directly in line with the trajectory of the shot. I think that Hawkeye got the trajectory of the shot spot on in their graphic. Had the sliotar been the width of a football, it would have grazed the "post" and been counted as a miss.

Rightwing wrote: »

It's truly a shambles. You couldn't make it up.

Which is why they most likely didn't.

washman3 wrote: »

Try telling that to the 25 Limerick youngsters that have busted their a###s since last January or February.
Would Roger Federer settle for a cockup like this at Wimbledon.
This system has cost huge money.

Hawkeye has had its fair share of controversies in tennis. This one (ironically) involves Mr. Federer at Wimbledon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf8_fBZDGnM&t=2m10s
There have also been several debates over decisions made by Hawkeye in cricket.

awec

Yup, looks like the only issue is that the system had the width of the ball wrong.

Though surely there are checks, double checks and triple checks of the settings for the system before each game?

Rightwing

awec wrote: »

Yup, looks like the only issue is that the system had the width of the ball wrong.

Though surely there are checks, double checks and triple checks of the settings for the system before each game?

Exactly, there's only hurling and football. It should be easy.

I remember being at a hurling match about 7 years ago, Limk v Waterford,,,there was some football match on before it. We'll prob never again see the 2 codes on in Croker the same day.

InchicoreDude

awec wrote: »

Yup, looks like the only issue is that the system had the width of the ball wrong.

Though surely there are checks, double checks and triple checks of the settings for the system before each game?

There absolutely should be checks like this. Hawkeye personnel should check, and GAA people should also check.

If these checks were not in place before, well this incident will ensure that these checks will be put in place now. So I dont understand how people are so anti-hawkeye after 1 incident.

Mistakes actually improve systems. Now that this mistake has happened, it means that proper procedures will be put in place to ensure it doesnt happen again, which means this type of mistake is almost guaranteed to never happen again.

Hammer Archer

thefloss wrote: »

It's just another example that we are in fact goverened by the incompetent Gaelic Football Association.

The sooner the hurling community have their own rulebook, referees and distinct body within the GAA, and overall treated differently to it's inferior relative, the better.

Please explain how this is the fault of the GAA?? A private company paid by the GAA has admitted they made a mistake.

stooge wrote: »

it was a terrible mistake made all the more noteworthy by the fact the match finished level in normal time. If either team had gone on to win by 3/4 points it wouldnt have been such a big deal. However, I think the makers of hawkeye should be given a little sympathy. I would say that all of their currently deployed systems cater for only one ball size bar the one in Croker which has to cater for two sports and two ball sizes.

This is a good point. Hawkeye would really only have been used for one sport in a venue (e.g. tennis, soccer or snooker) or two completely different sports in the same venue (e.g. Aussie Rules and Cricket in the MCG). This would be the first time its been used for two different sports with the same pitch and goalpost dimensions but with a different sized ball. This is most likely the reason why they screwed up. While this certainly doesn't excuse the mistake, they've made it, they've apologised and they've assured everyone that it won't happen again. Given the amount of money they could make by extending the system to other grounds, I can't see any reason not to believe them.

Rebelheart wrote: »

I must disagree with you that the software operated correctly. It did not operate correctly, because it depends on humans inputting variables, incorrect ones in this case. The software does not exist without that human-dependent input.

I would like to see a professional impartial service extended around Ireland, but not until such remedial difficulties - the difference between a sliothar and a football! - are dealt with competently and professionally.

The software did work correctly. It was human error that was the problem. If you wish to add 2+2 on a calculator but you mistakenly input 2+3, that doesn't mean the calculator is wrong. You've just fed it the wrong command by mistake. Hawkeye tracked the flight of the sliotar perfectly as far as I can see. The problem occurred because it had been programmed in such a way that it thought that the sliotar it was tracking was the size of a football.

I think it's a great system to be honest. Its advantages in hurling were clearly seen in the Leinster final when Galway had a point ruled out and Dublin had a wide ruled as a point. In both instances, it was obviously exceptionally difficult for an umpire to make the split second decision. The system will continue to be used and if this is the only glitch to hit it, I see no reason why it shouldn't be rolled out to more provincial grounds.

Corcaigh84

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Please explain how this is the fault of the GAA?? A private company paid by the GAA has admitted they made a mistake.

The GAA obviously didn't stress the point enough that these are two totally different games (and balls, as a previous poster mentioned).

One would imagine if this was made clearer to the third party, then Johnny Operator would have set that particular camera to the 'hurling' setting on matchday.

keane2097

This is all getting a bit mindless.

hardCopy

thefloss wrote: »

The GAA obviously didn't stress the point enough that these are two totally different games (and balls, as a previous poster mentioned).

One would imagine if this was made clearer to the third party, then Johnny Operator would have set that particular camera to the 'hurling' setting on matchday.

If 5 of the 6 cameras were correctly configured I'd say it was just a cock-up on the day, it's hardly the GAA's job to remind him 6 times that it's a hurling weekend.

From a design point of view it seems strange that there wasn't a single flag/checkbox setting to switch the whole system from football to hurling. Or at least an automated check to ensure all cameras were configured to matching parameters.

InchicoreDude

hardCopy wrote: »

If 5 of the 6 cameras were correctly configured I'd say it was just a cock-up on the day, it's hardly the GAA's job to remind him 6 times that it's a hurling weekend.

From a design point of view it seems strange that there wasn't a single flag/checkbox setting to switch the whole system from football to hurling. Or at least an automated check to ensure all cameras were configured to matching parameters.

That is something that should be designed to ensure this doesnt happen in the future. As somebody said, Croke Park is somewhat unique in that 2 very different sports are played there so maybe thats why it was never deveoped before.

Roger_007

Is the use of Hawkeye not a bit OTT?. You only need to know whether the ball intersects the posts, or the plane of the posts, or not, (Hawkeye has to follow the ball at all times).
This could be done with PIR sensors, (similar to the sensors on security lights). These can be configured very precisely so that the field of view is vertically upwards perpendicular to the crossbar. The ball either breaks the beam(s) or it doesn't. The umpires, if in doubt, simply check if the tell-tale light goes on or not. This tell-tale light could attached to the posts beside the umpires. This system would cost a tiny fraction of Hawkeye and could be installed in most grounds.

antoobrien

Roger_007 wrote: »

Is the use of Hawkeye not a bit OTT?. You only need to know whether the ball intersects the posts, or the plane of the posts, or not, (Hawkeye has to follow the ball at all times).
This could be done with PIR sensors, (similar to the sensors on security lights). These can be configured very precisely so that the field of view is vertically upwards perpendicular to the crossbar. The ball either breaks the beam(s) or it doesn't. The umpires, if in doubt, simply check if the tell-tale light goes on or not. This tell-tale light could attached to the posts beside the umpires. This system would cost a tiny fraction of Hawkeye and could be installed in most grounds.

Seagulls & other birds would interfere with this.

Roger_007

antoobrien wrote: »

Seagulls & other birds would interfere with this.

PIR can be calibrated to recognise different types of object. Animate objects are easy to recognise and ignore.

antoobrien

Roger_007 wrote: »

PIR can be calibrated to recognise different types of object. Animate objects are easy to recognise and ignore.

Oh I'd love to see the code to do that. A minor cockup on sunday mean that a football was used instead of a slitoar. A sparrow is roughly the same size and speed as a sliothar, so would royally screw up those parameters.

angelfire9

What is the likelihood of a sparrow and a sliothar going through the posts at the same time in fairness?

antoobrien

angelfire9 wrote: »

What is the likelihood of a sparrow and a sliothar going through the posts at the same time in fairness?

Who said anything about the same time? After all insects are known to interfere with the let cord system in tennis.

angelfire9

But sure if they have a PIR system in place that alerts the umpire to a point, and a sparrow flies through at the Davin end while points are being scored at the hill the umpire will just disregard the PIR generated alert??

antoobrien

angelfire9 wrote: »

But sure if they have a PIR system in place that alerts the umpire to a point, and a sparrow flies through at the Davin end while points are being scored at the hill the umpire will just disregard the PIR generated alert??

Will they? Given some of the decisions that have been called (and things not pointed out) they don't seem too willing to call a spade a spade.

cast_iron

Roger_007 wrote: »

Is the use of Hawkeye not a bit OTT?. You only need to know whether the ball intersects the posts, or the plane of the posts, or not, (Hawkeye has to follow the ball at all times).
This could be done with PIR sensors, (similar to the sensors on security lights). These can be configured very precisely so that the field of view is vertically upwards perpendicular to the crossbar. The ball either breaks the beam(s) or it doesn't. The umpires, if in doubt, simply check if the tell-tale light goes on or not. This tell-tale light could attached to the posts beside the umpires. This system would cost a tiny fraction of Hawkeye and could be installed in most grounds.

I'm not aware of any pir that could so that job.

1. The sliotar could be >20m up in the air.
2. The high speed of the sliotar could be an issue.
3. The posts waving in the wind would require the pir to track the moving posts.
4. At a very acute angle, the pir would be useless unless placed directly on the crossbar - clearly not a place to be putting sensors.
5. Even the sun beaming down could effect the operation of a simple pir.
6. People throwing objects from the crowd over the goal around the same time a point is scored would be wide open for abuse.

There's no reason to think the hawkeye software is inaccurate or doesn't work. However, if somebody doesn't set the system up right in the first place, then of course the system can make mistakes. The way forward is for hawkeye to introduce robust system checks and measures to ensure the likes of what happened on Sunday cannot happen again.

GS11

Would that be a European or an African sparrow.

Rightwing

If birds can affect it, they should look for a refund and resign.

hardCopy

Rightwing wrote: »

If birds can affect it, they should look for a refund and resign.

Nobody is claiming Hawkeye is affected by birds. The debate has now somehow moved on to discussing a hypothetical replacement system designed by the boards GAA forum.

Being susceptible to avian interference is but one small hurdle this system would need to overcome.

jjjd

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

marco_polo

jjjd wrote: »

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

It was definately used a few times last week wasn't it? Can't remember which goals it was into though.I guess it is possible that the problem could have been present last week but a particular situation to expose it didn't arise.

MrJoeSoap

marco_polo wrote: »

It was definately used a few times last week wasn't it? Can't remember which goals it was into though.I guess it is possible that the problem could have been present last week but a particular situation to expose it didn't arise.

Fairly sure it was used twice, one of which was a Keaney effort into the Hill. Everyone knew that was wide though, surprised they even tried it.

mattser

GS11 wrote: »

Would that be a European or an African sparrow.

I don't know that. It may be a sparrow of the " Knights of NYIGH "

InchicoreDude

jjjd wrote: »

What I find bizarre is how could there be football settings on Hawkeye when there was nothing but hurling on the last two weeks?

Good point but for all we know, the settings have to be done every time the system is turned on.

Rebelheart

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

antoobrien

Rebelheart wrote: »

Séamus McKenna in a letter to The Irish Times today highlights yesterday's Irish Times article by Seán Moran where it is pointed out that if the ball hits the posts, the score is automatically disallowed 'because Hawk-Eye automatically disallows any score that hits the post, as its image generation can’t plot the trajectory of a rebound.'

Original article by Seán Moran here: Limerick to lodge appeal against result in wake of Hawk-Eye debacle (20 August 2013)

Having seen many points go over after hitting the post, I can see this as a source of additional controversy. Was the system built with hurling or football in mind at all, or was it solely focused on soccer?

It can't be proved that a score would have resulted had the post been there, so why would this be a problem?

TopOfTheRight

The rule in GAA has always been that if the ball goes over the top of the posts its a wide ball.
Hawkeye is working off this so it's going to happen sooner or later that 99% of the ball will be inside the post but the 1% that intersects the virtually projected post will register it as a wide.
Those are our rules and that's the systems that's in place.