Hawkeye

[Zulu]

I accept your point about making only one mistake but Im not with you at all that Hawkeye can help ensure scores are legitimate, it can certainly tell when they are not but thats all and to that regard its use would for me create a hierarchy of rules.  Its implementation to me at least basically says its more important to know whether the whole of a ball was inside the whole of a post than it is to know if there was a foul in the build up to score or it is to know the ball was thrown over the bar.  I dont think its fair within the rules to create this hierarchy.

But the point is we have technology that eradicate one area of doubt, i.e. did the ball go between the posts/over the line while we have no choice but to accept that refs may get it wrong in the build up to the score. What is wrong with solving one issue while accepting that faults also exist elsewhere?

In a recession especially you show that you make do with what you have without going to extra expense.

No you don't. You cut your cloth to measure, if the GAA can afford to install Hawkeye then let them. Of course the money could be spent elsewhere but getting important decisions, like the legitimacy of scores, is important and deserving of some investment.

They should in principle be making do rather than throwing money at technoligies we don't "really" need

We don't 'really' need cars, microwaves, houses, phones and many other things but they all add to the quality of life. Hawkeye would make the job of the ref easier, reduce the incidents where he or his umpires are abused over a contentious score and reduce the likelihood of a team winning/losing unfairly.

[David McKeown]

Im just of the opinion that if we cant use it for all decisions of fact then we shouldn't use it for any because what I feel will happen is by eradicating these potential errors we will emphasise the effect of other errors of fact made by referees and we are saying the most important aspect of a point is did the ball actually go over the bar.

[Hound]

I think installing and running Hawkeye in Croke Park is free gratis. But just before any Hawkeye replay is shown, a 3 second advert will run on the screen, and Hawkeye will take the advertising revenues.

Alternatively we can pay for it, and keep the advertising revenues for ourselves.

I remember reading that in the tennis Wimbledon choose to pay Hawkeye a fee because the income from the advertising on the replays far outweighs the Hawkeye fee. 

[rrhf]

How long before someone uses the term "cost neutral" to describe hawkeye.   

[The Claw]

I would have thought that the most important decisions are in relation to square balls. How often is a point ruled wide or a legit goal not allowed - maybe once or twice a year? Square ball mishaps happen 4/5 times a year and in fairness to the Refs it is a tough rule to get right. Hawkeye for points doesn't make much sense to me with two umpires on either side of the goal, it being their job to see whether it went over or not.

[Zulu]

You mustn't watch much footbal or hurling in a year if you think it happens once or twice a year. Sure there was two disputed points in the Dublin/Kerry league game, the disputed point is far more common than disputed square balls. Again I'll make the point, we can solve the the disputed score issue with Hawkeye, the square ball can be resolved using a cameras like in rugby. I don't see any reason we can't use both and see no problem in eradicating these disputes from the game even if it means that we must still accept that refs may have missed fouls in teh build up to the disputed scores/square balls. Better again we could use Hawkeye and change the square ball rule.

[The Claw]

You mustn't watch much footbal or hurling in a year if you think it happens once or twice a year. Sure there was two disputed points in the Dublin/Kerry league game, the disputed point is far more common than disputed square balls. Again I'll make the point, we can solve the the disputed score issue with Hawkeye, the square ball can be resolved using a cameras like in rugby. I don't see any reason we can't use both and see no problem in eradicating these disputes from the game even if it means that we must still accept that refs may have missed fouls in teh build up to the disputed scores/square balls. Better again we could use Hawkeye and change the square ball rule.

I disagree, disputed points are pretty rare. Anyway, even if they are more common, square balls usually lead to goals, which are obviously far more significant, so more focus should be getting those decisions right. But I agree that an attempt should be made to have a review of both.

[packie55]

It has already been stated that hawkeye would be provided free, so the argument that we can't afford it is out. It will show 100% if the ball is over the bar/line....these two points combined makes this a no brainer. We should embrace this technology, and show the biggest sport in the world (soccer, who refuse to even pilot it) how it's done. Like the smoking ban in this country, we can for once be ahead of our time and show professionalism and foresite, by at the very least, trying this out.

[Jinxy]

How will the company make any money though?
How often is thing thing going to be used?
We'll have entire games where it's not needed and thus will generate no advertising revenue.

[Hardy]

I think we'll need a proper statement of the rules, to start with, if we're bent on introducing precision to GAAdom for the first time.

At the moment, I don't think anyone knows the definition of "over the line". I don't think it's in the official guide, anyway. Is it all of the ball over all of the line or any part of the ball touching any part of the line or somewhere in between? Cyclops will be picky about these things.

If there's to be a drive for precision, I'd like to make the case for a change from timekeeping as a creative art practised by referees to the idea of time as a mathematical concept. I know Einstein said it's relative, but he wan't talking about refs deciding when they'll blow the final whistle on the basis of where the ball is on the pitch rather than what the clock says.

[Jinxy]

I dunno lads.
Seems like we're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here.

[rrhf]

I think we'll need a proper statement of the rules, to start with, if we're bent on introducing precision to GAAdom for the first time.

At the moment, I don't think anyone knows the definition of "over the line". I don't think it's in the official guide, anyway. Is it all of the ball over all of the line or any part of the ball touching any part of the line or somewhere in between? Cyclops will be picky about these things.

If there's to be a drive for precision, I'd like to make the case for a change from timekeeping as a creative art practised by referees to the idea of time as a mathematical concept. I know Einstein said it's relative, but he wan't talking about refs deciding when they'll blow the final whistle on the basis of where the ball is on the pitch rather than what the clock says.

Great post  and many a Louth man would agree

[Jinxy]

I think we'll need a proper statement of the rules, to start with, if we're bent on introducing precision to GAAdom for the first time.

At the moment, I don't think anyone knows the definition of "over the line". I don't think it's in the official guide, anyway. Is it all of the ball over all of the line or any part of the ball touching any part of the line or somewhere in between? Cyclops will be picky about these things.

If there's to be a drive for precision, I'd like to make the case for a change from timekeeping as a creative art practised by referees to the idea of time as a mathematical concept. I know Einstein said it's relative, but he wan't talking about refs deciding when they'll blow the final whistle on the basis of where the ball is on the pitch rather than what the clock says.

In fairness Hardy, is the rule not 'a minimum of' as opposed to an absolute injury-time period?
Therefore it is inherently at the referees discretion when to blow up.

[Hardy]

I wasn't thinking about added-on time of itself, Jinxy. I understand and agree with the "minimum of" stipulation, though that's abused, too, by feigned injuries and tactical substitutions that are never properly timed by the ref.

My reference to the position of the ball was about the unwritten rule that you can never blow when a team is attacking (in case they'd get a score, presumably) whether time is actually up or not.

[rrhf]

Does hawkeye "need eyes on the back of its head" to see thon full back hit the full forward a chop.  We say it often about referees.