And so it begins!!!

[flying-owl]

https://www.skysports.com/share/12037776

[OxonOwl]

I must admit, I'd be mighty peeed off if we were in their shoes.

 

Interesting to see how this develops.

[e6owl]

As entertaining as it would be this won't go anywhere. The PL rules say Hawkeye should be used, but if it's not working for whatever reason it's down to the ref. If he didn't see it, it's a refereeing error and that's just the way it goes. An obvious injustice, but the kind of injustice clubs sign away the right to protest when agreeing to the league rules.

[pachyderm]

I hope they win !

[0wl18]

They weren’t relegated because Hawkeye malfunctioned. They were relegated because, after 38 games they didn’t acquire enough points to remain in the division.

 

This sort of stuff annoys the life out of me. Stop looking at everyone else for someone to blame. They had 38 opportunities to get the points they’d have required to stay in the division and, failed to do it.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by 0wl18

[yeadonowl]

Bournemouth simply weren’t good enough over 38 games 

 

Looking to blame everyone else but themselves 

 

Whose to say if the United goal stands Villa don’t go hung ho in the second half and win the game 2-1. As it was Villa were happy with a point

[0wl18]

19 minutes ago, e6owl said:

As entertaining as it would be this won't go anywhere. The PL rules say Hawkeye should be used, but if it's not working for whatever reason it's down to the ref. If he didn't see it, it's a refereeing error and that's just the way it goes. An obvious injustice, but the kind of injustice clubs sign away the right to protest when agreeing to the league rules.

Goals change games. If the goal was given there’s nothing to say the game would have ended the same way it did. 

[e6owl]

39 minutes ago, 0wl18 said:

Goals change games. If the goal was given there’s nothing to say the game would have ended the same way it did. 

 

Exactly, if this were to go anywhere surely Villa wouldn't accept the result just being changed, they'd want a replay. It's all too much of a mess for anything real to happen

[Dronfield Blue]

1 hour ago, OxonOwl said:

I must admit, I'd be mighty peeed off if we were in their shoes.

 

Interesting to see how this develops.

 

I thought Hawk Eye was like VAR, designed to assist the referee.

 

Why didn't he ask for a VAR decision and overrule the obvious error of Hawk Eye? 

 

Simple really.

[Plonk]

Interesting to see if they sue the EPL to stay in the prem or sue hawkeye plc for compo? 
 

first one is a non starter, but the second one I’m not so sure. They’ve lost around £100 million because Hawkeye didn’t work properly 

[alanharper]

13 minutes ago, Plonk said:

Interesting to see if they sue the EPL to stay in the prem or sue hawkeye plc for compo? 
 

first one is a non starter, but the second one I’m not so sure. They’ve lost around £100 million because Hawkeye didn’t work properly 

 

 

If only it were that straightforward. Had it happened 2 minutes before the end of the game they'd have more of a case, but with more than half the game to go there's no guarantee that the final score would have been 1-0. The game would have unfolded differently, it'd have restarted from the centre spot instead of the keeper for a start, and the goal would have affected each team's tactical approach, substitutions and mentality. I'll still never know why VAR didn't look though when it's there to correct "clear and obvious errors". 

 

I'd also forgotten until Dean Smith mentioned it but Villa also had a late equalising goal harshly (but hilariously) disallowed at Palace earlier in the season because the ref adjudged that Grealish had dived in the build-up so it's not as if they've not had a bad decision cost them a point elsewhere as well, but that was the opinion of the ref, sometimes they penalise diving sometimes they just play on,  but the Hawkeye one had no grey area, the ball is either over the line or it isn't. 

 

Personally despite the claims of "occlusion" as an excuse I don't think Hawkeye malfunctioned, I think they just forgot to turn it on. They never provided that graphic showing how close the ball was to the line either. The Sky shot from the side clearly shows the ball over the line with no players obstructing the view so I can't believe the claim that the Hawkeye cameras couldn't see it. 

[Ellis Rimmer]

It can't happen, they will scrap Hawkeye if they can get sued from it, but it's generally been a good thing

 

 

[Plonk]

1 hour ago, alanharper said:

 

If only it were that straightforward. Had it happened 2 minutes before the end of the game they'd have more of a case, but with more than half the game to go there's no guarantee that the final score would have been 1-0. The game would have unfolded differently, it'd have restarted from the centre spot instead of the keeper for a start, and the goal would have affected each team's tactical approach, substitutions and mentality. I'll still never know why VAR didn't look though when it's there to correct "clear and obvious errors". 

 

I'd also forgotten until Dean Smith mentioned it but Villa also had a late equalising goal harshly (but hilariously) disallowed at Palace earlier in the season because the ref adjudged that Grealish had dived in the build-up so it's not as if they've not had a bad decision cost them a point elsewhere as well, but that was the opinion of the ref, sometimes they penalise diving sometimes they just play on,  but the Hawkeye one had no grey area, the ball is either over the line or it isn't. 

 

Personally despite the claims of "occlusion" as an excuse I don't think Hawkeye malfunctioned, I think they just forgot to turn it on. They never provided that graphic showing how close the ball was to the line either. The Sky shot from the side clearly shows the ball over the line with no players obstructing the view so I can't believe the claim that the Hawkeye cameras couldn't see it. 

Good points. So if they forgot to turn it on. Who is responsible? The ref, the club. This is why I think Bournemouth might have a case for compo. Accept totally the game may have gone different but in legalese that’s not the point. It’s you are paid to provide a service. You failed. That has cost my company x million pounds. 

[Ronnie Starling]

Couldnt they have a 21 team league? How far away were the rules of football written from Dean Court?

[kirksandallowl]

5 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

They weren’t relegated because Hawkeye malfunctioned. They were relegated because, after 38 games they didn’t acquire enough points to remain in the division.

 

This sort of stuff annoys the life out of me. Stop looking at everyone else for someone to blame. They had 38 opportunities to get the points they’d have required to stay in the division and, failed to do it.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, yeadonowl said:

Bournemouth simply weren’t good enough over 38 games 

 

Looking to blame everyone else but themselves 

 

Whose to say if the United goal stands Villa don’t go hung ho in the second half and win the game 2-1. As it was Villa were happy with a point

 

Didn't stop the Blavdes when they got relegated because they couldn't draw at home with Wigan.

[PeteG_1984]

This is ridiculous.

 

How about they get punished for flouting FFP when they were last in the championship??

[mattitheowl]

I hope they waste millions on this and loose.  Absolutely ridiculous that they'd even consider it.

 

Why don't they try and challenge some of the awful VAR decisions whilst they're at it?

 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Plonk said:

Good points. So if they forgot to turn it on. Who is responsible? The ref, the club. This is why I think Bournemouth might have a case for compo. Accept totally the game may have gone different but in legalese that’s not the point. It’s you are paid to provide a service. You failed. That has cost my company x million pounds. 

 

The only way they could possibly have a case for compensation is, if as has been suggested, the technology wasn't switched on. Given that the Premier League and Hawkeye have said it was due to obstruction rather than it not being turned on I don't see how they will ever be able to prove that it wasn't switched on and so it is an error on the same way VAR has been proven to make errors throughout the season. If you allow a claim due to an honest error then what about the results of the games that were clear VAR errors - the PGMOL admitted to 3 on the same day in a recent round of fixtures 

[oldishowl]

10 hours ago, e6owl said:

As entertaining as it would be this won't go anywhere. The PL rules say Hawkeye should be used, but if it's not working for whatever reason it's down to the ref. If he didn't see it, it's a refereeing error and that's just the way it goes. An obvious injustice, but the kind of injustice clubs sign away the right to protest when agreeing to the league rules.

But the ref didn’t know it wasn’t working.

He just assumed that because it didn’t say goal on his wrist then it hadn’t crossed the line

[SiJ]

I'd be staggered if they get any success out of this.

 

Relegation is happening so they'll be seeking some sort of compensation from Hawkeye. So say 140 million to cover the drop in tv revenue? 

 

They've got to show, on the balance of probabilities, that a) Hawkeye were at fault (from what I understand, it was just  freak one off) and b) that error was the reason they were relegated. 

 

No chance imo.

 

Furthermore,...