And so it begins!!!

[torryowl]

if they get away with this it opens up a can of worms .....we could have to replay the 1932 cup final 

[the monk]

19 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

This is the thing, most fans think the game finishes exactly the same as it would have done had the goal stood.

 

Talksport were at it yesterday 

[Ever the pessimist]

[thewookieisdown]

23 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.

This is nothing to do with the Premier League, as I understand it. 

 

Bournemouth's argument seems to be that Hawkeye have, through negligence, caused them financial loss. Looks at heart like a fairly standard tort case. 

[the third man]

51 minutes ago, thewookieisdown said:

This is nothing to do with the Premier League, as I understand it. 

 

Bournemouth's argument seems to be that Hawkeye have, through negligence, caused them financial loss. Looks at heart like a fairly standard tort case. 

Hard to prove, even on the balance of probabilities, as no one knows the outcome if the goal had been allowed

 

In how many matches do teams who take the lead lose, look at us, look at Utd on Sunday

 

Think if this goes ahead the lawyers, again, will be the ones making money, best they could for is an out of court settlement like in the Tevez affair

[alanharper]

13 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

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 

 

 

This is why (in my opinion) it either wasn't switched on or wasn't working at all and I just don't believe the "occlusion, first time it happened in 9000 games" excuse. Also the fact that they never showed the graphic to confirm either way is telling. 

 

There are something like 7 Hawkeye cameras tracking the ball, so surely at least a couple of those are looking straight across the goal line.  There are clearly no players obstructing the line of sight to the ball from the near side, and not from the far side either at the moment the ball crosses the line. Had the ball been in the middle of a big scrum of players I could understand it, but...it wasn't. There's only one player anywhere near the keeper so he can't be obstructing the view of 7 cameras. 

[Plonk]

In this discussion you have to differentiate between car and Hawkeye. It’s a different argument. As above re tort the claim will be that the malfunction has led to financial loss. I think that will be quite difficult to defend. Think it will be an out of court settlement. 

[0wl18]

1 hour ago, Plonk said:

In this discussion you have to differentiate between car and Hawkeye. It’s a different argument. As above re tort the claim will be that the malfunction has led to financial loss. I think that will be quite difficult to defend. Think it will be an out of court settlement. 

If the season was a single game, absolutely. Unfortunately for Bournemouth, it’s not.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, alanharper said:

 

 

This is why (in my opinion) it either wasn't switched on or wasn't working at all and I just don't believe the "occlusion, first time it happened in 9000 games" excuse. Also the fact that they never showed the graphic to confirm either way is telling. 

 

There are something like 7 Hawkeye cameras tracking the ball, so surely at least a couple of those are looking straight across the goal line.  There are clearly no players obstructing the line of sight to the ball from the near side, and not from the far side either at the moment the ball crosses the line. Had the ball been in the middle of a big scrum of players I could understand it, but...it wasn't. There's only one player anywhere near the keeper so he can't be obstructing the view of 7 cameras. 

 

I agree, don't think they have any way of proving that though so can't see them winning a case.

[Plonk]

12 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

If the season was a single game, absolutely. Unfortunately for Bournemouth, it’s not.

 

12 hours ago, 0wl18 said:

If the season was a single game, absolutely. Unfortunately for Bournemouth, it’s not.

I may be wrong, because it’s a hell of a long time since I studied law, but if I remember correctly( and I’m sure someone will correct me I don’t) in tort you don’t have prove the outcome was totally down to the error, just that it had an effect. So five things contribute to the outcome, and one fails. That one failure is therefor part responsible, and any compensation would reflect the part it was responsible. So as an example, you buy something that’s self assembly, and one of the parts is faulty. You put it together wrong, but the faulty part is still a contributing factor to it not working correctly...even though you’ve messed it up to. Hope that makes sense