Dr. Paul Hawkins introduced the revolutionary Hawk-Eye system to the world in 1999. Used regularly in sports, such as tennis or cricket, we’ve either loved or hated it ever since.
But no matter how you feel about Hawk-Eye, it has certainly become entrenched in televised sport.
Hawk-Eye has not officially been used at the French Open, however viewers would have noticed it popping up this year, usually after the umpire had already made a visual call.
Some players have, however, demanded the system be implemented. Television audiences have become familiar with the system, perhaps because Hawk-Eye seems to offer a reassuring impartiality.
In a snub to Hawk-Eye, GoalControl, a German-based competitor, will deploy a very similar system at all matches in the 2014 Football World Cup. This system provides a wireless link to a referees’ watch that vibrates and indicates whenever the ball crosses the goal-line.
These systems are both expensive to install and not infallible. Hawk-Eye concedes accuracy to within five millimetres.
Hawk-Eye Roarers may be asking, at this point, what any of this has to do with rugby?
There have been several news reports within the past week indicating that Hawk-Eye is courting the IRB and possibly Premier Rugby in the UK. The IRB have neither confirmed nor denied discussions, however they have reiterated that the current TMO system is a trial and due to end in August 2014.
What has become increasingly clear to most on this forum is that the current TMO protocols are becoming a joke.
Games are being delayed and the TMO procedures seem to frequently change, confusing fans. Officials too seem confused.
TMO issues occur in major matches on a regular basis. The TMO system seems to be contributing to, rather than reducing, controversies within the sport.
The IRB no doubt hoped that the use of TV replays viewed and adjudicated by an impartial TMO would provide indisputable evidence enhancing the referee’s on-field decision, removing the taint of subjective decision making.
Some refs seem to use the TMO as a video remote control, others try to talk over the TMO as quickly as possible before the TMO can move the conversation in a direction contrary to their interpretation. Some conversations distract from the game and descend into farce. This is clearly nonsense.
But how could a technological system like Hawk-Eye provide solutions, and at what expense?
Could Hawk-Eye clear up forward passes? Hopefully, except IRB TMO protocols indicate it is no longer necessary to adjudicate the flight of the ball.
Hawk-Eye could obviously deal with the ball and players crossing all boundaries, where visible, including kicks at goal.
But are the increased costs justifiable? Surely most of these incidents are less controversial and covered sufficiently by existing personnel?
Perhaps as discovered by the French Open tennis organisers, modern audiences have come to appreciate the perception of impartial trustworthiness delivered by computerised forms of adjudication.
By buying into that perception, via a system like Hawk-Eye the IRB, like FIFA, might be able to justify the expense and increase credibility.
However, perhaps we are complicating things too much. It looks like simplifying and streamlining the laws slightly and allowing the referees to effectively decide is the solution we really need.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
I was simply giving such basic descriptions of Hawkeye because some posters seemed to not have a grasp of the Hawkeye system. If you think your questions are too good for this forum it's obviously you who thinks you are special no?
Moreton Bait
Roar Pro
May 2014 IRB Law amendments just released, and they include: EXTENSION to the JURISDICTION of the TMO Note C below: I think this goes a bit too far and is perhaps unnecessary "the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO" 6.A.7 Referee consulting with others (a) The referee may consult with assistant referees about matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside. LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL (b) A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television Match Official (TMO) who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to; (i) When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a touchdown. (ii) Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful. (iii) Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead. (iv) Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred in the field of play leading to a try or preventing a try. (v) Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred. (vi) Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play. (c) Any of the match officials including the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol in place at the time which will be available at www.irb.com/laws. (d) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half. (e) The referee must not consult with any other persons.
soapit
Guest
glad you feel ur special mate, thats always a positive. i doubt my questions are unique, in fact id be surprised if they havent been asked many time during the process, they are specific enough however that i'd like them to be answered by someone who genuinely knows what they're talking about if i'm going to bother getting into them any further then i did already in my previous comments on this article. the fact your descriptions above offer no more info than anyone could figure out with a minute of thinking about how hawkeye works as the reason why everything will be possible indicated you probably werent that person. i'm sorry if my subsequent decision to not specifically ask you my questions upsets you. i'm also sorry if me avoiding wasting my time getting another layman's opinion on my questions makes you feel i'm bigging myself up. i obviously dont know the answer either (hence me needing to ask them) so you dont need to feel inferior because of that.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Soappit you waste a lot of digital paper drumrolling yourself without actually saying anything. It is only you who thinks your questions are 'unique and technical'. I'm also a unique snowflake.
soapit
Guest
because you've dealt in very general terms and predictions about what will be able to be done and i have reasonably specific questions about how it wwill work which you wont be able to answer without actual knowledge. i'm not interested in more guesswork based on outside observation as i can do that myself. from your descriptions it seems you are not considering the problems i would like to ask about. for some things a guess will but if you want detail eventually you need to speak to someone who knows what they're talking about.
Bakkies
Guest
I imagine Hawkeye can be used to determine an offside line which as others have said is not being refereed correctly. Lazy runners is a blight on the game and referees use that it was a tackle as an excuse not to blow an offside penalty despite a clear an obvious ruck being in place. They are also in front of the ball from their team's prospective and obstructing the opposition from playing.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Why do you need professional experience. Hawkeye technology is used in movies to create animated scenes using live actors and a blue screen. The actors move infront of a blue screen and multiple cameras shoot the action from different angles. This is fed into a computer which can create a 3D image out of it. What is hard to understand about that technology? Movie animators can extend the actual movements by using computer simulation to predict and extend the next path of the actor or their sword. The same if there was a ball. Complex calcularions can predict where a ball will be based on speed and distance even if it is hidden from view by a body in front. Simulation of the level of the turf can show based on the position of thw ball whether it is likely to have been grounded based on any available views of the ball before grounding. If the ball is completely unseen obviously the Hawkeye may come back with a "no sight" result. But the majority of TMO calls for tries have sufficient sight foe Hawkeye to create a simulation that can see a grounding or non grounding with a high probability. If you need an expert to explain everything you will never get out of bed in the morning.
JimmyB
Guest
Cheers Soapit, thanks for excluding me, i'm a bit relieved to be honest because frankly it's not the most exciting topic and you've managed to make it even more tedious.
Chan Wee
Guest
@ Brett McKay : what people do not realize is the focal point for the hawkeye system. in cricket it uses 6-8 cameras from above (most of the time fixed on the stands but do not confuse with the sky cam or eagle eye). it used the concept of triangulation to project a picture , which in my opinion is only a basic indicator but not exact. talk to cricketer(s) and they will tell u that hawkeye does not take into account the general conditions at pitch level. i heard there are more cameras in tennis. to use it in rugger not sure how many cams it will need ;)
soapit
Guest
man people sure spend a lot of words to not answer a clear specific question. i'll ask again, do you actually have professional experience in this area or technical knowledge of what they're actually doing or are you just talking as an outsider like the rest of us. i've got questions on the detail is all but wont bother asking if i'm getting nothing more than a punters speculation back
soapit
Guest
thanks for confirming. i will waste no more time with you on this ever so slightly complex topic.
fredstone
Guest
@ Chan Wee I'm with you on this, it's just that there's so much going on with the tackle that's not being dealt with that expecting it to be reffed to the letter of the law seems to be akin to beleiving in fairytales.
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
It does in Cricket and Football. The idea of Hawkeye is not that the cameras are fixed and cover a small area but the software that combines the multiple angles into a simultaneous 3D image within seconds that can determine a result with a degree of accuracy. In Rugby it may or may not mean more cameras. There are already about 6 camera angles used. Combining those are likely what's proposed by Hawkeye. Their patented technology is not the cameras but the software.
Jerry
Guest
Doesn't Hawkeye rely on fixed cameras covering a fairly small area?
Owen McCaffrey
Roar Guru
Hawkeye uses the same cameras that are used by the TMO and by the Referee. In the end Hawkeye does not make any decisions it comes up with a likely outcome - for example 95% likely the ball is grounded. That would be given to the attacking team. After 6 views at replays and 3 minutes of stopped play the Ref is going to give the same result because of the "benefit of the doubt rule" It is not an automatic decision-making tool. It is a statistical and visual tool that basically gives an instant likelyhood answer to the referee so for example he could see that under a pile of bodies, the 3D replay on Hawkeye shows it is 99% likely to have been grounded so there is no need for 2 minutes of exhaustive replays. Hawkeye can digitally see though a body to predict where the ball is with a degree of accuracy depending on what angles and other factors there are. The referee could make an accurate call in 20 seconds without going upstairs for any replay and the game could go on.
JimmyB
Guest
Erm...ok
soapit
Guest
when say they can do all this, do you actually know thats all possible or are you like the rest of us ignorant mug punters
soapit
Guest
i feel i may be asking too much. if you dont understand the question maybe you can say so and we can dismiss your thoughts on the topic
Reality
Guest
I'm not suggesting they use a sex toy!
JimmyB
Guest
Erm...ok.