No it wouldn't. It would just need to be more accurate than the current system.
The non-sphere problem is also not that hard to solve - triangulate 3 sensors in the puck that, and you know its orientation.
You say that like it's the easiest thing in the world.
For any automated system to ever get approved, it would need to be extremely accurate. No one is going to accept a system that tells you the puck was within 6 inches of the goal line, or even 2 inches, or 1 inch. The current system can already tell us whether or not the puck may have crossed the line. If the league is going to invest the money in an automated system, they're going to want to know definitively that the puck completely crossed the line and they're going to want a system that is 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
Last season, there was a proposal to paint a "confirmation line" three inches behind the goal line so that if the puck was touching this line, it was confirmed to be completely across the goal line. The proposal was rejected by the league because the thickness of the ice was enough to distort the ability to accurately judge if the puck was touching the confirmation line or not depending on the viewing angle. If something as simple as that was rejected, you know the league is going to be extra-skeptical of an automated system.
Of course, the solution to the non-sphere problem is to use a minimum of three sensors and triangulate them. I would consider that considerably more difficult than just tracking one sensor. Once you've figured out how to accurately track one sensor, tracking two more probably won't be that hard, but doing the triangulation to position the puck in 3D space isn't trivial.
If it was as easy as "just put a sensor in the puck", I'm sure someone would have already just put a sensor in the puck.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
If the league is going to invest the money in an automated system, they're going to want to know definitively that the puck completely crossed the line and they're going to want a system that is 100% accurate, 100% of the time.
100% accuracy (exactly) does not exist. Measurement doesn't work like that - there's error. If we're off by a nanometer, that's still error.
Personally, I'd consider +/- 0.01 inches of error that is just as likely to favour one team or the other to be worth implemeting over the undoubtedly larger and possibly biased error we currently tolerate.
So the question I pose to you is: what is the maximum error such a system would need to achieve? We may disagree on the answer, but if your answer is zero then your position is irrational.
It's not my answer that's important. The question is, how much error is the league willing to accept?
I think there are some owners who won't accept anything less than 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, whether it's reasonable or not. NHL owners aren't known for being the most reasonable people around.
Time and again, we've seen the league prefer to maintain a system where human error is possible rather than move to one where computer error might occur.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
It's not my answer that's important. The question is, how much error is the league willing to accept?
I think there are some owners who won't accept anything less than 100% accuracy, 100% of the time, whether it's reasonable or not. NHL owners aren't known for being the most reasonable people around.
Time and again, we've seen the league prefer to maintain a system where human error is possible rather than move to one where computer error might occur.
But if the league as a whole will only accept 100% accuracy, they wouldn't be testing the system at all. The system may, however, be accurate enough that they can't detect its inaccuracy.
Again, how many times per year is there even a question as to whether the puck crossed, and of those, how many are not relatively easily answered by video? I think the cost of developing, installing and using that system would be prohibitive and certainly not a good cost-benefit use of money.
Again, how many times per year is there even a question as to whether the puck crossed, and of those, how many are not relatively easily answered by video? I think the cost of developing, installing and using that system would be prohibitive and certainly not a good cost-benefit use of money.
Why are people talking about the puck crossing the line? That's not at all the reason for the technology
But if the league as a whole will only accept 100% accuracy, they wouldn't be testing the system at all. The system may, however, be accurate enough that they can't detect its inaccuracy.
The system they're testing has absolutely nothing to do with determining whether or not the puck crossed the line. This system is going to track big movements and give general information about where the puck and the players are during the game.
This system doesn't need to have anywhere close to the accuracy that an automatic goal judging system would require.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I'm assuming cost might have something to do with them not moving toward pucks with sensors. The amount of pucks the NHL loses over the course of a season is probably easily 5000-10000. Not sure what the difference in price would be. I suppose that might be chump change in the big scheme of things but a consideration non the less.
The Following User Says Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
I'm assuming cost might have something to do with them not moving toward pucks with sensors. The amount of pucks the NHL loses over the course of a season is probably easily 5000-10000. Not sure what the difference in price would be. I suppose that might be chump change in the big scheme of things but a consideration non the less.
Back in the FoxTraxx days, Fox had people in the arena paid to get their pucks back when they went out of play. They'd swap them with a regular game puck.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Exactly. You add an addendum to every ticket sold stating the NHL is within its rights to reacquire all pucks travelling over the glass and instruct ushers to do a swap with the fan for a regular puck
