What? I hardly see anything close to evidence there.
same here, I can't see the puck
__________________
Quote:
He’s on injured reserve. Remember the deal? When they come off injured reserve, then you’ll know the update. Active, non-roster, inactive, injured, hurt, sick, not dressed, healthy scratch, on waivers.”
- Darryl Sutter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbob
at the end of the day you have to applaud the oilers for making it look so easy. I never would have thought it would be this difficult to be the worst team in the league.
My favorite stat is the adjusted giveaways - I've been harping for years that the stat crew at Rexall is extremely giveaway happy and the numbers there definitely back that up. Hell, just take a look at the actual recorded giveaways: Edmonton has 971 and the next closest team has 727. Meanwhile, I've noticed Columbus's stat crew very rarely credits giveaways and that rings true when you see they only have been credited with 305 on the year. Look at the adjusted number and Edmonton's giveaways are literally cut in half.
A lot of people look at the RTSS stats (hits, giveaways etc.) and try and make comparisons between players and that's simply not possible given the complete lack of consistency across the league. I remember 5 of Edmonton's top 6 defencemen being in the top 20 of the league for giveaways last year and that's simply ridiculous. The only thing the RTSS stats are good for is comparing players on the same team (and even that's not entirely reliable).
Well, the image quality isn't the greatest, but you can see it if you look hard. I would imagine that the author has a clearer image but it didn't reproduce all that well for his website. If anyone else recorded this game, it might be worth a look for another opinion.
apparently this guy doesnt realize that due to the fact that the puck is clearly 6-8'' off the ice, it may look like it is over the line when in fact it is just the perspective.
you guys mean to tell me you can't see the puck clearly in the net in front of the goalies stick?? Are any of you by chance employed in the video replay room?
apparently this guy doesnt realize that due to the fact that the puck is clearly 6-8'' off the ice, it may look like it is over the line when in fact it is just the perspective.
Doesn't look like perspective to me. The goalie's stick is clearly in the net with the puck at the bottom of it.
apparently this guy doesnt realize that due to the fact that the puck is clearly 6-8'' off the ice, it may look like it is over the line when in fact it is just the perspective.
Doesn't look like perspective to me. The goalie's stick is clearly in the net with the puck at the bottom of it.
well, from the description that the puck "deflected up" and hit the crossbar, I'm assuming it hit the blade of the goalie stick, which is not on the ice.
If his stick was flat on the ice theres no way the puck could have deflected up and hit the crossbar.
You know what would be a good idea ... an array of small array camera's (or maybe 1 or 2 would do) built into the crossbar and pointed down to conclusively tell when a puck is in the net (obviously it only really works when there is nothing between the crossbar and the goalline).
well, from the description that the puck "deflected up" and hit the crossbar, I'm assuming it hit the blade of the goalie stick, which is not on the ice.
If his stick was flat on the ice theres no way the puck could have deflected up and hit the crossbar.
That would depend on the angle that the stick was being held at. If it's angled at all like it appears to be, of course it could have deflected up and hit the crossbar.
It looks in from that angle, but it's hardly conclusive or "clearly in" as he puts it. As henrik has pointed out, the angle and hight of the puck don't give a true sense of where the puck is.
My guess is that a good angle of it, which the NHL likely used will show it's not in.
Well, the image quality isn't the greatest, but you can see it if you look hard. I would imagine that the author has a clearer image but it didn't reproduce all that well for his website. If anyone else recorded this game, it might be worth a look for another opinion.
I have it recorded on my PVR and it is a fair bit clearer. Problem is I have about a 100' cable from my PVR to my computer so the signal gets degraded significantly. But in the first image you can see a black blur about 2 feet out and to the left of the goal, the second picture has the blur just entering the corner of the crease and the final picture has the blur just in front of Grahame's goal stick. I'll maybe try to get a better image or post the video but trust me, it was clearly a goal in my opinion.
Quote:
apparently this guy doesnt realize that due to the fact that the puck is clearly 6-8'' off the ice, it may look like it is over the line when in fact it is just the perspective.
Ummm, Grahame's heel of his goal stick is pretty clearly on the ice and the blade is not up very much from that.
We do trust that it is your opinion that it was in.
The problem comes from the angle of the camera. Since a camera image, by definition, is 2D, you cannot actualy perceive depth (though it can look like depth).
An example, if you take a camera, place it on ice level and point it at the goal, a pass through the crease can appear to be in the net.
Essentially, you can only see a 2 dimensional projection (a plane), and unless the camera is a lot closer to the action or viewing the appropriate plane, it can be impossible to get a conclusive result.
In actual fact, if your cameras are far enough away, you might need 2 camera's to determine a goal, one looking down to determine it has the necessary horizontal motion and one looking directly on the side to ensure it didn't actually go over the net).
In order to get a sense of depth into the net, the camera has to be either above the action or on the side but closer to the net.
Unless the camera is in direct alignment (or very close to it), however, the picture still may be inconclusive.
Discrepancies (in video review according to one source)
