Quote:
Originally Posted by nfotiu
If it is off the ice at all (and when you click on that picture to blow it up, it definitely is off the ice), that 45 degree angle is completely meaningless. Try holding an object on your desk an inch above the edge of your desk. Look at it at a 45 degree angle and it is pretty easy to see "desk" in front of the object even if you are holding it well in front of the edge of the desk.
I wouldn't have been happy if they would have used that angle to reverse a call that gave them a goal.
|
I disagree that it's meaningless. If you consider the size of the puck in the frame and the knowledge that it was no more than 1/2 inch off the ice, I think you can still conclude that it is over the line. In order for that much white to show behind/underneath it while it was still on top of the line it would have to be higher in the air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44
The thing I don't like about video review is the reliance on "the call on the ice" (or the call on the field in football. Obviously the ref was in no position to make any sort of reasonable call on that, so saying "well, the call on the ice was no goal, so we need conclusive evidence to overturn that" is just plain dumb.
All replays that go to the "war room" should have people making a judgement without previous knowledge of what the call on the ice was. The people who make the final call should never know what the call on the ice was - it immediately biases them. If they didn't know what the call on the ice was, they'd be way more objective and I think WAY more calls would be done correctly.
|
I think this is a great point and I've never really heard it brought it up.