Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
I don't believe this to be the case.
|
Agree to disagree I guess. No way to measure this, but I suspect it's incrementally small.
Quote:
The ROI is that it virtually eliminates video goal reviews with the attendant delays. The prototype system actually had lights embedded in the goalposts and crossbar. When the puck is detected fully across the line, the goal itself lights up automatically to signal the fact. At that point, the only reason to review a goal is to check whether a concurrent infraction negates it.
This makes the game move more quickly, with fewer interruptions to the flow of play, thereby increasing the entertainment value for viewers. The change in viewership is bound to be small, but so is the cost of implementation.
|
Even if I bought this as an ROI (very vague how that makes them more money as a return on their investment), it's relevant in what, one in twenty games at most?? That's a very small amount of "flow improvement". If speeding up the game was worth much they'd get serious about decreasing time between whistles and have the faceoffs quicker. This stuff is superfluous
Quote:
|
An incidental benefit: It also allows you to eliminate the goal judge and put in one or two extra seats for paying customers. That alone could easily pay for the type of equipment used in the prototype.
|
Goal judges behind the net were eliminated ages ago. Those seats are already sold