Another "inconclusive" no goal call - Page 7 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Quis_Separabit · 05-06-2015, 06:45 AM

What's the point of video review if you are just going to get it wrong. Or are you just corrupt you a holes

Poe969 · 05-06-2015, 06:51 AM

I think the no goal was what won it for us. I remember them saying that being a young team, it'll be hard for the Flames to shake that feeling of being screwed over or whatever but it lit a fire under them. This team defies all odds.

Try to hate them and they'll make you love them.

GirlySports · 05-06-2015, 06:55 AM

So 11 years later we have closure for 2004. We bitch that if it went to replay Calgary would have won the cup.

It wouldnt have counted.

EldrickOnIce · 05-06-2015, 07:01 AM

Dreger was on TSN 690 radio in Montreal this morning.
Talked in circles, as usual - only adding that what he/we saw looked conclusive, but cameras in goalposts obviously resolved nothing.

gargamel · 05-06-2015, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I do see a tiny bit of his pad, but... If you think that is an "inch," I may have bad news for you....

The distance from the bottom of the puck to the ice is almost exactly the same as the thickness of the puck. If you think that's less than an "inch," I may have some good news for you.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 05-06-2015, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gargamel

The distance from the bottom of the puck to the ice is almost exactly the same as the thickness of the puck. If you think that's less than an "inch," I may have some good news for you.

I'm listening....

We can agree to disagree on that I guess. Whether it's an inch or slightly less, it enters the net on the ice--I'm very sure that was in. Far more sure than I am about the 2004 goal.

Ace · 05-06-2015, 07:07 AM

This should be 'easy' even with today's cameras. You take angle one showing it was across the line, then you take angle 2 showing anderson's pad at the exact moment of angle 1.

Then you use the same technology they use in ultrasound and do a measurement (pad to goal line)...done, conclusive one way or another.

If they can measure an artery in a baby inside a womb within a fraction of a millimetre, certainly a computer aided measuring tool can figure this out.

'Math is hard'

Also, it was pretty clearly a close call with a Good chance of it being in on the live broadcast, how the heck do they actually line up to take the next faceoff. Play resumed for a bit after the shot and there isn't in that time a call down to take a review? THAT was the biggest issue in 2004 and it's still an issue today. I get that they did review in time, but it should have been way quicker than that, they were seconds away from no review at all....again

EldrickOnIce · 05-06-2015, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ace

This should be 'easy' even with today's cameras. You take angle one showing it was across the line, then you take angle 2 showing anderson's pad at the exact moment of angle 1.

Then you use the same technology they use in ultrasound and do a measurement (pad to goal line)...done, conclusive one way or another.

If they can measure an artery in a baby inside a womb within a fraction of a millimetre, certainly a computer aided measuring tool can figure this out.

'Math is hard'

Notley can figure it out then

gargamel · 05-06-2015, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm listening....

We can agree to disagree on that I guess. Whether it's an inch or slightly less, it enters the net on the ice--I'm very sure that was in. Far more sure than I am about the 2004 goal.

Agreed 100%. I wasn't the one arguing that the video was inconclusive... Just boosting your ego.

Erick Estrada · 05-06-2015, 07:11 AM

Bob McKenzie said last night that the NHL doesn't trust that angle as it's an elliptical view point and the only angle they really trust is the overhead view which was inconclusive. I can understand that but the overhead viewpoint was inconclusive because the crossbar was in the way. If the NHL is going to base their reviews solely off of the overhead view they at least need to get a proper angle or viewpoint that can clearly see a puck cross the line as it did last night or their preferred view is kind of useless. That said whether you trust that angle or not how can you not deny that it was pretty clear in showing the puck over the line?

Coach · 05-06-2015, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

It was in both times!

http://i.imgur.com/fdKz8oA.png

The 04 one I'm still not 100% You can't see white between the puck and the line and so it's inconclusive to me. And they didn't even review it anyways.

This is just ridiculous. The fact that someone looks at these multiple angles and can say it wasn't across the line just destroys my entire world view. How can that be possible? Whether it was in the air or not, it was completely flat and clearly a good amount of space between the puck and the goal line. Much more conclusive than 04 IMO.

troutman · 05-06-2015, 07:32 AM

I'm not 100% sure. Is that the threshold?

I thought there was one view from left wing that suggested the puck was off the ice?

expatflame · 05-06-2015, 07:40 AM

I don't understand how we are able to detect distant galaxies light years away and what composition the planet is but we can't tell if a puck crosses a line from a camera inches away.

puffnstuff · 05-06-2015, 07:40 AM

Is there any more still shots, the view from behind Bennett, out there to see?

GirlySports · 05-06-2015, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

The 04 one I'm still not 100% You can't see white between the puck and the line and so it's inconclusive to me. And they didn't even review it anyways.

This is just ridiculous. The fact that someone looks at these multiple angles and can say it wasn't across the line just destroys my entire world view. How can that be possible? Whether it was in the air or not, it was completely flat and clearly a good amount of space between the puck and the goal line. Much more conclusive than 04 IMO.

If the puck was directly above the line a few inches off the ice, you'd be able to see white in front of it. This is why the cameras will never work.

Need hawkeye.

CorsiHockeyLeague · 05-06-2015, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not 100% sure. Is that the threshold?

I thought there was one view from left wing that suggested the puck was off the ice?

That is the threshold. People are mostly basing it off that angled still, where it LOOKS over. But that camera angle is deceiving and they really need goal line tech for plays exactly like this. If I'm being honest I'm not sure I could have overruled the call on the ice if I'd been in the war room in TO.

mrkajz44 · 05-06-2015, 07:44 AM

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.

GirlySports · 05-06-2015, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by expatflame

I don't understand how we are able to detect distant galaxies light years away and what composition the planet is but we can't tell if a puck crosses a line from a camera inches away.

Sure we can. Just takes money.

nfotiu · 05-06-2015, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

The 04 one I'm still not 100% You can't see white between the puck and the line and so it's inconclusive to me. And they didn't even review it anyways.

This is just ridiculous. The fact that someone looks at these multiple angles and can say it wasn't across the line just destroys my entire world view. How can that be possible? Whether it was in the air or not, it was completely flat and clearly a good amount of space between the puck and the goal line. Much more conclusive than 04 IMO.

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.

Bingo · 05-06-2015, 07:49 AM

I'm almost wondering if they need to have a review, then go to a panel in Toronto and vote. The vote isn't is it conclusive? Just goal or no goal based on what they are seeing.

Then you get away from having to prove something you know to be true, and into logic.

Almost like a court room with "reasonable" doubt, not complete doubt.