[PGT] Flames beat Preds 2-1 in OT. 6 wins in a row!

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

They don't even need a "new technology". Just a high speed camera, that's all.

And it's not like they are prohibitively expensive either. It's a multi billion dollar business for petes sake.

But you'll still have issues. What happens if the puck is obscured by a player? Say a puck is trapped under a goalies pad or a player falls on the line, blocking the view of where the puck is? For me, there should be no room for error. Therefore, new technology is very much needed.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

But you'll still have issues. What happens if the puck is obscured by a player? Say a puck is trapped under a goalies pad or a player falls on the line, blocking the view of where the puck is? For me, there should be no room for error. Therefore, new technology is very much needed.

No argument here. But at the very least, high speed cameras would catch goals where the puck is visible.

Like Bennett's 45 or so disallowed goals.

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

No argument here. But at the very least, high speed cameras would catch goals where the puck is visible.

Like Bennett's 45 or so disallowed goals.

Haha. Get new technology and he'd be rivalling Kane for the scoring lead!

[polak]

How the NHL doesn't have cameras in the posts and a high speed HD camera above the goals is mindblowing.

Why doesn't Hawkeye work again? Seems perfect for this situation? Surely if tournaments like the Rogers cup can afford to have it, a multibillion dollar enterprise like the NHL can fork the bill.

[getbak]

Hawkeye is a fully visual system. It "sees" the ball and tracks its path using multiple high-speed cameras and resolves the ball's location into 3D space.

Hockey pucks are obscured from sight a lot of the time, especially in situations where a system like that would be most useful.

In a tennis game, the players are actively trying to not get too close to the ball with their bodies. In hockey, there are players whose entire role is to throw their bodies in front of and on top of the puck.

That sort of visual system can work in soccer because the ball is so large relative to the size of the players. Even if the ball is obscured from one or two cameras, there will still be other cameras that have sight of it.

[polak]

Gotcha.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by getbak

Hawkeye is a fully visual system. It "sees" the ball and tracks its path using multiple high-speed cameras and resolves the ball's location into 3D space.

Hockey pucks are obscured from sight a lot of the time, especially in situations where a system like that would be most useful.

In a tennis game, the players are actively trying to not get too close to the ball with their bodies. In hockey, there are players whose entire role is to throw their bodies in front of and on top of the puck.

That sort of visual system can work in soccer because the ball is so large relative to the size of the players. Even if the ball is obscured from one or two cameras, there will still be other cameras that have sight of it.

I am still surprised there isn't an internal tracking system. I am surprised the puck doesn't have a "chip" (for want of a better word) that works similar to GPS.

[codynw]

The issue with any sort of tracking technology is the odd shape of the puck.

High speed cameras need to happen though. No excuse for that to be inconclusive in the NHL in 2015.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by polak

How the NHL doesn't have cameras in the posts and a high speed HD camera above the goals is mindblowing.

Why doesn't Hawkeye work again? Seems perfect for this situation? Surely if tournaments like the Rogers cup can afford to have it, a multibillion dollar enterprise like the NHL can fork the bill.

To get a clear, sharp look at a fast moving puck you'd need a camera that does >1000 frames per second. For reference, a 100 mile per hour slapshot travels 44 meters per second, so 1000 fps likely isn't sufficient; a 50-100 mph puck would travel 2.2 to 4.4 cm in between frames. There are consumer-ish cameras that will do 10-20K fps, but do so at resolutions around 640 x 480 unless you want to pay high $$$.

Other problems:

- as frame rate increases, light collection decreases and image can become dark and/or fuzzier due to higher ISO.

- the ones that can do high quality at high frame rate aren't small right now and can't be tucked into the posts.


Hawkeye is interesting but there is a relative predictability to the trajectory of a tennis ball. It is allowed to land and complete its arc, so mapping it is more accurate. Hockey puck bounces and gets deflected a lot.

Still a tough problem.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

To get a clear, sharp look at a fast moving puck you'd need a camera that does >1000 frames per second. For reference, a 100 mile per hour slapshot travels 44 meters per second, so 1000 fps likely isn't sufficient; a 50-100 mph puck would travel 2.2 to 4.4 cm in between frames. There are consumer-ish cameras that will do 10-20K fps, but do so at resolutions around 640 x 480 unless you want to pay high $$$.

Other problems:

- as frame rate increases, light collection decreases and image can become dark and/or fuzzier due to higher ISO.

- the ones that can do high quality at high frame rate aren't small right now and can't be tucked into the posts.


Hawkeye is interesting but there is a relative predictability to the trajectory of a tennis ball. It is allowed to land and complete its arc, so mapping it is more accurate. Hockey puck bounces and gets deflected a lot.

Still a tough problem.

I don't disagree that getting a completely foolproof system is complicated, but it really shouldn't cost much to get the system much better than it is.

Go Pros centred on the back of the line at 5-7 places inside the post would do wonders.

[Aegypticus]

I guess the point most people are trying to make, and I'm one of them, is that a silver bullet solution isn't the only option. Incremental improvements always help. Maybe cameras with twice the frame rate, for example, would have made this particular call a conclusive yes or no without resorting to incredibly expensive or exotic technology.

I just wish we saw some effort to take small steps to resolving these issues rather than what I perceive as the league just shrugging their shoulders and acting helpless.

[Fan in Exile]

I'm okay with that not being a goal. It was a great save...even if it's possible the puck was a fraction over the line when the save was made. It wasn't "clearly" over the line even if we think it may have been or wished that it was. Not the same as the Cup final when cameras showed the puck was clearly over the line but the call couldn't be changed.

[evman150]

That Neal his was super dirty and I am shocked there isn't more discussion of it here.

Given his suspension history, I thought that would have been five games for sure.

[genetic_phreek]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

To get a clear, sharp look at a fast moving puck you'd need a camera that does >1000 frames per second. For reference, a 100 mile per hour slapshot travels 44 meters per second, so 1000 fps likely isn't sufficient; a 50-100 mph puck would travel 2.2 to 4.4 cm in between frames. There are consumer-ish cameras that will do 10-20K fps, but do so at resolutions around 640 x 480 unless you want to pay high $$$.

Other problems:

- as frame rate increases, light collection decreases and image can become dark and/or fuzzier due to higher ISO.

- the ones that can do high quality at high frame rate aren't small right now and can't be tucked into the posts.


Hawkeye is interesting but there is a relative predictability to the trajectory of a tennis ball. It is allowed to land and complete its arc, so mapping it is more accurate. Hockey puck bounces and gets deflected a lot.

Still a tough problem.

I watch a ton of golf and they use the high speed camera for their swing vision. it captures every little movement to the golf ball compressing and it is very clear. golf balls travel faster than the puck. i think the camera should be more than sufficient enough for the NHL. the problem is i don't think the NHL uses high speed cameras at all.

[FiveSeven]

Me and my boss have been talking about this all day. The best thing he could come up with is a chip in the puck but I thought they already did that. I don't see how it would work or survive. The only thing I could think of is have some sort of weak X-ray or ultrasound or some other similar tech maybe I haven't heard of. If it's right under the line it should easily do the trick?

[Enoch Root]

Again, the problem with a chip is the irregular shape of the puck.

There is no where to put a chip that would always give a correct signal on whether or not the puck fully crossed the line.

Unless of course the chip completely surrounded the puck - but that would change the integrity of the puck and is completely impractical.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

best solution I can think of is:

position three cameras directly above the goal line. One in the centre of the net, one above each post.

position three cameras in the boards along the goal line, one ice level, one at the bottom of the glass, one above the glass. Do the same on the right side.

Position a camera in the rafters above the boards along the goal line, same on the other side.

Have them HD cameras zoomed in on the net.

Where they're stationary you don't need operators, you just need to turn them on before the game and then turn them off after.

Have them record like a security camera.

Is it 100%? No. But does it take away the whole forced perspective issue that we STILL have in the NHL? Yes.

If there's a stick or player in the way, you have multiple angles.

If it's still inconclusive, there's a second part to my plan:

Call on the ice is irrelevant. The review centre in Toronto makes a call based on a balance of probabilities. The question: "is it more likely than not that it was a goal?" If the answer is yes, then it's a goal; if the answer is no, then it's not. What a referee thinks he saw or didn't see in a split second in the middle of play isn't a factor. Just the facts according to the video.

Will we still have incorrect calls? Yes. Will it be better than what we have currently? Yep.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I left out position cameras in the goal posts/cross bar. Three in the left post (bottom, middle, top) and three across the crossbar (left, centre, right) and in the corners pointed to the bottom cross-corner.

Lots of cameras, lots of angles, perfect? No. Better, yes.

[Jiggy]

Originally Posted by evman150

That Neal his was super dirty and I am shocked there isn't more discussion of it here.

Given his suspension history, I thought that would have been five games for sure.

I agree, it was really dirty. He should be suspended. Doesn't seem like he had a hearing with the NHL .

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, the problem with a chip is the irregular shape of the puck.

There is no where to put a chip that would always give a correct signal on whether or not the puck fully crossed the line.

Unless of course the chip completely surrounded the puck - but that would change the integrity of the puck and is completely impractical.

Who says the puck has to be "the chip". It could probably be fine tuned but using the same technology that drive thru fast food restaurants use when you're at the menu/speaker. There's a metal detecting circuit poured inside of the concrete/asphalt that triggers a signal to the worker when a car drives over it.

This method would (hopefully) only require a sliver of metal around a portion of the puck which wouldn't alter the make up or design of the puck and would have the nets retrofitted with a very weak electric circuit