Didn't see this anywhere on the forum, sorry if it's been posted and discussed already.
Read this earlier today - kind of interesting, but I'm picking on the part that annoys me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dreger Report
The Cyclops and Hawk-Eye systems used in tennis were also investigated by the National Hockey League. But for a variety of reasons, including the expense, the NHL decided this technology wasn't a fit.
Too expensive? Man, I wish the NHL was a multi-billion dollar business that could afford nice things.
Pretty sure I've seen the mentioned technology applied to soccer effectively. Come on, NHL. Get with it.
Either implementation seems pretty simple. Sure, some pucks get shot over the boards and out of play during a game. Yeah, you might need to install some cameras. Suck it up, cheapskates.
Cool story alert: In Grade 5 or 6, so 27 or 28 years ago, for a inter-school project, me and my buddy had an idea for a goal detector. The posts were to have sensors, basically creating an invisible infared field, that, as soon breeched by two sensors, furthest apart from each other (so that 98% of the pick was over the line), within the puck, turned the goal light on automatically.
The net gets knocked off, the field has no power/connection so no goal could count.
The idea had to have come out of a disallowed goal at some point in the mid-late 80's Flames season.
Non working models made of balsa wood, the full scientific process was followed...the whole 9 yards as school projects had to be. Problems were the cost of the sensors and the % of goals that didn't 100% cross because of puck placement sensors couldn't be at the absolute edge of the puck.
Still have the written portion of the project probably at my parents house.
The Following User Says Thank You to browna For This Useful Post:
The refs "not seeing the puck cross the goal line" is still a tool they can use to try an influence the outcome of games. This technology would make it more difficult to do that, so of course the NHL doesn't want it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Tiny video cameras mounted on the inside of the posts & crossbar, so that the exact centre of the lens perfectly lines up with the back of the goal line. Mount them at the bottom, middle, and top of each post, with another two in the middle of the crossbar.
This system would see the puck in 95% of the currently questionable plays. It only couldn't see when the puck was under a goalies pad.
Not fully reliable, because it can't see absolutely everything, but would virtually eliminate controversy, and would be ridiculously easy to implement. They already have cameras in the net, adding more is easy.
It seems very odd in 2013 this problem doesn't seem to be solved. I get the cost argument, but isn't awarding a goal when the puck crosses the line kind of an important part of the game?
The Following User Says Thank You to Russic For This Useful Post:
I always thought adding more camera would solve the problem.
One above the net directly over the goal line.
One installed above the glass on the goal line pointed at the net, and one installed in the same place on the opposite side of the net.
In the rafters above the ones on the glass.
Install along the boards (in the boards) along the goal line. You have three on each side of the net pointed at the net where there is no "imaginary line" the puck needs to cross, as the goal line is matched with the posts of the net.
Use those combined with two in the net cameras (one at the bottom, one at the top of the net)
If you see the puck in the net, it's a goal. There's no weird angle discussion like in 2004.
Is it 100% effective? A scramble could be difficult, but I would think those cameras would capture most if not every goal clearly.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
If curling can afford to have a device that determines if the rock completly crosses the hog line while it is being held that was developed by 3 engineering students as a design project. Surely hockey can do the same thing.
I always thought adding more camera would solve the problem.
One above the net directly over the goal line.
One installed above the glass on the goal line pointed at the net, and one installed in the same place on the opposite side of the net.
In the rafters above the ones on the glass.
Install along the boards (in the boards) along the goal line. You have three on each side of the net pointed at the net where there is no "imaginary line" the puck needs to cross, as the goal line is matched with the posts of the net.
Use those combined with two in the net cameras (one at the bottom, one at the top of the net)
If you see the puck in the net, it's a goal. There's no weird angle discussion like in 2004.
Is it 100% effective? A scramble could be difficult, but I would think those cameras would capture most if not every goal clearly.
Who would record all of these cameras and play them back?
Dreger report on goal tracking tech
