It's not meaningless at all from a mathematical standpoint. If the view that we're seeing is really from a 45 degree angle, the puck has to be past the line if the amount of white space that we can see "under" the puck is greater than the distance that the puck is from the ice. In this case, that is conclusively true.
Yup. Assuming the puck is parallel to the ice. If that angle differs, the equation would be
x = d - (h/tan(a))
d = distance appearing over goal line
h = height from ice to puck
a = angle of view measured from ice surface
If x is a positive number, it's a goal.
I think it was a goal, I didn't think they had enough to overturn it. I loved the end result!
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.
Intelligent people are doing the first.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Passe La Puck For This Useful Post:
I don't know how you can look at that picture and think it is flat on the ice. I see an inch of Anderson's pad under the puck in that picture.
On second look I agree with you the Bennett puck does appear to be airborne as it isn't hitting the base of Anderson's pad (unlike the Gelinas goal). With that in mind, I'm actually going to agree with Toronto and say if that puck is in the air, even a little bit, the 3/4 view could be deceptive and a puck that looks like it's in is still over the line in some part.
Oh well we won. Still wish they reviewed the Gelinas goal.
When a player makes a bad decision and does something not in the spirit of the game (eg elbow to the head), he must answer to the NHL. If it's really bad, they must have an in person hearing, where they must answer what they were thinking. Video of the incident will be played and the player will have to go through his decision making. When warranted, supplementary discipline will be handed out.
I think Burke/Treliving should have an in person hearing with the guys who decided that was not a goal.
__________________
My thanks equals mod team endorsement of your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jesus this site these days
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnet Flame
He just seemed like a very nice person. I loved Squiggy.
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.
Perfectly said and a great suggestion until they get the proper technology.
As a previous poster said, although the wrong call, I'm glad it turned out that way. Incredible push from the team after.
invaluable charater and confidence builder for this young team to win despite
The Following User Says Thank You to tko For This Useful Post:
My problem with the current system/technology is that it seems that the review will always be inconclusive on a close call if the puck is in the air. Guess what, it is almost always in the air, bouncing or at the very least, impossible to conclude that it was completely on the ice.
If all we are left with is the war room thinking, geez, that might be in the air, I can't make the call, they might as well not bother. I am fairly confident these geniuses aren't applying the math formulas described by Formulate.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
In curling, they have sensors in the rocks and the hog-line. It can tell if the person let go of the rock before the rock touches the line. With some alterations and a bit more math, there is no reason why they could not have sensors in the goal line and the puck that would automatically turn on the goal light if the puck completely crosses the line. The sensors and math could easily account for all the variables of the puck orientation as it crosses the line. So simple and much better than visuals, nothing could obstruct the view.
In curling, they have sensors in the rocks and the hog-line. It can tell if the person let go of the rock before the rock touches the line. With some alterations and a bit more math, there is no reason why they could not have sensors in the goal line and the puck that would automatically turn on the goal light if the puck completely crosses the line. The sensors and math could easily account for all the variables of the puck orientation as it crosses the line. So simple and much better than visuals, nothing could obstruct the view.
The curling rock is never in the air.
Also goalies are devious creatures, they'd find a way to cover up the sensor with snow. Or their skates/pads would keep cutting across the sensor.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Common sense says that puck is in.
Just like 2004 and this time it was even clearer. I don't understand why common sense and rationale can't have a place in goal review.
Your best angle is hidden by a crossbar.
Your next best angle is from an elevated height at a 45 degree angle?
Something needs to change.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jiggy_12 For This Useful Post:
Common sense says that is most likely a goal. I'm 95% sure it was.
Overhead looks like maybe not, and an angle like the replay had cannot conclusively tell you. If not 100%, don't reverse the call on the ice. I've made pace with it
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Here's a tinfoil hat theory. Since last night's situation was so eerily like '04, if the goal last night was allowed, then it would have sent a message that the NHL made the wrong decision 11 years ago. Thus "officially" tainting Tampa's Cup win. This is mere speculation, but it would not surprise me if this was a factor in last night's decision.
Anyone remember after the 2004 debacle that a company came forward and said they could put a sensor in the middle of the puck and sensors along the goal line to conclusively determine whether or not the puck crossed the line? Funny how nothing ever came of that...
Here's a tinfoil hat theory. Since last night's situation was so eerily like '04, if the goal last night was allowed, then it would have sent a message that the NHL made the wrong decision 11 years ago. Thus "officially" tainting Tampa's Cup win. This is mere speculation, but it would not surprise me if this was a factor in last night's decision.
I don't think there's any chance that was a factor.
Despite being eerily similar, it's a completely different play. Different decade, different opponent. That had zero bearing on the decision.
Other conspiracy theories could be entertained, but doubtful that one is plausible.
The NHL wants their rules and enforcement to be as subjective as possible to keep them from the uncomfortable task of assigning blame or for putting in place consequences for the actions of others that they may not want to penalize.
This is why supplemental discipline is a joke, why misconducts and suspensions are rescinded and why they haven't made a concerted effort into actually formalizing what happens on different areas of the ice.
The NHL NEEDS the league to be about subjective enforcement for the bottom line.
This is standard operating procedure for the NHL and why they haven't addressed an issue that so regularly impacts a hockey game.
