Another "inconclusive" no goal call

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

NHL dinosaurs don't embrace much.

I did a bit more research.

Cost of hawkeye (over a period of 5 years, installation + operations + maintanence)

Soccer: $500000/stadium
Cricket: $350000/stadium
Tennis: $80000/court

Great work, do you attend the season ticket holders sessions? Lets bring it up with Brad or Brian!

[DoubleK]

How would Hawkeye have helped this situation? It was a camera angle issue not a technology issue. A higher speed camera won't fix the issue that the overhead was blocked.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by cannon7

You wouldn't even need to put the sensors in range of the goalie. You could project an infrared grid over the mouth of the goal from the rafters so no one could interfere with it. This is effectively the same technology behind the Nintendo Wii controllers that detect where the controller is positioned in 3D space. Only this could be made to be incredibly accurate.

You could probably just tape the Wii sensor bar to the back of the net and do a better job with these calls than the war room does.

[codynw]

New solution: Transparent crossbars

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by codynw

New solution: Transparent crossbars

New Solution:

Put a camera IN the crossbar.

[automaton 3]

As others have said, the technology exists. There are perhaps some hockey specific issues that I have no doubt could be overcome through testing.

We can only conclude that the NHL is either too cheap, or too stubborn (or both) to implement it.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

New Solution:

Put a camera IN the crossbar.

Ugh, I suppose that could work.. But then you don't have a cool see through crossbar!

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by codynw

new solution: Common sense

fyp

[Flash Walken]

NHL Experiments with GoPro Cameras in every location except the one that matters the most.

NHL sure gives the NFL a run for it's money in terms of intransigence.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

How would Hawkeye have helped this situation? It was a camera angle issue not a technology issue. A higher speed camera won't fix the issue that the overhead was blocked.

Higher resolution and higher frame rate cameras that also calculate trajectory is why it would help. I mean this requires high school level math and the NHL can't figure it out?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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.

this.

of all the solutions to this problem put forward, this is the most sensible option. no zany gadgetry, just judgement, they are after all 'goal judges' are they not?

3 guys in the war room, goal or no goal, you have to make a choice.

'inconclusive' just isn't good enough anymore. nut up and tell us in or out.

there should never ever ever ever ever ever be a situation where the official in the war room says to himself "do i think it was a goal? yes. am i ruling it a goal, no"

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

How would Hawkeye have helped this situation? It was a camera angle issue not a technology issue. A higher speed camera won't fix the issue that the overhead was blocked.

Not sure but Hawkeye does not rely on one camera or one angle, in some cases 14 cameras are used. Also, its not a committee decision, a computer decides if its in or not and that would depend on the programming of the device. Its a goal decision system, there is no review, the referee on the field gets a beep if its a goal.

[Erick Estrada]

I tend to believe if there was a reliable non-interference technology available that could determine whether an object passes a line it would have already been implemented by the NFL for goal line situations. Anything that depends on a light source isn't going to work because the goaltender and/or stick/other players will always be able to block or interfere with the light path.

[Azure]

My biggest problem is that the NHL literally has no clue whether or not the puck was over the line. They spend 10 min reviewing the call and come back and still can't tell us whether it was over the line or not and therefore the call on the ice stands.

Think about it people. It is 2015, and a multi billion dollar organization can't figure out how to use cameras to tell whether or not a small black piece of rubber crossed a line.

There is no way a call like that should be based on what the ref calls. He's behind the net. There is no human being in the world that can make that call.

[Southside]

There is too much riding on the outcome of these games to review for 10 minutes and come back with a call of inconclusive. I was at the game and was immediately getting messages from friends watching on tv saying "It's a goal!" soon pictures and videos were circulating through our section and row showing that it was pretty conclusive and indeed a goal. Apparently all of the analysts and sportscasters said "It's a goal". Yet a donkey or two sitting in Toronto who are tasked with making decisions in these situations after seeing all of the same evidence come back and say inconclusive and try to add some element of doubt as to camera angles etc. It's ridiculous. Just one more thing the NHL needs to get serious about before losing credibility. Really, who cold dispute the call (besides Eric Francis)had they said "Good goal."

[Iggy3x]

I think they should put a line of cameras below the ice and on the goal line. The net can move up and down and still sit in the pegs, so cameras in the posts can have the same issue - being inconclusive.

Edit: looks like someone suggested this already.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Iggy3x

I think they should put a line of cameras below the ice and on the goal line. The net can move up and down and still sit in the pegs, so cameras in the posts can have the same issue - being inconclusive.

They would be covered by snow and completely useless 99% of the game.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Simple and inexpensive solution. RFID tag the puck and set an antenna line in the ice or net. The goal light will go on if on of the tags crosses the line. Removes the fallibility of the human making the call.

[Passe La Puck]

Originally Posted by getbak

They would be covered by snow and completely useless 99% of the game.

For a camera yes but there are many other types of sensors which could be used under the ice, as well as more cameras in the posts (only two currently). Not to mention the obvious point that we do have a perfectly good view of the scene including the puck from a few camera angles already. Really is frustrating that they don't have people who can sort this out (or the rules are just completely inane).

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by New Era

Simple and inexpensive solution. RFID tag the puck and set an antenna line in the ice or net. The goal light will go on if on of the tags crosses the line. Removes the fallibility of the human making the call.

Where do you put the tag?

The shape of a puck makes it kind of hard. You would have to tag the whole puck on the outside to ensure the whole thing crosses the line.