When I hear about the science and optical illusion I start to believe that but when I see it the bottom of the goalies pad that is also in the net by half a foot, I believe it is in 100%
Fact is, the puck was obscured by the crossbar from the overhead camera, the net camera was blocked out by the goalie, as was the post camera on Andersen’s left side. The right-side post camera isn’t designed to aim down enough to see the low shot.
The fact that a camera in the post that is designed to help solve goal disputes couldn't see low enough to determine if it was in is either really stupid, or they're just trying to cop out from their bad decision.
There is no reason why in this day of technology why 4 shirt button sized camera's can't be drilled and mounted underneath the cross bar.
They could also mount micro cameras inside the posts if they wanted to have absolutely every possible accurate view.
The only reason the NHL won't go to goal line technology is they don't want to get it 100% right.
They would rather be able to continue to control these outcomes as they want it.
__________________
Last edited by Stay Golden; 05-07-2015 at 12:04 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stay Golden For This Useful Post:
It was a ridiculous non goal and now the explanations are just as ridiculous.
The problem is needing to be 100% certain to overrule the on ice official. In a situation like this where it was impossible for the ref to see the puck go in the call should be made on the video evidence only. If it looks like a goal from the best angle available then call it a goal!
The ideal solution though would be the removal of the Toronto video room and allowing the ref watch the replay on the arena video screen. They would be in radio contact with someone who controls the replays as requested and can make their final decision about the call after seeing the best views.
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 wouldn't be surprised if that conversation came up during the replays. The 2004 cup is tainted for sure, Gelinas scored the go ahead goal and the league screwed the Flames.
It's hard to tell whether the puck itself is over but it hits a part of Andersen's pad that is definitely over the line. It is impossible that the puck wasn't in, even if you don't see the puck itself go over. The "Parallax view" is as the puck is coming back out.
But...water under the bridge, since we won anyway.
I wouldn't change the result of this one. If that is called a goal, then the rest of the game is necessarily different. Our odds of winning this theoretical game are 50/50 instead of 100%.
The Following User Says Thank You to Geeoff For This Useful Post:
Thanks. Excellent read. As Mirtle suggests, that after 11 years the NHL still doesn't have the technology/process to get it right is brutal.
It was definitely in. The NHL should be able to get it right, by now.
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.
You'd think so but the NFL is just as cheap as the NHL when it comes to this stuff.
he four-time champion head coach went into a "profane" tirade during the annual owners meeting after the league refused to approve end zone cameras for play review.
Each year, teams can propose rules changes to be enacted the following season. The Patriots suggested adding cameras at the goal line to aid replay, though the league ultimately decided that the cost of installing the equipment outweighed the benefit of the additional replay views.
This apparently incensed Belichick. Per Schefter, Belichick went off on the assembled executives over the idea that the cameras were too expensive, citing the fact that the NFL spends money to send the Pro Bowl to Brazil and regular season games to London as a counter argument to those opposed to cost of the cameras.
All the stuff about parallax effect is really not that relevant. Sure it explains the illusion but it doesn't explain the exact situation in game 3.
Perhaps someone can try to recreate the exact position and angle of Andersen's pads (on the blue paint and in the net). Then place the puck at the exact spot and see if it's in from the overhead view.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TBone290 For This Useful Post:
Yeah I get the parallax effect and see where they are coming from, but what does it look like when the puck is one inch instead of an inch and a half? Or just a half an inch?
