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
You ignored the fundamental problem: there is no way to position your piece of metal that would always give a correct signal as to whether the puck is fully in or not.
If you have three devices in the puck and can accurately know their positions then you can tell whether or not the puck has crossed the line through the application of geometry.
You ignored the fundamental problem: there is no way to position your piece of metal that would always give a correct signal as to whether the puck is fully in or not.
Wouldn't a small ring of metal the shape of the pucks circumference on both the top and bottom do just that?
If you have three devices in the puck and can accurately know their positions then you can tell whether or not the puck has crossed the line through the application of geometry.
Theoretically I'm in agreement, but that would need to be one heck of a system to accurately track pucks better than the current visual system. And to make them small enough to fit in pucks/posts is NASA level engineering. Like the concept though
‘NASA level engineering’? You mean, the bureaucracy that, for four decades, couldn't come up with a replacement for the defective 1970s technology of the Space Shuttle, and once the shuttles were scrapped (or blew up), had to rely on the Russians for launch capacity? Right you are, then. It probably is on their level.
Seriously, this has already been done. A garage inventor whomped up a prototype system several years ago using the FoxTrax technology with RF sensors mounted directly in the goalposts, but the NHL was not interested.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Wouldn't a small ring of metal the shape of the pucks circumference on both the top and bottom do just that?
Which is why I also mentioned integrity... The only way to do it is to cover the circumference of the puck at the top and the bottom - and that would mean that a player's stick would always be making contact with the metal (instead of rubber).
It would have to be small enough that it didn't impact the 'feel' of the rubber, while still being strong enough to absorb the contact of a stick taking a slapshot, or hitting the post.
‘NASA level engineering’? You mean, the bureaucracy that, for four decades, couldn't come up with a replacement for the defective 1970s technology of the Space Shuttle, and once the shuttles were scrapped (or blew up), had to rely on the Russians for launch capacity? Right you are, then. It probably is on their level.
Seriously, this has already been done. A garage inventor whomped up a prototype system several years ago using the FoxTrax technology with RF sensors mounted directly in the goalposts, but the NHL was not interested.
Ok, weird response. Let's ignore nasa. I'm not sure how much dynamic engineering experience you have, but any accurate puck tracking is far from easy to replace a camera platform. Unique demands include size, speed, exact precision, distracting materials like skates, and physical demands of durability and cold. There's a reason it doesn't exist in pro hockey yet. Interesting project though, and an accurate system would be lucrative, probably moreso for non hockey applications. If you guys have the background, why not go ahead and make a prototype?
Which is why I also mentioned integrity... The only way to do it is to cover the circumference of the puck at the top and the bottom - and that would mean that a player's stick would always be making contact with the metal (instead of rubber).
It would have to be small enough that it didn't impact the 'feel' of the rubber, while still being strong enough to absorb the contact of a stick taking a slapshot, or hitting the post.
I am sorry but I don't think that the chip needs to surround the puck. If it is a very simple chip then yes I agree, however a chip could be for arguments sake say the size of a quarter imbedded in the middle of the puck. Said chip would then have say four directional identities that could define whether it was lying down or on edge and a small amount of software could extrapulate the distance to the edge of the puck. Or more simply put, four small chips imbedded in the middle roughly half an inch from the outer circumference at 12,3,6 and 9 O'clock. The location of those chips most definitely would allow for exact extrapulation of the pucks true location.
The chips are not going to work if they were simple RFID chips if you wanted limited ones. However RFID chips are small, cheap and placed in industrial lifting equipment all of the time. They can candle the force, so maybe many small RFID chips embedded in two rings could do the trick more cheaply. What that would do the the integrity of the puck would need to be determened but it in all liklihood could be done.
If the NHL was interested in solving this issue they would already have more cameras and would put a small budget towards R and D that would improve their game. Instead they spend zero on R&D and leave that up to suppliers to worry about.
TLDR: Saying chips are not a viable solution because of the irregular shape is incorrect. However saying one dumb chip in the center of the puck is not viable is correct. IMO there should be better cameras and chipped puck prototypes being developed as we speak.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
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.
This exactly. Even if a solution only works for 20% of disputed goals, it would absolutely be worth it.
Tuck some GD cameras behind the crossbar already. This shouldn't be this difficult.
If you guys have the background, why not go ahead and make a prototype?
I'm not the one with the engineering background. I merely know that a prototype system has already been designed and built, and it didn't take the resources of NASA to do it.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Not a single viewer will be gained by having chips in pucks. I don't disagree that it would aid in the cases where inconclusive goals are scored, but where the hell is the ROI on any R&D here?
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
A simple combination of sensing and tracking and camera technology solves this problem completely. The puck, posts, and ice surface are such large areas to work with that you could hide basically anything in them.
All of the required technology is cheap and readily available, and in use in fields where peoples lives depend on it from amusement parks to operating rooms, as well as the heavy machinery and automotive industry.
The NHL could stop relying on referees for goal calls and allow them to focus entirely on the overall play. What's more, by implementing a tracked puck system, the reliability of statistics will shoot through the roof.
Coaches and players and fans alike will have access to an entirely new set of real-time information about how fast their passes were, the area that was most used in the neutral zone, breakout patterns, etc. It could really change the way the game is understood, and possibly even how it's played.
Conspiracy theory: The only reason the NHL hasn't already implemented a fool-proof goal line technology is it would diminish their ability to control the outcome of specific games, and thus weaken their ability to create revenue, promote markets, and continue to grow.
I'm a small electronics engineer and I've actually put a reasonable amount of effort in to figuring out how they could fix this problem. It is possible to solve more or less as people are describing (lots of questions: where to put the readers, if it's in the posts what happens when they move, in the ice, passive/active tags, etc). The problem becomes getting more accuracy than cameras. To do this you would need sub mm accuracy. This isn't impossible, but it's not easy especially if your plan is to have a totally passive puck.
At the end of the day this project is probably something the nhl needs to fund a school/Ph.D. Student for as it probably isn't worth a ton of money on its own. If there's an application for this technology outside of hockey someone needs to develop it independently and sell it to others.
Watched the extended highlights and OT again. If it hasn't been said before, Hamilton made a great play behind the Flames net--hits man, falls and manages to sweep it to JG who is on it lightning quick and there they go, win. There is so much to like about #27's game. Miscues here and there for sure but he's getting it and skills galore. Happy for Russell. Love the 3 on 3.
And Ramo was fantastic.
Not a single viewer will be gained by having chips in pucks.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Quote:
I don't disagree that it would aid in the cases where inconclusive goals are scored, but where the hell is the ROI on any R&D here?
The ROI is that it virtually eliminates video goal reviews with the attendant delays. The prototype system actually had lights embedded in the goalposts and crossbar. When the puck is detected fully across the line, the goal itself lights up automatically to signal the fact. At that point, the only reason to review a goal is to check whether a concurrent infraction negates it.
This makes the game move more quickly, with fewer interruptions to the flow of play, thereby increasing the entertainment value for viewers. The change in viewership is bound to be small, but so is the cost of implementation.
An incidental benefit: It also allows you to eliminate the goal judge and put in one or two extra seats for paying customers. That alone could easily pay for the type of equipment used in the prototype.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
Agree to disagree I guess. No way to measure this, but I suspect it's incrementally small.
Quote:
The ROI is that it virtually eliminates video goal reviews with the attendant delays. The prototype system actually had lights embedded in the goalposts and crossbar. When the puck is detected fully across the line, the goal itself lights up automatically to signal the fact. At that point, the only reason to review a goal is to check whether a concurrent infraction negates it.
This makes the game move more quickly, with fewer interruptions to the flow of play, thereby increasing the entertainment value for viewers. The change in viewership is bound to be small, but so is the cost of implementation.
Even if I bought this as an ROI (very vague how that makes them more money as a return on their investment), it's relevant in what, one in twenty games at most?? That's a very small amount of "flow improvement". If speeding up the game was worth much they'd get serious about decreasing time between whistles and have the faceoffs quicker. This stuff is superfluous
Quote:
An incidental benefit: It also allows you to eliminate the goal judge and put in one or two extra seats for paying customers. That alone could easily pay for the type of equipment used in the prototype.
Goal judges behind the net were eliminated ages ago. Those seats are already sold
Agree to disagree I guess. No way to measure this, but I suspect it's incrementally small.
Even if I bought this as an ROI (very vague how that makes them more money as a return on their investment), it's relevant in what, one in twenty games at most?? That's a very small amount of "flow improvement". If speeding up the game was worth much they'd get serious about decreasing time between whistles and have the faceoffs quicker. This stuff is superfluous
Goal judges behind the net were eliminated ages ago. Those seats are already sold
It's about the integrity of the game. In the long term this is very important for fans and viewership, even if it's difficult to immediately quantify ROI.
Not a single viewer will be gained by having chips in pucks. I don't disagree that it would aid in the cases where inconclusive goals are scored, but where the hell is the ROI on any R&D here?
For the sake of argument let's agree that no new viewers will be gained (I don't think this is the case, but let's assume it is correct.)
How many viewers will remain with a more accurate system for determining goals? How many Flames fans were gained in 2004 and then subsequently lost over the "Gelinas goal"?
Every team has goals disallowed, when you add error in objectivity (goal) to subjectivity (penalties) it calls against become frustrating for fans and will drive them away, especially when you see other sports with more accuracy (soccer, tennis). It doesn't even matter if they are watching those, it's that they know the tech exists (even if it's a misunderstanding of the technology).
Secondly, why does the ROI have to come from fans?
AHL, ECHL, KHL, QMJHL, OHL, WHL, NCAA. There's lots of teams in those leagues to sell the technology to. NHL develops the technology and can sell the concept to the leagues, have the leagues impose the requirement and then sell the product to the teams.
Depending on how the technology is developed, perhaps it'd be transferable to other sports (baseball, football) and new markets open up.
Thirdly, as a professional (in any field) why wouldn't you want to get things right? As a professional you should constantly be striving to be the best, not good enough or falling to the lowest common denominator.
Lastly, with the play as quick as it is, referees will tend to waive off anything that's boarder line in the heat of the moment. Then the replay needs to be conclusive beyond all reasonable doubt (a standard which I'd argue is far too high). Which would mean good goals are being waived off because a referee didn't get the split second view to see it cross the line, and then the cameras aren't picking it up perfectly. By having this technology, it would override the referee's human error, leading to an increase in goals. If goals are what's exciting, wouldn't it lead to more fans? But I suppose I'm getting back to the premise of arguing the technology won't bring more fans, which I said I wouldn't do.
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
