Friedman: Crossbar goal-line cameras may be installed for playoffs

[automaton 3]

You mean like the FoxTrax puck...anyone have a gif of that?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by smalltownref

I am still waiting for the day they put a tracking chip in the middle of the puck so the NHL can determine where the puck is at all times. Add in some sensors that identify where the goal line is on the ice (both on ice level and in the air), and soon the NHL will have the ability to figure out if the puck did actually cross the goal line completely or not, regardless if they can see the puck on camera or not.

like Hawkeye?

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Would be obstructed by the goalie pretty much exactly the same amount of times as post-cameras would.

(and it would be way less than 90% - probably more like 10%)

Also, they're not saying the crossbar cameras will be the only cameras, they are another camera. How is that bad?

agree to disagree.

Rarely is their a debate about a puck crossing the line while the puck is in the air or above the goalies rear end. Most debates come from lower shots and are not definitive because the goalie or a player is in the net... A goalies regular stance for in tight shots often has his entire rear end in the net as it is.

If they are going to the extent of cameras in the cross bar, why not do it right and add a few more in the posts?

[DynastyEra]

The NHL loves a good controversy call though - it generates discussion and storylines for the next game. The technology has been there for years, that is why you'll never see a chip in the puck. They want to appear like it matters to them, but it clearly doesn't - and that's not a bad thing IMO.
The no goal in 2004 and the no goal last year against Anaheim - there definitely was not a drastic jump in quality of the replay as far as positioning cameras and clarity goes.

Honestly, the missed calls make it fun sometimes - the arguments and debates that fly around on calls and missed calls makes for some interesting discussions. If the game was black and white we would come to miss that "traditional" aspect to the game.

I don't want robots dictating the game, or some suit in the stands monitoring the game. There are so many variables that come into play and that is why I also find it so easy to not let missed calls bother me, good teams almost always overcome adversity.

These refs are human - they are susceptible to emotion and fatigue like the rest of the high end athletes in the NHL. We can forgive Gaudreau or Brodie for a bad game, why not the referees??

[Leeman4Gilmour]

They just have to install a "lazer plane" TM exactly 3 inches behind the goal line. As soon as the "lazer plane" TM is broken, it's a goal. Lights go off, canons fire, music starts playing. Done deal.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube

Oh great, so we'll have even more goals called back because a guy was a half inch offside fifteen seconds before it went in.

It's funny that they harp on and on about wanting more goals and increasing offense, yet brought in that absurd challenge rule.

It was brought in because if overwhelming demand from fans and stakeholders

[Table 5]

While I support goal-line technology like Hawkeye as I think it's important to know when a puck has gone in, I'm not necessarily a fan of all the other tech that makes the rest of the game more precise.

I think the coaches challenges this year have taken a lot of excitement out of the game with all the goals called back due to off-sides. Not unlike the seasons when a player couldn't even step into the crease, I find myself hesitating to celebrate goals just in case there's a coaches challenge.

Yes, technology allows the gamed to be more technically correct, but it also removes some fun and drama from something that is supposed to be entertaining.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by smalltownref

I am still waiting for the day they put a tracking chip in the middle of the puck so the NHL can determine where the puck is at all times. Add in some sensors that identify where the goal line is on the ice (both on ice level and in the air), and soon the NHL will have the ability to figure out if the puck did actually cross the goal line completely or not, regardless if they can see the puck on camera or not.

It cant be in the middle of the puck because the whole puck has to cross the line. So it has to be around the puck.

Surely a man hitting such a device with a stick fairly constantly would generate some fairly unreliable results.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Locke

It cant be in the middle of the puck because the whole puck has to cross the line. So it has to be around the puck.

Surely a man hitting such a device with a stick fairly constantly would generate some fairly unreliable results.

You could do it with three RFID chips arranged in a triangle in the middle of the puck. By triangulating from their locations, you can figure out exactly where the puck is and what angle it's lying at.

[powderjunkie]

More cameras = more good. I suppose the only possible downside is that reviews could take longer, but it should all be handled by a war room with good technology, not sweaty refs playing with tablets. The NFL figured this out eventually, but I suppose the NHL needs to follow the stupidity process first.

MLB went straight to a war-room, didn't they?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

They just have to install a "lazer plane" TM exactly 3 inches behind the goal line. As soon as the "lazer plane" TM is broken, it's a goal. Lights go off, canons fire, music starts playing. Done deal.

What if the puck is on its side so it's overhead diameter is less than 3 inches? What if the puck is slightly tilted so it's overhead diameter is greater than 3 inches?

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You could do it with three RFID chips arranged in a triangle in the middle of the puck. By triangulating from their locations, you can figure out exactly where the puck is and what angle it's lying at.

You actually only need two sensors since a puck has axial symmetry. Evenly spaced along the axis of rotation.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

You actually only need two sensors since a puck has axial symmetry. Evenly spaced along the axis of rotation.

Good catch. I had been thinking of sensors in the horizontal plane through the centre of the puck, but the axis of rotation works even better.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by ZedMan

How could Casino security systems replace refs? Casinos don't have to make decisions in real time, have no limitations on where cameras are placed, and even after all that decisions are still made by a person in the end.

Casino's don't have to make real time decisions? They just go back and look at all the footage of cheaters and robbers? C'mon.

Casino's have software that recognize facial expressions and look at fake cards. Movie directors zoom in on explosions filmed hundreds of yards away. Look at Sony's F65 that's been out since 2011.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-hi...hend-F65.shtml

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/show-hi...levision.shtml

[J79]

I don't think a sensor, a chip or a camera inside a puck is the answer.

The puck structure will change.
It may seem like a small change but players will probably experience a completly diffrent 'feel'
Remember in tennis when (i think it was in Madrid) they had the idea to change the regular red clay to blue clay? Small change, big difference.

EDIT: yes, Madrid
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ten...ay-courts.html

And how much would a puck 2.0 cost?
How many game pucks are used during a game? At least 5 I think.
So if a puck goes into the stands, security has to come and take the puck from a 4 year old girl and replace it with a regular puck?
Or if Ortio scores his first NHL goal they present him the puck like 'Congratulations with your fist goal Joni, here is the puck! Well, it's not the puck, it's a puck. Just a regular one... I think. I don't know. Good goal though!'

[Cortez]

This is off topic, but does anyone know what's going on with Friedman and his regular radio spots on the Fan 960? I haven't heard him on there since the trade deadline, and I generally like his insight on what's happening around the league.

[Hackey]

Anything that helps them get the call correct I'm all for. Won't be perfect but an improvement is better than nothing.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by J79

I don't think a sensor, a chip or a camera inside a puck is the answer.

The puck structure will change.
It may seem like a small change but players will probably experience a completly diffrent 'feel'
Remember in tennis when (i think it was in Madrid) they had the idea to change the regular red clay to blue clay? Small change, big difference.

EDIT: yes, Madrid
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ten...ay-courts.html

And how much would a puck 2.0 cost?
How many game pucks are used during a game? At least 5 I think.
So if a puck goes into the stands, security has to come and take the puck from a 4 year old girl and replace it with a regular puck?
Or if Ortio scores his first NHL goal they present him the puck like 'Congratulations with your fist goal Joni, here is the puck! Well, it's not the puck, it's a puck. Just a regular one... I think. I don't know. Good goal though!'

I've thought about this as well but I think fans would understand. It happens in sports already where fans are given a replacement item. Small price to pay if it means 100% accuracy. As for players I don't think it's that big of a deal. Big moments give the pucks. First goals. Monumental accomplishments. Might have to use a bit more discretion on less significant accomplishments like say 100 goals. I think players would also understand. If it's such a big deal I'm sure players would be willing to pay the difference. Seems stingy but if money is that big of a concern there are ways around it for sure.