[News] Campbell admits it was in

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Apparently very hard


Its outrageous to me that we are almost at the year 2020 and revelations like what you have mentioned are still just story board topics at this point. Tennis as pointed out earlier has taken full advantage of the technologies available almost at the instant that they became available. Shocking to me that the NHL isn't all over the idea you mentioned above.. I've seen it brought up before and the only detractor that was brought up was that the pucks would be much more expensive so they would have to track the ones that go into the crowd down... have the players sign 15-20 pucks pre-game, problem solved.

Would they really? I kind of doubt it. For $45 I can attach a bluetooth sticker to anything and find it with my phone. If the NHL is going to order 10,000 pucks its going to be a lot cheaper than $45. That being said, I'm not really informed on how sensors and such work. Its just it seems like it is long overdue.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Heavy Jack

Apparently very hard


Its outrageous to me that we are almost at the year 2020 and revelations like what you have mentioned are still just story board topics at this point. Tennis as pointed out earlier has taken full advantage of the technologies available almost at the instant that they became available. Shocking to me that the NHL isn't all over the idea you mentioned above.. I've seen it brought up before and the only detractor that was brought up was that the pucks would be much more expensive so they would have to track the ones that go into the crowd down... have the players sign 15-20 pucks pre-game, problem solved.

NHL is a secret society, they don't want you to know anything. In the IIHF (THE FREAKIN IIHF) you can hear the refs talking to the guy upstairs during a review. The NHL can't even show the replay in the arena while the replay is happening!

[The Fonz]

The fact that the NHL hasn't implemented technology to tell us/them when the puck crosses the line, is pretty much an admission that like all other calls in the NHL, goal calls are subjective.

[sun]

Does anyone remember a Kerry Fraser article from a few years back where he said referenced events "behind the scenes" in the 2004 SCF? Anyone know wtf he was talking about or if he ever mentioned it again?

[browna]

A millisecond later and there would be conclusive visual proof of something most everyone knows occurred but couldn't prove. There is no way the pad came out quicker than the puck was in heading over the line.

[AC]

That's assuming the puck isn't already against the pad there. He's kicking his leg out so he could be in the process of pushing the puck out already in that photo.

The puck never makes it to the bottom of the pad based on the overhead replay.

[browna]

Originally Posted by AC

That's assuming the puck isn't already against the pad there. He's kicking his leg out so he could be in the process of pushing the puck out already in that photo.

The puck popped outward on the rebound, not to the side. Which means his toe came up from behind the puck to push it back. His toe is well behind the line, and as I said, from this view, it wasn't going to move as quickly as the puck was speeding that next 5 cm.

TO add to your edit,the replay doesn't show the bottom tip of the pad that flips up,but that you can see in the pic, as it's also somewhat hidden on the overhead view.
Also, if you think he's pushing it back out already, it was clearly in as his pad isn't back over the line .

[AC]

Originally Posted by browna

The puck popped outward on the rebound, not to the side. Which means his toe came up from behind the puck to push it back. His toe is well behind the line, and as I said, from this view, it wasn't going to move as quickly as the puck was speeding that next 5 cm.

The overhead angle is the most damning IMO:
https://gfycat.com/UntimelyFamiliarGnatcatcher

The puck comes back outwards from the pad about 40% up, not at the toe from what I can see.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Would they really? I kind of doubt it. For $45 I can attach a bluetooth sticker to anything and find it with my phone. If the NHL is going to order 10,000 pucks its going to be a lot cheaper than $45. That being said, I'm not really informed on how sensors and such work. Its just it seems like it is long overdue.

How accurate is that sticker?

A tracking system that will help you find your lost keys to within a 1 foot diameter while they're sitting perfectly still is a great system for finding lost keys. A tracking system that will help you determine the location of a stationary hockey puck to within a 1 foot diameter is pretty much useless.

Unless a sensor system can tell you the exact position of an object in 3D space while also telling you the exact orientation of the object all while the object is travelling up to 100mph, it's not really a useful system for tracking pucks during a hockey game.



People have mentioned the Hawk-Eye system used in tennis. That system is entirely optical. It only requires special cameras positioned at fixed locations around the court. The system can "see" the ball in the video and combines data from multiple sources to determine the ball's exact location in 3D space. Because of how it works, it doesn't require any changes to the court, the players, or the ball itself.

The system works for tennis because the players aren't trying to stop or cover the ball like hockey goalies do. They're also wearing shorts and t-shirts rather than massive padding like goalies wear. Even if a player blocks the view of the ball from one camera, it will still be visible to some of the other cameras.


The Hawk-Eye company that makes the tennis line technology has used it for goal-line systems in soccer too...



That's getting closer to hockey, but there are still some major obstacles to overcome. The size of the puck relative to the players is a big one. In soccer, it's virtually impossible to the ball to be completely out of view of multiple cameras. In hockey, it happens frequently. The shape of the puck is another issue. You not only have to know exactly where the puck is, but its orientation as well.


Hawk-Eye has provided the replay system that the NHL uses on video reviews now, so hopefully they're working on improving this puck-tracking technology. It is likely the most challenging sport for them to work with.

[Heavy Jack]

Some great insight there getbak.. makes my post look like a pitchfork wielding, torch swinging, madman lol. Obviously not as easy as I was making it out to be, cool to see how it's progressing and the challenges it faces as well! Thanks!

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

That article is sorely in need of a quote from him. Not clear at all what is he saying about 2004 from my read.

I am glad the title is misleading, if it was true I'd move on from watching the NHL.

[browna]

I did a Grade 5 science project on goal line technology 26 years ago. As rudimentry as it was, the idea was to have the posts create an laser-like force field along the goal line and up to the cross bar and then whenever that field was breached by the electronic sensor in puck, the other multisensors in the puck would be programmed to figure out when the rest of the puck crossed,and automatically turn on the goal light. If the net was off,no power for the force field so no goal etc.

I want to say we thought of the idea when the Flames were robbed against the Oilers in the playoffs , when I think Nieuwendyk had scored, but it was ruled to have hit the post. The front page of the Sun or Herald the next day showed clearly that it had actually hit against the pads they used to have in the bottom of the net and was in. Searched for that pic but to no avail.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by browna

I want to say we thought of the idea when the Flames were robbed against the Oilers in the playoffs , when I think Nieuwendyk had scored, but it was ruled to have hit the post. The front page of the Sun or Herald the next day showed clearly that it had actually hit against the pads they used to have in the bottom of the net and was in. Searched for that pic but to no avail.

I vividly remember that. The thing I remember most was actually the cartoon from the Herald the next day which had Vernon standing in front of Calgary's net, and the caption was something like "Flames' game-plan" and the padding in the net was absolutely monstrous.

[calgaryred]

Originally Posted by browna

I did a Grade 5 science project on goal line technology 26 years ago. As rudimentry as it was, the idea was to have the posts create an laser-like force field along the goal line and up to the cross bar and then whenever that field was breached by the electronic sensor in puck, the other multisensors in the puck would be programmed to figure out when the rest of the puck crossed,and automatically turn on the goal light. If the net was off,no power for the force field so no goal etc.

I want to say we thought of the idea when the Flames were robbed against the Oilers in the playoffs , when I think Nieuwendyk had scored, but it was ruled to have hit the post. The front page of the Sun or Herald the next day showed clearly that it had actually hit against the pads they used to have in the bottom of the net and was in. Searched for that pic but to no avail.

I remember that it was front page of the Sun I believe the headline was "That Hurts"

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Kjesse]

I was sitting with a friend in the seats dead centre behind the net, on the first balcony, and had a clear view. I think we paid $500 for each seat and that was painful but probably well worth it... we were possibly going to see the Flames win the Cup and as it turns out, maybe the puck was in.

We did not think the puck went in and also the fans sitting in the bottom level did not seem to react that much (loud but the dome was loud), they did not seem to think the puck went in. At the game, there was not any controversy at all as I recall.

Until we were driving home and heard about it on the Fan, we did not even know it was an issue.

I remember Sutter saying the view had to be conclusive, and it wasn't.

[Burn13]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I was sitting with a friend in the seats dead centre behind the net, on the first balcony, and had a clear view. I think we paid $500 for each seat and that was painful but probably well worth it... we were possibly going to see the Flames win the Cup and as it turns out, maybe the puck was in.

We did not think the puck went in and also the fans sitting in the bottom level did not seem to react that much (loud but the dome was loud), they did not seem to think the puck went in. At the game, there was not any controversy at all as I recall.

Until we were driving home and heard about it on the Fan, we did not even know it was an issue.

I remember Sutter saying the view had to be conclusive, and it wasn't.

Uh we were behind the net and we all reacted thinking that's got to be in! The whole section was losing it. Maybe you had alot of dome beers.

[heep223]

All I know is that the hockey gods owe us a couple.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by aiy_yah

Or in OT when Simon had the puck, went to skate it out of the zone and gets tripped by a Tampa player (don't recall who it was) who went belly first and stuck his legs in the way of Simon. That resulted in Tampa getting the puck back and scoring in Game 6 in OT. No call there for the trip.

I'm pretty sure it was St Louis who tripped him, and then laid in wait for that pass from the point.

This was my feeling too--I was at the game and we didn't really know about the "non-goal" controversy until the next day. From our vantage point at the time, it looked like Khabibulin had made an unreal save.

But the trip on Simon was right in the end that our seats overlook. It was such a blatantly obvious penalty that we were furious. So clearly caused a direct advantage/goal scoring opportunity for TB.

Kerry Fraser, IIRC.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

Kerry Fraser, IIRC.

He reffed game 7 but due to heavy criticism by Flames fans they switched him at the last minute.

Kerry Fraser was originally scheduled to be one of the Game 6 referees, but a change was made after Calgary fans reacted angrily to the work of Fraser and Brad Watson in Game 4, a 1-0 Tampa Bay victory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/07/sp...-cup.html?_r=0

That series made Fraser my most disliked ref which led to me making this.

[FireGilbert]

If it wasn't for Fraser in game 4 the Flames possibly win in 5 and the game 6 controversy never happens.