The high stick: the concept of height no longer has meaning

[TheFlamesVan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It's a hockey game, not a capital murder trial. You don't need lawyers to argue this out.

It's also a multi million dollar company, who is going to now (likely) miss out on a bunch of additional revenue due to that call. As a fan we will have to move past it, but if I owned that team I absolutley would not let this go.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Red Menace

Serious Question; you know that technology they use sometimes where they freeze the frame and then move/drag a player forward, etc....why can't they use that for these high stick cases? Can't they drag Thompson to the net and clearly show that he was above the bar??

Don't be ridiculous. That tech is reserved for real sports like cricket.

[redforever]

Grant Fuhr comments were along the line of...

Someone doesn't want the Flames to win. That was as blatant a high stick as he has ever seen.

[DiracSpike]

FFS, even murder trials have the disclaimer "beyond a reasonable doubt". Can they prove 110% that the stick was high? not really, not with those camera angles. But even just the basic deductive reasoning that we've all done here is enough to say that it was definitely above four feet.

Those pukes in Toronto should have figured that one out with all the time they took. Have some BALLS to go against your refs for once, even freaking baseball isn't too proud to admit when their officials are wrong. This "review" process is such a farce, especially when they come out and say call confirmed.

[oilyfan]

I think the shooter view at 00:32 in this video is the best view. http://www.tsn.ca/video/how-did-the-...happen~1102760

My amateur method, it's very close...:

[Slava]

To me some of the NHL rules are in obvious need of change. I know the rule is that the puck can't be deflected in from a high stick...but why? Who really cares? Everyone is out there with body armour these days, so what's the difference? Just count them all and forget these boring, ridiculous challenges/reviews.

Instant replay and reviews and challenges are ruining the game. Eliminate the need for these things in general and just play the game.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Slava

To me some of the NHL rules are in obvious need of change. I know the rule is that the puck can't be deflected in from a high stick...but why? Who really cares? Everyone is out there with body armour these days, so what's the difference? Just count them all and forget these boring, ridiculous challenges/reviews.

Instant replay and reviews and challenges are ruining the game. Eliminate the need for these things in general and just play the game.

That would actually change the game. They'd start lofting them in there and everyone be swinging their sticks. Now I'm not saying that couldn't be entertaining, but it sure would be dangerous!

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

There really is no reason for the NHL to employ video review at this point. As a previous poster pointed out, they cause delays, they take enjoyment out of it, and they certainly aren't helping the league get any more of the calls right.

So if you aren't going to get more accurate, let's take the delays and frustration out of it and simply let the calls made on the ice be what they are and accept the human error (which is what we are doing now anyway) like it used to be.

[MarkGio]

I can't understand in the year 2017 that video review can't get these right. So many cameras are small, cheap, of good quality and the technology exists where you could calculate, sense and predict all movements inside that rink.

It's fishy to me. Technology​ exists where subatomic particles can be tracked during collisions at speeds not comprehensible to most minds. There's yet a 3 inch puck inside a closed rink at fairly slow speeds is inconclusive? Either the league has cheaped out on the quality of its product or its deliberately inconclusive.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That would actually change the game. They'd start lofting them in there and everyone be swinging their sticks. Now I'm not saying that couldn't be entertaining, but it sure would be dangerous!

I doubt it. Still keep the high stick making contact as a penalty and it shouldn't change much of anything. Players/coaches aren't going to want to give away penalties.

[darockwilder]

I still think the Bouma deflected goal from the other night was touched by a high stick before it went in as well.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

They still interpret the rules as they are written and replay wasn't added so they could make assumptions based on bad camera angles.

That's fine for plays that are close. You have two measurements you can incorporate into your decision here. 4' crossbar. Duck player's height. Use some basic trigonometry to figure out what angle the player had to be leaning at in order to contact the puck below the 4'. It's not even close.

They didn't say it was inconclusive. They confirmed the call on the ice so basically the NHL disagrees with your argument and says all they needed was their eyeballs to see that it was clearly a good goal.

Quit trying to rationalize it. It's an absolute nightmare of a call.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I think the shooter view at 00:32 in this video is the best view. http://www.tsn.ca/video/how-did-the-...happen~1102760

This is the angle. I just paused the video and took a screenshot. My timing might be off.

Spoiler!

I personally think this angle shows a confirmed high stick.

So the NHL says this goal is conclusive and a good goal. Yet when they reviewed this goal, they said the perspective was enough to make it indeterminable.

Spoiler!

The line of what determines a conclusive goal from an inconclusive goal from the video reviews wavers so much and the logic for a review changes from goal to goal.

[Benched]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

I think the shooter view at 00:32 in this video is the best view. http://www.tsn.ca/video/how-did-the-...happen~1102760

My amateur method, it's very close...:

Nice work. However, I feel like the camera angle is tilted as you can see from the boards (but didn't tilt the angle of the crossbar). Using Paint, trying to ensure the line is 100% flat (so no pixels up or down off the line), I get these:




corrected, infer what you will from it:

[Otto-matic]

Confused as to why Nate Thompson's goal counted last night? So is Stephen Brunt

The SN analyst confesses he's unable to see how the video review judges didn't overrule the on-ice officials when it came to the Ducks' 3rd goal in Game 3 vs. Calgary, calling it a "clear cut" case of a high stick knocking the puck past Brian Elliott

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/c...stephen-brunt/

[Philly06Cup]

I'm with girly sports. The league should make the review more transparent.

On suspend able hits, shanahan would release a slomo video describing whether the offender jumps, sticks out an elbow, etc.

Why can't we have an explanation video to that effect.

[Flash Walken]

The absolute last thing the league wants is transparency.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Benched

Nice work. However, I feel like the camera angle is tilted as you can see from the boards (but didn't tilt the angle of the crossbar). Using Paint, trying to ensure the line is 100% flat (so no pixels up or down off the line), I get these:




corrected, infer what you will from it:

That looks extremely close.

[NewFan]

I think - If it was flames goal - they would waive the goal and say - there is no evidence that the pack was below the crossbar, so it is no goal. They wanted 4 OT games, and got them.

[RM14]

Microchip the puck already.