Another "inconclusive" no goal call

[yads]

Because the pad is curved and is in front of the puck so of course it's going to look like it's under the puck in a 2d image.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The curling rock is never in the air.

Also goalies are devious creatures, they'd find a way to cover up the sensor with snow. Or their skates/pads would keep cutting across the sensor.

You wouldn't even need to put the sensors in range of the goalie. You could project an infrared grid over the mouth of the goal from the rafters so no one could interfere with it. This is effectively the same technology behind the Nintendo Wii controllers that detect where the controller is positioned in 3D space. Only this could be made to be incredibly accurate.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Property Manager DB

Puck was definitely an inch or two off the ice.

lol. If you think that's an inch or two, I don't know what to tell you.

More importantly though...

Originally Posted by HartAttack

What I saw was the puck flat (or close to) sliding along the ice until it hits Andersen's pad. At that point the puck deflects off his pad, up into the air. The freeze frames we are seeing are after it hits the pad. The puck was in.

Exactly this. The shot from behind Bennett shows conclusively that the puck is on the ice. If you watch the video of it hitting the pad and then freeze-framing, it clearly hits the pad and is coming back out at the moment of the freeze-frame. It is AFTER hitting the pad that the puck is up in the air.

And it isn't anywhere near an inch in the air, even at that.

Edit: to those of you that claim that you can see an inch of his pad under the puck, that is the toe of the pad, IN FRONT of the puck. It is also an illusion of the angle. There isn't an inch of pad under the puck.

Look at the shot from behind Bennett of the puck on the ice, then ask yourself how you think it is an inch off the ice at the moment that it hits the pad. After? Sure. But not at contact.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

lol. If you think that's an inch or two, I don't know what to tell you.

More importantly though...



Exactly this. The shot from behind Bennett shows conclusively that the puck is on the ice. If you watch the video of it hitting the pad and then freeze-framing, it clearly hits the pad and is coming back out at the moment of the freeze-frame. It is AFTER hitting the pad that the puck is up in the air.

And it isn't anywhere near an inch in the air, even at that.

Edit: to those of you that claim that you can see an inch of his pad under the puck, that is the toe of the pad, IN FRONT of the puck. It is also an illusion of the angle. There isn't an inch of pad under the puck.

Look at the shot from behind Bennett of the puck on the ice, then ask yourself how you think it is an inch off the ice at the moment that it hits the pad. After? Sure. But not at contact.

So.. your post just said you can't conclusively say it was in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Weitz

So.. your post just said you can't conclusively say it was in.

Um, what?

[Enoch Root]

I am saying the puck was on the ice at the moment it hits the pad. And if it is on the ice, it is definitely in, because you can see white behind the goal-line.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Um, what?

Talking about illusions, arguing over whether in the air or not... That's not conclusive.

Unfortunately this play is one of those ones that comes down to the call on the ice. If its called a goal, it stands as a goal. If its called no-goal there just isn't enough to overturn it.

I still can't believe though in 2015 we can still have these issues.

[Flamenspiel]

Is there any reason why the NHL cannot use the Hawkeye goal decision system or GoalControl system that the EPL and FIFA use? I think in some cases they use 14 cameras on each goal.

"With the cameras all working at 340 frames per second, Dr Paul Hawkins believes that his invention will work to a variable accuracy of 4mm; well inside Fifa’s required 30mm variation. The cameras can deal with any obstructions in the goalmouth and, by recognizing the individual pattern of the ball, can differentiate between other round objects such as a balloon or even the head of a player."

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by cannon7

You wouldn't even need to put the sensors in range of the goalie. You could project an infrared grid over the mouth of the goal from the rafters so no one could interfere with it. This is effectively the same technology behind the Nintendo Wii controllers that detect where the controller is positioned in 3D space. Only this could be made to be incredibly accurate.

woooooooah there, one step at a time. This is a league that can't solve bad ice let alone infrared grids.

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Is there any reason why the NHL cannot use the Hawkeye goal decision system or GoalControl system that the EPL and FIFA use? I think in some cases they use 14 cameras on each goal.

Because it would cost $15 million dollars. $500,000 per arena.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

woooooooah there, one step at a time. This is a league that can't solve bad ice let alone infrared grids.

Keeping ice in good condition indoors, in a multi-purpose building (where they frequently have to remake the ice) is probably much more difficult than getting some working goal line censors in there. The technology already exists.

[dino7c]

some one needs to show the NHL what a 45 degree angle is, they seem to be confused

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by codynw

Keeping ice in good condition indoors, in a multi-purpose building (where they frequently have to remake the ice) is probably much more difficult than getting some working goal line censors in there. The technology already exists.

True.

I'm not familiar with the numbers? What's the cost for keeping good ice? What's the cost for an infrared grid?

As I stated above, for the NHL to install hawkeye like in soccer, in the EPL it costs $500,000 per stadium (20). UEFA has many more stadiums and they say that over 4 years it would cost them $66 million so they instead have more refs.

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Because it would cost $15 million dollars. $500,000 per arena.

I hear you, but that's not really a lot of money if your talking about the integrity of the game, and I wonder how much the current infrastructure in Toronto costs. Certainly, it would make sense for the playoffs.

They brought in the current system in 10 years ago, and now a slow moving organization like FIFA is ahead of the NHL in technology.

[littlereddevil]

So even FIFA has adopted goal-line technology, and the NHL hasn't? Get with the times NHL. You're profitable enough that you could put in sensors inside the puck to detect if it's in or not.

I don't like the no-goal call but sadly it was the right call.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

True.

I'm not familiar with the numbers? What's the cost for keeping good ice? What's the cost for an infrared grid?

As I stated above, for the NHL to install hawkeye like in soccer, in the EPL it costs $500,000 per stadium (20). UEFA has many more stadiums and they say that over 4 years it would cost them $66 million so they instead have more refs.

Not sure how much it would cost. I'm guessing not cheap, but they need to do something. They can't keep getting calls wrong just because their cameras are positioned poorly.

[squiggs96]

It's sad we had the technology, but didn't embrace it.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

It's sad we had the technology, but didn't embrace it.

They tested this during an All Star game like 15 or so years ago, didn't they?

[GirlySports]

NHL dinosaurs don't embrace much.

I did a bit more research.

Cost of hawkeye (over a period of 5 years, installation + operations + maintanence)

Soccer: $500000/stadium
Cricket: $350000/stadium
Tennis: $80000/court

[normtwofinger]

Originally Posted by Jiggy_12

I don't think there's any chance that was a factor.

Despite being eerily similar, it's a completely different play. Different decade, different opponent. That had zero bearing on the decision.

Other conspiracy theories could be entertained, but doubtful that one is plausible.

Think about it though. Yes different time period, different teams, but very very similar position on the ice. I would bet it had some fractional bearing on the decision.

[handgroen]

I don't mind a blown call when it happens at game speed.
but taking 5 minutes to really look at something and then coming out with the objectively wrong ruling makes my brain itch.