Another "inconclusive" no goal call

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

as others have said, the technology exists. There are perhaps some hockey specific issues that i have no doubt could be overcome through testing.

We can only conclude that the nhl is either too cheap, or too stubborn (or both) to implement it.

n/m

[tkflames]

Throw 3 cameras in each post, 6 into the crossbar and call it a day. Attempted to solve the puck positioning technology as an engineering project in university. It can be done, but the volume of pucks used in a game and the multiple sensors required (tilt, position etc)+ the impact this may have on the puck behaviour itself make this a cost restrictive endeavour.

12 cameras x 2 nets/ rink x 30 rinks + backup nets is not going to break the leagues bank. This also would make for some sweet footage of pile-ups.

[hockey.modern]

Did anyone watch Sportsnet? They showed the puck at the same place. The angle that was shown, was completely across the line from the looks of it. But once they did the overhead shot, it was still touching the red.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by jydk

In the first two pics the puck is just slightly off the ground, in the second two pics the puck is half an inch off the surface

This dispels the goal/nongoal vs Tampa 04. In game 3, the puck is flat and along the ice.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Did anyone watch Sportsnet? They showed the puck at the same place. The angle that was shown, was completely across the line from the looks of it. But once they did the overhead shot, it was still touching the red.

The thing about the overhead shot is the net was tilted a bit, so the cross bar was a little bit behind the line and you could not see the puck in the position where it would cross the line.

[transplant99]

Very good article (by Francis of all people) explaining through Colin Campbell why the call made was the only one they could have.

“It's like a horse race -- you can't stand ten feet ahead of the finish line and determine who won a close race -- you have to be standing along the finish line,” Campbell said.

“Also, don't forget this -- the goal line is painted one-and-a-half inches below the ice. So you can put the puck on the goal line and stand ten feet back and see white ice underneath it. The puck could also be in the air.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/2015/05/06...s-goalnon-goal

[secol]

i thought i saw something on bardown where there was a startup that was using sensor technology to monitor players and the puck at a university rink.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Very good article (by Francis of all people) explaining through Colin Campbell why the call made was the only one they could have.

The problem is it's the only call they could have made under the circumstances.

The circumstances being, that in 2015, they don't have the technology in place to make the proper call.

Bush league.

[Redrum]

Why do they keep using the wrong frame when they freeze frame it? A frame earlier it's a well over the line.

[Zach]

The technology sucks. Can't be 100% that was a goal. Puck was in the air and from that angle you can't be sure. It sure does look like a goal but from the other angle it didn't.

[gonzo29]

Originally Posted by Redrum

Why do they keep using the wrong frame when they freeze frame it? A frame earlier it's a well over the line.

This is what I was saying when Mike Johnson kept repeating "This is the best view we can show you." No it's not, Mike. They were pausing it a frame or two after it came back off Andersen's pad.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jydk

In the first two pics the puck is just slightly off the ground, in the second two pics the puck is half an inch off the surface:

Cool story but completely irrelevant as the puck was lying flat.

[secol]

Originally Posted by secol

i thought i saw something on bardown where there was a startup that was using sensor technology to monitor players and the puck at a university rink.

found it....HockeyTech. can't be that much harder to add another set of sensors (if they can't already) to detect the height of the puck as well. then again i'm not an expert

http://www.hockeytech.com/tsn-featur...lytics-system/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxf6gPKUitc

[bigpete]

Does anybody else remember a few years ago when the Flames were playing the Ducks? The puck went into the Ducks net when it was sitting on the goalie's blocker. Ryan Getzlaf was half lying in the net when he grabbed the puck with his hand, switched it to his other hand (which was deep in the net) and then casually crawled out of the net and dropped the puck a few seconds later. It was amazingly called no goal.

Ever since I saw that I've thought the nhl was bush league on its goal reviews. I've also had a dislike for Getzlaf, lol.

[hockey.modern]

Sportsnet recreated the scenario in the studio. It is no goal as it touches the red line.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/h...a-flames-goal/

[AC]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Sportsnet recreated the scenario in the studio. It is no goal as it touches the red line.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/h...a-flames-goal/

Except they assume the puck is 1.5 inches in the air for no legitimate reason.

The puck is shoveled along the ice by Bennett, and at contact jumps slightly into the air.

To assume the puck was 1.5 inches in the air is ridiculous.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by hockey.modern

Sportsnet recreated the scenario in the studio. It is no goal as it touches the red line.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/h...a-flames-goal/

This is assuming they know the exact height and position of the puck. They don't.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Cool story but completely irrelevant as the puck was lying flat.

Okay, lie the puck flat in those pictures and I gotta think the point remains the same.

[browna]

Originally Posted by AC

Except they assume the puck is 1.5 inches in the air for no legitimate reason.

The puck is shoveled along the ice by Bennett, and at contact jumps slightly into the air.

This.

The puck hopped up only after it hit the goalies pad and was on the way out of the net.

If they've determined the puck was in the air and just touching the line, that split second earlier when the puck was on the ice and actually travelling toward the net, not away from it, it's a goal.

[Darkwater]

Oh come on. It's A GOAL. Not being a homer, just an observer. You cannot claim it's NOT a goal. Shut up.