You have to admit the NHL with their goal rulings and the NFL with their catch rulings are gotten so overly complex that both have become kind of flip of the coin as no matter what looks obvious both leagues have enough grey area rules that a small group of people can have a totally different interpretation of what everyone else considers obvious and if they are the ones making the ruling the wrong call can be easily made and justified due to the grey area. In hockey the grey area is the camera angle or kicking motion and in football it's the football move.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 05-08-2015 at 11:33 AM.
I still can't believe that the post camera doesn't look down at the ice.
Since they have created such a high standard of "definitively completely crossing the line", a camera without any reference to the goal line is basically useless.
It doesn't look in and the game said it was in. That was my point of the video because Bennett's goal was 6000% more obviously in and was determined a no goal.
This isn't a global news reenactment. The video claims an unnamed source gave it to them.
The Flames themselves recreated it using the same cameras used in the war room. You can clearly see Treliving on the ice.
Good Eye, I didn't notice Treliving the first time. I wonder if it was actually the Flames that recreated this or if he came out of his office when he heard what was going on. This could be good fodder for the next GM's meetings the NHL has.
If a ref calls a goal, sure, require concrete evidence to overturn the in ice call.
If a ref waves off a goal because he sees it and says it didn't go in, same thing.
But if he doesn't see the puck at all, and just didn't make a call because he was blocked or just missed it, why is "no goal" the call on the ice and why is it given any deference. Look at the video and make a decision - did it look in or out (which is the same decision a ref would make).
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to GioforPM For This Useful Post:
I still can't believe that the post camera doesn't look down at the ice.
Since they have created such a high standard of "definitively completely crossing the line", a camera without any reference to the goal line is basically useless.
Yeah, I really don't understand what value there is in having the goal post camera where it is (notice the black dot about 18 inches down from the crossbar)...
What exactly can it see from there?
Ideally, there should be multiple cameras inside the posts, including ones looking down from the crossbar. If they're only going to have one on each side, it should be about 6 inches off the ice. If it were 6 inches off the ice, it would have had the perfect view of the Bennett goal.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Yeah, I really don't understand what value there is in having the goal post camera where it is (notice the black dot about 18 inches down from the crossbar)...
What exactly can it see from there?
Puck/goal line interaction that occurs in the upper half of the net.
Like a diving goalie frankly swatting at a puck with his stick or reaching out to make a glove save.
(Overhead cameras inside the crossbar pointing straight down would have been helpful in this case.)
my bad
