No, I do understand. But saying the best deal isn't the best deal makes no sense... the best deal is the best deal, hence why it is called the best deal. If it weren't the best deal, it would not be called the best deal. It would be called the good deal, or slightly worse than best deal, etc.
Funny post. A spade is a spade... or is it a shovel?
· Koskinen gets the puck in his glove at the 0:27 mark, and traps it against the post at 0:28. If the puck is trapped against the post, then it is most likely touching the goal line. If it is touching the goal line it is not a goal.
· At the 0:57 mark from the above-camera angle you can see Koskinen catching the puck in line with the post, and then trapping the puck against the post. In this better view, the puck is not just touching the goal line, it is still on top of it.
The goal-ruling on Luongo which I also remember was ruled a goal because his pad was clearly entirely inside the net with the puck underneath it. The puck—while not visible—could not have been anywhere but completely inside the goal.
This is entirely different from the situation on Saturday. The puck was inside the goal, inside Koskinen's glove, but also most likely trapped against the side of the post. Had this been ruled a goal on the ice, I am fairly confident it would have been overturned.
The replay from that perspective is like the reverse Bennett non goal and Gelinas non goal. The angle from the cam is distorted and misleading, but it looks to me at :28 the glove is well behind the goal line. Koskinen may have gotten it wedged to the post and the end position would have been ruled no goal, but it was in the air before that, and his glove was behind the goal line. He reached back and in.
We can argue all day about it being a goal or no goal, I still think it is, you think it is not and there is not enough evidence to prove either one conclusively. It was ruled inconclusive, and not a goal. At least it's not as controversial as the Gelinas one.
I think most of us waste more time on this site then we'd like to admit... I'm certainly not on a day off right now.
Agreed lol and while in hindsight I see the antagonistic nature of my post, I was more reflecting on myself and how once upon a time I probably would have done the same thing
The Following User Says Thank You to shogged For This Useful Post:
So does this work for hockey? Save me from reading this entire thing to see how it works for hockey.
Kind of funny to me though, the last sport you need this tech for is soccer. I don’t really watch the NFL but don’t they still look at replays? Can’t just be a money hold up.
So does this work for hockey? Save me from reading this entire thing to see how it works for hockey.
Kind of funny to me though, the last sport you need this tech for is soccer. I don’t really watch the NFL but don’t they still look at replays? Can’t just be a money hold up.
NHL is looking at smart pucks as soon as next season. Might take a little while before it could conclusively rule all goals vs. no goals, but it could definitely get some. The shape of the puck might be part of the problem compared to soccer...if the centre of the puck is 1.51 inches behind the goal line we know for sure it is a goal, but it could also be a good goal at 0.51 inches if the puck is perfectly vertical. I'm sure it is possible for a chip to measure puck angle and make the necessary calculations, but not sure it will be precise enough down to the mm for a situation like Koskinens.
As far as the NFL goes, I think there are a lot more factors at play that don't really make technology (other than lots of 4K cameras) very helpful for review...size of the field, when a player is ruled down, etc. A smart ball would give a lot of other interesting info though.
I think goal line tech is a lot more difficult to implement in hockey, you could put a sensor in a puck easy enough, but you'd have to hollow out the puck which would almost certainly change it's dynamic properties. Soccer uses a camera method with over a dozen dedicated camera's all over the pitch (at a cost of $260K install and $4k per game), but that may be a lot harder to implement in hockey as the puck is so much smaller and the goal creases tend to be so much more crowded.
I think goal line tech is a lot more difficult to implement in hockey, you could put a sensor in a puck easy enough, but you'd have to hollow out the puck which would almost certainly change it's dynamic properties. Soccer uses a camera method with over a dozen dedicated camera's all over the pitch (at a cost of $260K install and $4k per game), but that may be a lot harder to implement in hockey as the puck is so much smaller and the goal creases tend to be so much more crowded.
I don't think the technology would require hollowing out the puck. Any sort of proximity transmittal from the puck would have to be circumferential so you could ensure that the entire puck crosses the line. It's a difficult one because there are times that the goaltender is on the line so I don't see any optical solutions working.
Last edited by Erick Estrada; 01-23-2019 at 12:27 PM.
I don't think the technology would require hollowing out the puck. Any sort of proximity transmittal from the puck would have to be circumferential so you could ensure that the entire puck crosses the line. It's a difficult one because there are times that the goaltender is on the line so I don't see any optical solutions working.
The puck itself wouldn't be hollow, but you'd need to remove rubber to make room for tech, any external additions to the puck would likely have even more of an impact on dynamics. Two internal sensors/transmitters in the puck would be all you need to know it's exact position and orientation, which would give conclusive results even if the puck was lost in the pads.
This whole goal line technology is easier said then done. Eventually it will be piloted probably in a different league such as the AHL, but right now having sensors in a puck and then having to switch which puck is set up everytime one goes out of play. and then checking calibration down to mm's everytime they put ice down and the speed and update rates to allow for the batteries inside the puck to last (if there are batteries). its going to be difficult. Its not as simple as put two sensors in the puck and call it a day.
This whole goal line technology is easier said then done. Eventually it will be piloted probably in a different league such as the AHL, but right now having sensors in a puck and then having to switch which puck is set up everytime one goes out of play. and then checking calibration down to mm's everytime they put ice down and the speed and update rates to allow for the batteries inside the puck to last (if there are batteries). its going to be difficult. Its not as simple as put two sensors in the puck and call it a day.
What do you mean? It isn’t as easy as calling the NHL dumb and plopping a Wikipedia link (unrelated from the sport) on their lap? Weird.
