I look at it this way. How deep was his pad when the puck made contact with the it? Looks pretty damn deep to me. More than enough room for puck to be completely across the line.
With the Gelinas one, I still maintain that yes the puck was enough in the air that its impossible to prove either way... but this one is 100% clear cut.
It looks like the puck hit his pads and left the surface of the ice ever so slightly, but it's hard to say for sure.
Did anyone hear the Sportsnet panel talking about hidden cameras in the net that only the NHL have access to? Is that true or Sportsnet stupidity? I assume he wasn't talking about the normal camera in the back of the net.
(Want to preface this by saying that I 100% think it was in.)
While I don't think it was bouncing, watching the replay a ton it looks like it could be riding up Andersen's pad.
If it were flat on the ice by the point it was 'in' the net, then how come we can see Andersen's pad beneath the puck in this shot?
If it were flat on the ice, pretty sure that'd be physically impossible.
Still, based on how little it comes up off the ice, with how far back of the goal line Andersen's foot still is, and with how much white of the ice we can see between the goal line and the puck, not sure how that wouldn't be in.
The Following User Says Thank You to IgnitedSoul For This Useful Post:
Are we the new Buffalo Sabres when it comes to getting jobbed in the playoffs?
At least we still won.
I don't know how you don't call that a goal. I will say I understand the 04 non goal though (though I do think it was in).
The 04 goal had two things against it this one didn't. First of all, most importantly, no one saw it in the building and it wasn't reviewed. This time the bench and fans caught it. Last time, they didn't. And I was there. In fact, the first time I heard about it was at home the next morning.
Secondly, the puck was on edge and the video wasn't great. Even though I believe it was in, I'd have a hard time saying it was conclusive.
This one however, hooboy! Hope they fire all the guys in the war room in Toronto! That's conclusive.
I actually think it wasn't in now - if it were, it would've shown up on the overhead. The distance from the bar to the goal line seems less than a puck diameter, and the puck appears to be quite flat.
I actually think it wasn't in now - if it were, it would've shown up on the overhead. The distance from the bar to the goal line seems less than a puck diameter, and the puck appears to be quite flat.
Andersons pads could be tilted slightly forward as well so the overhead is pretty inconclusive. It's all actually inconclusive as we don't have a "clear shot" of it being across the line to over turn the call. Using what I have seen and I can determine it was in, but without a clear shot to show that it was across it cannot overrule the call.
If we are going to have post cameras.. Put one in the cross bar for God sakes.
I hate replay in sports, especially the process. I work in sports and film/TV and know the technology is there to get this right but it needs to be implemented correctly and executed properly.
Replay is either useful or creates unnecessary drama.
The crossbar was in the way, it didn't show anything
Does this fact not make anyone annoyed? I mean, why would you like up the camera so tight so that a nudge by a player or a goalie, who just MIGHT be near the net during a hockey game, would completely obscure the view? Most other arena overheads I've seen have a better view, albeit at a minimally increased angle.
Did anyone hear the Sportsnet panel talking about hidden cameras in the net that only the NHL have access to? Is that true or Sportsnet stupidity? I assume he wasn't talking about the normal camera in the back of the net.
Because the net was lifted slightly off the ice, perhaps that obscured the view (or as the NHL puts it: We do not accept any cameras that view the goal line from any angle, and we especially adore the overhead view that is completely obstructed by the crossbar because players happened to be playing hockey in the general vicinity of the hockey game.
Radical solution would be to change the definition of a goal. Have a line some distance inside the current red line. A goal is when the puck touches this line. Purists will hate it but it makes visuals and laser technology easier to implement.
Radical solution would be to change the definition of a goal. Have a line some distance inside the current red line. A goal is when the puck touches this line. Purists will hate it but it makes visuals and laser technology easier to implement.
The puck is rarely totally flat in a goal though. Also, I'm not terribly learned in laser detection tech, so how would this alteration help?
Yes, the NHL is cheaper than whomever runs Snooker.
It's not about being cheaper. Snooker and tennis don't have players jumping in front of or on top of the ball trying to stop it. A visual tracking system only works if it has a clear view of what it's tracking. Billiards would be the easiest game to build a tracking system for.
The Hawk-Eye system is a visual system and as such would have minimal effectiveness in hockey with such a small puck and such large players. How effective would it be in a mess like this?
In this picture, you can see the holes for the in-post cameras. You can also see why they wouldn't have been able to see anything on the Bennett goal.
They also need to have these installed about 6 inches above the ice level, and a couple looking down from above too. They should all be super high frame rate as well.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following User Says Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
Both the 30 and 45 degree angles showed the puck behind the goal line. By conclusive evidence, I think they just wanted to see the above view, yet the slight angle and crossbar in the way renders it obstructed and useless for any close calls. So that angle is out. so, you have others. but judging by the call, they completely dismissed those angles because they can be deceiving. EXCEPT that's only when the puck is airborne. Bennett slid the puck on the ice. It was twirling on edge, but in contact with the ice. it's just logical that if you can see even a sliver of ice between the puck and the line while it's travelling on the ice, there is no possible way that it isn't over the line.
Its pathetic that they put all weight on one angle that is too obstructed to accurately show what happened. it's not rocket science and while the Flames made up for the league's mistake, that simply should not happen in any playoff game, ever. 04 was one thing without high definition and limited angles, but this clearly and conclusively was a goal that could be determined through basic deductive reasoning.
fix it NHL.
Last edited by ScorchyScorch; 05-06-2015 at 03:06 AM.
