The picture above shows that it was a lot closer than many initially thought. That said I feel they should have called the replays inconclusive. Since they feel it was in fact a good goal the NHL should have to provide a still shot supporting their claim that it was at or below the cross bar.
There really is no reason for the NHL to employ video review at this point. As a previous poster pointed out, they cause delays, they take enjoyment out of it, and they certainly aren't helping the league get any more of the calls right.
So if you aren't going to get more accurate, let's take the delays and frustration out of it and simply let the calls made on the ice be what they are and accept the human error (which is what we are doing now anyway) like it used to be.
This is exactly what Brunt said in the link above.
The object is to get it right. If the system doesn't have the mechanism in place to correct a call as obvious as this waz, then get rid of review.
This is the angle. I just paused the video and took a screenshot. My timing might be off.
Spoiler!
I personally think this angle shows a confirmed high stick.
So the NHL says this goal is conclusive and a good goal. Yet when they reviewed this goal, they said the perspective was enough to make it indeterminable.
Spoiler!
The line of what determines a conclusive goal from an inconclusive goal from the video reviews wavers so much and the logic for a review changes from goal to goal.
That first photo is pretty telling. The entire ducks stick is at crossbar height or higher, angled upwards.
Just in case some aren't listening to 960 right now, Eric Duhatschek is on and they are saying that several people that saw the goal at eye level behind the net said it was a good goal. Erick also said he believes is was a good goal. I don't fault fans for being outraged but it appears it was much, much closer than some of the replay angles show it.
If the league has a camera angle that conclusively shows a good goal, by all means release it so we can see what they were looking at, and hopefully put this to rest.
By keeping the info under a veil of secrecy they're only sowing distrust in the system.
The Following User Says Thank You to automaton 3 For This Useful Post:
I don't agree.
Take that picture and draw two lines parallel with the one representing the stick position, first one where the goal post meets the ice and then a second one where Thompson's skate meets the ice. That will give you an idea of the relative height difference between his stick and the crossbar.
The exaggeration of the difference at ice level will be greater than at the crossbar level but it will indicate that could not have been the camera that proved it as a good goal.
It's baffling the NHL doesn't have dedicated cameras at crossbar level for these reviews. It's always been an issue that no camera angle shows much of anything.
From r/calgaryflames, here's maybe the best angle (though the puck is blocked by a Flame player). As mentioned the camera is titled so the crossbar and boards are diagonal, here's the crossbar line extended:
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AC For This Useful Post:
Just in case some aren't listening to 960 right now, Eric Duhatschek is on and they are saying that several people that saw the goal at eye level behind the net said it was a good goal. Erick also said he believes is was a good goal. I don't fault fans for being outraged but it appears it was much, much closer than some of the replay angles show it.
Under the current review system this is all that matters. They don't ask reporters or fans behind the net. All they have to work with is the video replay and unless they have a camera angle that we don't it's hard to understand how their conclusion is so convulsive in their eyes.
Under the current review system this is all that matters. They don't ask reporters or fans behind the net. All they have to work with is the video replay and unless they have a camera angle that we don't it's hard to understand how their conclusion is so convulsive in their eyes.
Yes but the officials were adamant it was a good goal so replay has to find conclusive evidence to overrule them. I don't think any of the picture or reviews we have seen are conclusive. The replay officials went one step further and confirmed the on ice call so I assume they must have a better camera angle than us. Regardless it would be nice for them to follow up with a still picture of what they used to draw their conclusion.
Here are frames from different angles taken from the NHL's video here
and TSN's video here
Small views
Spoiler!
Camera 1
Camera 2
Camera 3 - Frame 1/2/3 - I've included multiple frames as you can see the path of the shot and it is easier to judge the point of contact as there isn't one individual frame that does so.
Camera 4 - Puck is lost behind Backlund. Previous views show that puck hits Thompsons stick less than half way between the blade and his glove. In this view the entire stick beyond his glove is above the line of the crossbar. The line of the crossbar has been copied down to the line of the boards. There is no change to the angle.
Full size
Spoiler!
Camera 1
Camera 2
Camera 3 - Frame 1/2/3 - I've included multiple frames as you can see the path of the shot and it is easier to judge the point of contact as there isn't one individual frame that does so.
Camera 4 - Puck is lost behind Backlund. Previous views show that puck hits Thompsons stick less than half way between the blade and his glove. In this view the entire stick beyond his glove is above the line of the crossbar. The line of the crossbar has been copied down to the line of the boards. There is no change to the angle.
Last edited by topfiverecords; 04-18-2017 at 01:25 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to topfiverecords For This Useful Post:
To me it's not about the specific call ... it's the fact that games two and three had tight calls made and both went against the same team in a series that is 3-0 with goal differential separated by a total of three goals.
That's pretty crummy.
My gut said the Calgary goal would have counted and the Duck goal wouldn't, and I'm not that guy that just "talks his book", so it was shocking to have both go against them.
You can defend either call to a degree, but it's the weight of two of them that has made a huge impact on this series, which is a shame.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
There's really only two straight lines you need to draw from this angle to see that it's impossible to have been a good goal, and luckily there are two straight objects in the frame you can draw those lines on.
I'm also baffled by the second goal, I don't know how the play was allowed to continue after Perry tried to jump into the Flames bench.
Last edited by #-3; 04-18-2017 at 01:36 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I don't understand how this is still an issue in 2017. How much did you guys pay for tickets last night? They can't buy 100 go-pros, stick them in the boards, and bullet-time this? Don't they need just three cameras to triangulate the location of the puck and the stick and the crossbars, thereby eliminating parallax errors? You have common points with the nets and the lines, you have cameras with timestamps, there are fewer problems with disappearing pucks like there are in the crease. Seems pretty straight-forward.
I'm not smart enough to find a solution to this problem, but I would bet good money that the person who eventually figures it out will be a Flames fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sun For This Useful Post:
To be honest - I would feel a lot better if they had just said it was inconclusive so they want with the call on the ice. The fact they said it was confirmed is absurd.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
