The high stick: the concept of height no longer has meaning

[djsFlames]

That's the thing. It could be argued either way, just like the interference. There's grounds for either decision in both goal situations. It came down to human opinion, which seemed to vary from person to person. And both times the Flames lost the coin flip. But for it to fall in the Flames' favour even once would make this a different series as we currently stand, in all likelihood.

Understandably that should frustrate any fan of any team in the Flames' current predicament, after playing the way they have.

[oldschoolcalgary]

NHL officiating literally makes me sick!

its one thing to argue that something in inconclusive, and thus the call stands - which was exactly the call last night - compared to today, sayings its confirmed that stick was below the bar...

total
gd
bull####...

hate the NHL

[Otto-matic]

https://thewincolumnblog.wordpress.c...hompsons-goal/

Based on the combination of images, it can be safely assumed that Thompson’s stick is along the same vertical plane as his right skate. As this is the point of his body closest to the net, this provides a conservative estimation. By the laws of physics (yes, all of them), the net’s profile will shrink in all directions as the distance from the camera increases. This shrinkage was ignored to keep with a conservative estimation (mainly because we have final exams coming up), and it was assumed that the 48″ net height was consistent across the entire y-axis of the rink. By projecting the net profile to the plane where Thompson contacts the puck, we can determine whether there was a high-stick on the play by looking at his stick relative to the projected net profile. If his stick is inside or level with the profile, then there was no high-stick on the play, confirming the NHL’s decision.

[Burninator]

[Torture]

That is some awesome analysis. NHL should hire that guy to help out with video reviews.

[CSharp]

I'm not even sure why some of the old rules in NHL still applies. The two most common examples of goal or no goal rules that really suck are the high stick rule and the kicking the puck into the net rule. Sure, these rules were put in place a long, long, very long time ago for safety reasons, but times have changed. If these rules are removed, there wouldn't be so much controversy and the games would go a lot faster without any contest and without any review. If it's in, it's in.

[Robbob]

That is a hell of an analysis. Confirms and just proves the NHL should probably stop talking in absolutes and just say it was inconclusive. makes you wander if they came out with such a definitive statement because of the flack they got on the first review.

[2ArmBands]

Originally Posted by CSharp

I'm not even sure why some of the old rules in NHL still applies. The two most common examples of goal or no goal rules that really suck are the high stick rule and the kicking the puck into the net rule. Sure, these rules were put in place a long, long, very long time ago for safety reasons, but times have changed. If these rules are removed, there wouldn't be so much controversy and the games would go a lot faster without any contest and without any review. If it's in, it's in.

Because those safety concerns haven't changed. A high stick to the face hurts as much today as it did 100 years ago.

[Macindoc]

Regardless of whether the point of contact was above the net, as analyzed by The Win Column as quoted above, the stick was angled upward in such a way that the point of contact was at the very minimum above Thompson's shoulder, which also results in an automatic stoppage of play, regardless of whether there is a shot on net.

[DiracSpike]

So even the most conservative graphic, not taking into account shrinkage moving the net height profile further away, and the fact that the puck is below the stick in that still shot which means it was after the tip occurred, still clearly show the stick above the crossbar.

Just come out and say you were wrong NHL.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

So even the most conservative graphic, not taking into account shrinkage moving the net height profile further away, and the fact that the puck is below the stick in that still shot which means it was after the tip occurred, still clearly show the stick above the crossbar.

Just come out and say you were wrong NHL.

In what universe will the NHL ever admit they were wrong or unclear? They are infallible, moreso than the NFL.

[Regorium]

I doubt the NHL did the tip top analysis we've done using MS Paint in this thread, much less a thorough analysis like the blog did.

The question is why doesn't the "war room" have these projections, straight line markers and models at every single camera angle pre-programmed so that things like parallax, the tilted cameras and such can be assisted? My imagination of the war room is two old guys staring at one camera angle and making a decision just squinting a bit harder than the refs.

[GirlySports]

why are men debating shrinkage?

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I doubt the NHL did the tip top analysis we've done using MS Paint in this thread, much less a thorough analysis like the blog did.

The question is why doesn't the "war room" have these projections, straight line markers and models at every single camera angle pre-programmed so that things like parallax, the tilted cameras and such can be assisted? My imagination of the war room is two old guys staring at one camera angle and making a decision just squinting a bit harder than the refs.

If anything, the NHL should (if they're not already) be investing into puck sensor technology. It could be used to tell if the puck crosses the line, and at what height a high stick hits the puck. When video proves to be inconclusive (which was the argument here), the puck tracker can verify. Soccer and tennis has the ability to do this, so should hockey, which is a sport that badly need it since stuff happens at split seconds.

[sun]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

https://thewincolumnblog.wordpress.c...hompsons-goal/

Thank you for posting this. I was just messing around in sketchup and this guy presented it much better than I could have. Shows just how close it was.

I think his stick is a touch further from the net than his right skate though. It would help to know where exactly the camera is in relation to the net or what the focal length is. A perfect overhead view would clear up most of the ambiguity.

Also, the boards should ideally be the same height as the cross-bar. Might make it tough for Johnny to hop over, but oh well.

[djsFlames]

They need a couple cameras in place that never move. At each end of each blue line (so 4 locations) have a wide angle camera aimed across the line, and a second facing the net near crossbar height.

Relying on tv camera angles that are tilted and moving, that do not encompass the net and the play is just resulting in outrage because they do a poor job or proving or disproving anything with certainty.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The absolute last thing the league wants is transparency.

Much like Donald Trump's net worth, the NHL's rules vary day-to-day, depending on how they're feeling.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

https://thewincolumnblog.wordpress.c...hompsons-goal/

The NHL needs to hire this guy. But even though the Flames got hosed, I tend to agree this penalty should no longer be called, just like the kicking motion. It's hard enough to score in today's hockey, the league should consider letting players try stuff like this to beat the goalies, so long as they aren't laterally swinging above shoulders and putting faces and heads in jeopardy.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I doubt the NHL did the tip top analysis we've done using MS Paint in this thread, much less a thorough analysis like the blog did.

The question is why doesn't the "war room" have these projections, straight line markers and models at every single camera angle pre-programmed so that things like parallax, the tilted cameras and such can be assisted? My imagination of the war room is two old guys staring at one camera angle and making a decision just squinting a bit harder than the refs.

I think there is only one guy and it also looks like he was busy with something as it took them a few minutes to even get in contact with him. He probably went for a Tim's run and the war room phone was blinking red when he got back.

[ZedMan]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Relying on tv camera angles that are tilted and moving, that do not encompass the net and the play is just resulting in outrage because they do a poor job or proving or disproving anything with certainty.

It can be done, they just need to record pan/tilt/zoom information. FFS it was OVER A DECADE AGO when it was possible to semi-accurately apply a glow and trail to the puck, and we're still doing manual video review?

If I was a salesperson for Hawk-Eye I'd be cold calling the hell out of the NHL right now.