HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Video Review, NFL Pollution?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-02-2011, 11:40 PM
  #1
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Video Review, NFL Pollution?

It has become common to hear announcers state that a video review on a goal must defer to the call on the ice unless there is clear video evidence to overturn the call.

This, of course, is the NFL rule.

However, I cannot find the NHL rule that says this is how the NHL does it. When you look at Rule 38, it says not one word about deferring to on-ice officials.

In fact:

Quote:
38.2 Goals – Every goal is to be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge. (emphasis added)
If each goal is reviewed de novo, then announcers are misinforming viewers when they apply the NFL standard. Toronto looks at each goal, decides if it's a goal or not, and tells the officials. How can Toronto review every goal and say there's deference to an original ruling?

I know it's not the NHL, but remember that goal in the NCAA regionals last year where there was no view of the puck going across the line (Michigan vs. Minnesota-Duluth I think) but video review still overturned the on-ice ruling? If there were no shot of the puck there wouldn't even be a debate, the on-ice ruling would be immediately stand for lack of clear video evidence (NFL rule). That, of course is not what happened, because the video reviewers get to decide, de novo, whether everything is a goal or not without having to defer.

Someone make a persuasive case I'm wrong and I'll listen. By persuasive I don't mean "what you hear everyone, including well-respected analysts, say out loud."

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2011, 11:57 PM
  #2
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 19,099
vCash: 50
I think the NHL had the rule first, as they had review first.

IU Hawks fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 12:11 AM
  #3
Oil Gauge
Registered User
 
Oil Gauge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,502
vCash: 500
Isn't it quite obvious that if the video review is inconclusive that they would revert to the call on the ice? How can they call a goal/call it back by using video review when there is no video evidence that the puck ever crossed the line, or didn't.

If it is inconclusive they can't make a call either way and the call on the ice stands.

Oil Gauge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 12:11 AM
  #4
r0bert8841
Registered User
 
r0bert8841's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 6,434
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to r0bert8841
NFL rule? I am pretty sure that is a rule with any sport using video replay. I mean, if their isn't clear video evidence that the ref is wrong, then why would you overturn the call on the ice.

Video review is not used for officiating the game, it is used to correct certain mistakes made by the officials. If the video can't show the refs made a mistake, nothing will be changed.

r0bert8841 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 01:45 AM
  #5
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
They don't just use it in certain situations. The rule explicitly states that every goal is reviewed. Every goal.

What I hear NHL announcers say all the time is what NFL announcers say, that without clear video evidence, the original call stands. In the NFL, it's very important what the original ruling is, because then you need conclusive video evidence to change that ruling. No conclusive video evidence, the call on the field stands even if the video makes it probable the call was wrong.

Avs announcers did it tonight, they emphasized, "now the original ruling was a good goal..." as if that were significant in any way to the review process. Have heard Darren Pang say this a few times on Blues broadcasts. I know I've heard other analysts refer to it while they're explaining to fans what's going on with the review. If it's true there should be something codified. It's not just a "common sense" thing.

Here's why. Take the following scenario. Referee calls something a goal. The cameras do not show conclusively whether it did not go over the line because the overhead is partially obstructed (perhaps goalie's pads cover the puck). It goes to review. Toronto then says its best judgment – without conclusive video one way or another – is no goal (using video plus best available inference). That becomes the ruling.

Another example, a goal may or may not be scored with the puck not flat on the ice. It's spinning and angled. It's difficult to tell 100% from multiple unobstructed video angles whether a puck was totally over the line. One shot makes it look in, another makes it look like not all of the puck crossed. Toronto doesn't say, "Because there's no clear view, we are required by rule that the on-ice official's call stands." No, even though that's how they do it in the NFL. Instead, Toronto makes its best judgment. If it looks like it's 60%-40% that it's a goal, that wouldn't be "conclusive," but it would be enough for Toronto to decide. And it doesn't matter if the original ref call was on the 40% side or the 60% side. There's no deference.

The point is, that if this is possible, then it is false to say that the call on the ice must stand w/o clear video evidence. When you look at the rulebook, there's also nothing there. It's the kind of thing that would be codified if it had to be followed as a standard. Not codified = not the standard.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 01:46 AM
  #6
Sakic
Extra B is for BYOBB
 
Sakic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,577
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Sakic Send a message via Yahoo to Sakic
I think its stupid that they trust the ref on the ice at all, if it's going to video review that means the video judge should score it, not the ref on the ice, cause he's most likely guessing at the time or it wouldn't be getting reviewed.

I think its silly how we don't have enough angles and technology to be certain whether or not its a goal each and every time.

Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:00 AM
  #7
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
It has become common to hear announcers state that a video review on a goal must defer to the call on the ice unless there is clear video evidence to overturn the call.

This, of course, is the NFL rule.

However, I cannot find the NHL rule that says this is how the NHL does it. When you look at Rule 38, it says not one word about deferring to on-ice officials.

In fact:



If each goal is reviewed de novo, then announcers are misinforming viewers when they apply the NFL standard. Toronto looks at each goal, decides if it's a goal or not, and tells the officials. How can Toronto review every goal and say there's deference to an original ruling?

I know it's not the NHL, but remember that goal in the NCAA regionals last year where there was no view of the puck going across the line (Michigan vs. Minnesota-Duluth I think) but video review still overturned the on-ice ruling? If there were no shot of the puck there wouldn't even be a debate, the on-ice ruling would be immediately stand for lack of clear video evidence (NFL rule). That, of course is not what happened, because the video reviewers get to decide, de novo, whether everything is a goal or not without having to defer.

Someone make a persuasive case I'm wrong and I'll listen. By persuasive I don't mean "what you hear everyone, including well-respected analysts, say out loud."
The video goal judge isn't in Toronto - he sits up high in a secluded booth IN the arena where he can see the goals. It only goes to Toronto if it's a questionable goal.

And all you had to do was read a little but further in what you quoted.

Quote:
38.2 Goals – Every goal is to be reviewed by the Video Goal Judge.

Upon making contact with the off-ice official at ice level, the Video Goal Judge should say initially that he is “looking at the play”. If there is a need to delay the resumption of the play, the off-ice official at ice level should signal one of the Referees to delay the center ice face-off for a moment. Once the Video Goal Judge has reviewed the video and confirmed that the goal is valid, he should say that “it is a good goal”. The off-ice official will then signal to the Referee to resume play.

If there is a need to expand the review, the Video Goal Judge will advise the off-ice official at ice level and the Public Address Announcer that the “play is under review”. Once the play has been reviewed and deemed a goal, the goal will be announced in the normal manner. If the review reveals that the goal must be disallowed, the Public Address Announcer shall announce the reason for the disallowed goal as reported by the Referee.
If there is nothing in the review to overturn the call, it stands - the part where it says "review reveals the goal must be disallowed"? If there's nothing to disallow the goal it stands. If there is something to show it was clearly a goal it is. It's only reversed one way or the other if there's evidence to do so. Not sure how that isn't clear.


Last edited by Ducks DVM: 12-03-2011 at 02:08 AM.
Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:31 AM
  #8
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM View Post
The video goal judge isn't in Toronto - he sits up high in a secluded booth IN the arena where he can see the goals. It only goes to Toronto if it's a questionable goal.

And all you had to do was read a little but further in what you quoted.



If there is nothing in the review to overturn the call, it stands - the part where it says "review reveals the goal must be disallowed"? If there's nothing to disallow the goal it stands. If there is something to show it was clearly a goal it is. It's only reversed one way or the other if there's evidence to do so. Not sure how that isn't clear.
Your bolded part refers to what the PA announcer says to the crowd. It says nothing about deference that must accrue to the on-ice official. As for your claim that if there's nothing to disallow the goal it stands, it would say that if that's what it meant. All this is saying is if, after review, it's a goal, here's what the PA announcer says. If it's not a goal, the PA announcer says this other thing. It says nothing about how the review is undertaken. Not sure how that isn't clear.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2011, 02:52 AM
  #9
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Your bolded part refers to what the PA announcer says to the crowd. It says nothing about deference that must accrue to the on-ice official. As for your claim that if there's nothing to disallow the goal it stands, it would say that if that's what it meant. All this is saying is if, after review, it's a goal, here's what the PA announcer says. If it's not a goal, the PA announcer says this other thing. It says nothing about how the review is undertaken. Not sure how that isn't clear.
A call is made on the ice. The Goal judge then determines if the puck crosses the line. If it clearly doesn't it's no goal. If it does, he checks to see if the other criterion CLEARLY apply. Here they are.

Quote:
38.4 Situations Subject to Video Review - The following situations are subject to review by the Video Goal Judge:

(i) Puck crossing the goal line.

(ii) Puck in the net prior to the goal frame being dislodged.

(iii) Puck in the net prior to, or after expiration of time at the end of the period.

(iv) Puck directed or batted into the net by a hand or foot. With the use of a foot/skate, was a distinct kicking motion evident? If so, the apparent goal must be disallowed. A DISTINCT KICKING MOTION is one which, with a pendulum motion, the player propels the puck with his skate into the net. If the Video Goal Judge determines that it was put into the net by an attacking player using a distinct kicking motion, it must be ruled NO GOAL. This would also be true even if the puck, after being kicked, deflects off any other player of either team and then into the net. This is still NO GOAL. See also 49.2.

(v) Puck deflected directly into the net off an Official.

(vi) Puck struck with a high-stick, above the height of the crossbar, by an attacking player prior to entering the goal. The determining factor is where the puck makes contact with the stick. If the puck makes contact with the stick below the level of the crossbar and enters the goal, this goal shall be allowed.

(vii) To establish the correct time on the official game clock, provided the game time is visible on the Video Goal Judge’s monitors.

(viii) The video review process shall be permitted to assist the referees in determining the legitimacy of all potential goals (e.g. to ensure they are “good hockey goals”). For example (but not limited to), pucks that enter the net by going through the net meshing, pucks that enter the net from underneath the net frame, pucks that enter the net undetected by the referee, etc.
If none of these things occur, or if the video is inconclusive, these criterion to disallow a goal are not met, and the ruling of the on-ice officials stands. Are you saying you've seen a rash of goals where it was called a goal and the review didn't show it cross the line and they still called it a goal?

Ducks DVM is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.