HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Pretty decent proof of no goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2007, 08:22 PM
  #1
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
Pretty decent proof of no goal

I made up a little montage of 3 different angles of the play all at the same moment. Also pointing out several key spots all correlating in each picture (hence how you can tell its the same frame). unfortunatlly I cannot post pictures. If anyone cares enough they can PM me their email and I'll send it to whoever for posting.

Everyone has seen the vid and pics, but certain frames put side by side make it pretty close to no goal, just as close to people calling it a goal all last night and today.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:35 PM
  #2
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
emailed them to Nich, no reason to lock before he posts, its pretty decent and hasnt been posted yet in the other threads.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:37 PM
  #3
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
per Vlad


Basically you can tell its all the same moment (or within milliseconds)
because the angle of Briere's stick, Lundqvists stick, and most importantly
Rangers D-man's hook on Briere's hands are all in the same place in all 3
shots.

The key thing is this shot is the frame on VS that is right before the puck
disappears and everyone says its in the next frame. The reason this cannot
be true is that after before and after this frame the pad is already moving
forward. And it is clear as day in the front picture that theres no room
for the puck to go in the next frame whatsoever. Oh and in video

Oh and in video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17Nxa...elated&search=
can see the flash with which the front picture was taken at the exact moment
as the frame in question.

100%? nah, but a good 99 I'd say.

can quote that in post if you want.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg nogoal1.JPG‎ (25.8 KB, 483 views)
File Type: jpg nogoal2.JPG‎ (84.8 KB, 456 views)
File Type: jpg nogoal3.JPG‎ (50.2 KB, 487 views)

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:38 PM
  #4
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
i do have to say, i can see your point....

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:42 PM
  #5
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
may not be 1000%, but sure as hell just as convincing as the argument that its a goal.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:42 PM
  #6
ExiledRangersFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 111
vCash: 500
Interesting stuff. I hate youtube comments though....

ExiledRangersFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:48 PM
  #7
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,292
vCash: 500
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:49 PM
  #8
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 12,932
vCash: 500
Two things that will totally be lost in this whole debate.

1. Even though Hank was behind the net having a sandwich, that was a SICK SICK SAVE.

2. He made another HUGE stop right after the no goal, as he was getting back to his knees.

HockeyBasedNYC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:49 PM
  #9
jgrangers2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.
You realize that the camera isn't directly overhead, right?

jgrangers2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:50 PM
  #10
Finest
Puck Fittsburg
 
Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgrangers2 View Post
You realize that the camera isn't directly overhead, right?
I was thinking the same thing.

Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:53 PM
  #11
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
maybe he doesn't realize that if it was you wouldn't see the goal line?

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:54 PM
  #12
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,843
vCash: 500
Interesting indeed. All three shots seem to be in the exact same frame. And what I see is this:

Frame just before Henke's leg starts to move forward: Puck on pad, STILL ON THE LINE. Puck is in the air. The frame AFTER the one shown, his leg is already moving forward. I don't know, this tells me it was in fact not a goal, but I don't think we can ever be sure.

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:55 PM
  #13
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.
How so? It's the camera angle, not the cage. I'm sure reviews up in Buffalo are the same.

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:55 PM
  #14
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
The overhead camera is not even with the crossbar in every stadium. More then anything the position of the hook on Briere and his stick being parallel with the goal line pretty much synchronizes the front and top view, and since you can see on the vid the pad is only moving forward after that point....well it's a pretty strong argument for no goal.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:55 PM
  #15
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRSinceBirth View Post
Interesting indeed. All three shots seem to be in the exact same frame. And what I see is this:

Frame just before Henke's leg starts to move forward: Puck on pad, STILL ON THE LINE. Puck is in the air. The frame AFTER the one shown, his leg is already moving forward. I don't know, this tells me it was in fact not a goal, but I don't think we can ever be sure.
actually we can....

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:56 PM
  #16
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgrangers2 View Post
You realize that the camera isn't directly overhead, right?
Yeah, that's my point. If you place a puck just barely over the goal line and look at it from that camera angle, it will appear that it's touching the line. This is not close to conclusive. The puck was in, but the right call was made.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:56 PM
  #17
John Torturella
Registered User
 
John Torturella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.
You really outsmarted us!

John Torturella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:58 PM
  #18
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
Yeah, that's my point. If you place a puck just barely over the goal line and look at it from that camera angle, it will appear that it's touching the line. This is not close to conclusive. The puck was in, but the right call was made.
wrong. the puck does not matter in this case because you can see where the top and bottom of his pad is on the front view. and there's clearly no room for a puck there to be over. and since the pad doesn't move back after that point I'm not exactly sure where you think the puck went.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:59 PM
  #19
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
Yeah, that's my point. If you place a puck just barely over the goal line and look at it from that camera angle, it will appear that it's touching the line. This is not close to conclusive. The puck was in, but the right call was made.
The camera's angle (Which is the same in all arenas, even yours, so we aren't the only ones that need a fix ) is towards the front. Allowing a view of white ice around the crossbar, but still not distorting said view. Think of it this way, one frame the puck is on the line and on Henke's pad, the VERY NEXT frame, the pad is moving forward. I'm not sold on a goal yet. But I still dislike the rule.

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 08:59 PM
  #20
clmetsfan
Registered User
 
clmetsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 3,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
That's also conclusive proof that the crossbar isn't lined up with the goal line. You guys should get that fixed.


That one literally made me laugh out loud.

clmetsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:04 PM
  #21
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRSinceBirth View Post
The camera's angle (Which is the same in all arenas, even yours, so we aren't the only ones that need a fix ) is towards the front. Allowing a view of white ice around the crossbar, but still not distorting said view. Think of it this way, one frame the puck is on the line and on Henke's pad, the VERY NEXT frame, the pad is moving forward. I'm not sold on a goal yet. But I still dislike the rule.
My post was sarcastic. I don't actually think the crossbar isn't lined up or that it needs to be fixed. The point is, because of the angle, pucks that are just over the line over the line appear to be touching it.

The concept is found in this Caps fan's blog here. I'm not saying the example he uses is the exact angle or distance, but the fact is pucks that are actually in the net don't always create white ice on the overhead.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:05 PM
  #22
ThirdEye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 11,666
vCash: 500
Can someone post the pics without attaching them. I can't uh... see them for some mysterious reason

ThirdEye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:06 PM
  #23
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wantagh
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,895
vCash: 500
oh we get you. but at the same time, you have to admit he makes a decent point

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:07 PM
  #24
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
My post was sarcastic. I don't actually think the crossbar isn't lined up or that it needs to be fixed. The point is, because of the angle, pucks that are just over the line over the line appear to be touching it.

The concept is found in this Caps fan's blog here. I'm not saying the example he uses is the exact angle or distance, but the fact is pucks that are actually in the net don't always create white ice on the overhead.
You seem to be completely ignoring the fact that this post has nothing to do with the overhead angle, but with the time synchronization of the frontal picture which pretty clearly shows Lundqvists pad right on the line leaving no room for a puck to cross.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:09 PM
  #25
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 23,389
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
Yeah, that's my point. If you place a puck just barely over the goal line and look at it from that camera angle, it will appear that it's touching the line. This is not close to conclusive. The puck was in, but the right call was made.
Again, parallax is much more complicated than you and the Caps fan who posted the pics of the ruler and puck make it out to be. If the Trying to emulate the parallax caused by the camera's placement at MSG is pointless if you're just going to use a camera held 2 feet from a desk with a puck and ruler on it. Changing the angle of the camera even a fraction of an inch, coupled with changing the distance that the camera is held from the object, will give you a completely different view.

My point is that while parallax is obviously present in the freeze-frame shots over the goal, the degree to which it is present is unknown. Without creating an exact replica of the placement of goal, puck, pad and camera you won't be able to conclusively say whether the puck crossed the line. Your post indicates to me you understand this, so I'm not sure why you continue to mention it. It doesn't add anything to the argument one way or the other.

I can't wait for Game 5, so all of this nonsense can cease.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   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 01:36 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.