HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Pretty decent proof of no goal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2007, 09:11 PM
  #26
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladmyir111 View Post
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.
To say the front picture shows his pad is right on the line a huge stretch. If any if this was actually true, it would essentially be proving that no part of the puck was ever behind the line, which is obviously untrue.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:13 PM
  #27
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,835
vCash: 500
Ok, I'll try again. The frontal picture, the puck is on his pad, or AT LEAST 1/2 in or closer (You can't even see it in the overhead), ABOVE the bend at the ankle. This is in the frame JUST BEFORE the forward movement of Lundqvist's leg. Now, look at the overhead, the bend in the ankle (which the puck is ABOVE) is on the goal line, about midway passed the goal line. Both these pictures share the same frame, as one is the blown up version as the other, and the correlation of the 3 sticks (Henke, Briere, and the Ranger D-man) is exactly the same. I'm convinced now that it's not a goal. I wasn't sure at first, but man, I just figured it out.

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:15 PM
  #28
Nich
Registered User
 
Nich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Long Beach, NY
Country: Croatia
Posts: 6,879
vCash: 500
the more i think about it, the more i think no goal

so in other words, the over head where you see it on the line, that's as far as it got

Nich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:16 PM
  #29
MLH
Registered User
 
MLH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
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.
I do understand this and I'm not trying to say that the blog shows that it's definitively a goal, but I've seen numerous Ranger fans that seem to be totally ignoring the effect of the camera's obvious angle.

This problem isn't new for me, I've always hated the fact that the NHL's standard for a goal requires white ice visible from an inherently flawed angle when in reality, good goals can be scored without it. The technology needs to change.

MLH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:16 PM
  #30
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 822
Yea that was the problem of this post. It needs actual figuring out on the part of the reader. I apologize I couldn't post it myself and make it more of a 1+1=2 deal

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:17 PM
  #31
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,313
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
To say the front picture shows his pad is right on the line a huge stretch. If any if this was actually true, it would essentially be proving that no part of the puck was ever behind the line, which is obviously untrue.
I think he means that the pad was flush to the ice (and the line), and not that the pad was parallel to the line. At least, that's what I'd assume, as I can't really imagine anyone could reasonably argue that the pad was parallel to the line.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:25 PM
  #32
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
I didn't think it was a goal before, and now I'm really starting to think it was no goal.

We shouldn't feel guilty about this, we won the game and we deserved to win the game. Infact, we deserve to be up 3-1 right now.

Balej20* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:27 PM
  #33
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I think he means that the pad was flush to the ice (and the line), and not that the pad was parallel to the line. At least, that's what I'd assume, as I can't really imagine anyone could reasonably argue that the pad was parallel to the line.
Yea basically, mostly what I meant to say is there's not enough white between the line and the pad to realistically fit a puck.

But overall I think this more then anything proves the right call was made since not only is there no proof of it being over the line, but now you can't even "assume" it went over.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:31 PM
  #34
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,854
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.
Well it depends on the angle. From that height there'd have to be a very large angle to make that much of a difference. If you look there's maybe a foot between the Crossbar and the Goal Line, so from that altitude I can't see the camera being angled more than a few degrees from 90.

Therefore the amount that the puck would be altered from it's actual location on the ice is almost none. When you do your little experiments, you're looking at it from a much greater angle.

I was standing over a puck that was about 2 feet below me and I put it about a cm from a piece of paper and I had to move back about half a foot before the puck was covering a part of the paper. If you compare it to when I'm standing up, I have to move about a foot before the puck finally just nips the paper and that's with about a cm of space.

So from a height of probably a hundred feet or more, the movement of the camera about 1 ft back makes almost no difference.

If you look at that picture on that site that all the sabres fans are posting, that's more than a 30 difference in the angle, of course it looks like it's moved greatly. If you stand above a puck from about the height of that picture is taken and move back until you can clearly see the whole side of the puck like in that picture. That's much much more than the angle that the overhead camera says. They say a similar angle, but it's really not. When you add the height the angle becomes much shallower. However, the overhead camera is maybe 5 at most removed from the real overhead position.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 09:33 PM
  #35
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,313
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRChazzer View Post
Well it depends on the angle. From that height there'd have to be a very large angle to make that much of a difference. If you look there's maybe a foot between the Crossbar and the Goal Line, so from that altitude I can't see the camera being angled more than a few degrees from 90.

Therefore the amount that the puck would be altered from it's actual location on the ice is almost none. When you do your little experiments, you're looking at it from a much greater angle.

I was standing over a puck that was about 2 feet below me and I put it about a cm from a piece of paper and I had to move back about half a foot before the puck was covering a part of the paper. If you compare it to when I'm standing up, I have to move about a foot before the puck finally just nips the paper and that's with about a cm of space.

So from a height of probably a hundred feet or more, the movement of the camera about 1 ft back makes almost no difference.

If you look at that picture on that site that all the sabres fans are posting, that's more than a 30 difference in the angle, of course it looks like it's moved greatly. If you stand above a puck from about the height of that picture is taken and move back until you can clearly see the whole side of the puck like in that picture. That's much much more than the angle that the overhead camera says. They say a similar angle, but it's really not. When you add the height the angle becomes much shallower. However, the overhead camera is maybe 5 at most removed from the real overhead position.
That's what I was arguing, without actually spelling out the entire argument. Nice work there man.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 10:37 PM
  #36
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLH View Post
I do understand this and I'm not trying to say that the blog shows that it's definitively a goal, but I've seen numerous Ranger fans that seem to be totally ignoring the effect of the camera's obvious angle.

This problem isn't new for me, I've always hated the fact that the NHL's standard for a goal requires white ice visible from an inherently flawed angle when in reality, good goals can be scored without it. The technology needs to change.
I agree with you about the camera angle. The further the camera is behind the goal line, and the lower it is to the ice, the more the view is skewed. A puck could theoretically be over the line, but with no "white" visible between it and the goal line.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:10 PM
  #37
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
I guess I'm thinking out loud so forgive me it I'm just repeating and correct me if I'm wrong.

The pictures are all at the same moment in time (as close as possible at least). The moment captured is when the puck is ever so barely on the line... the border of goal and no goal. However, the Front view shows that the puck is on Lundqvist's pad at this moment. Since his pad is moving forward an assumption might be made that it is impossible for the puck to proceed any further towards the net.

Therefore, the overhead view shows the deepest the puck penetrated which is the edge of the goal line because we know the puck was on Henrik's leg at this moment.

The 2nd picture/front view is one of the coolest pictures I have seen of an in-game moment. I want it on my wall.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 02:14 AM
  #38
dire wolf
be cool
 
dire wolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cali
Country: United States
Posts: 3,957
vCash: 500
I'm not interested in argument, because I think the refs made the call they had to make based on the rules and the available camera angles (which are surprisingly lame), but you guys are ignoring a couple of important facts in your little science experiment:

First, even if the photos are almost synchronized, it is remarkably unlikely that they are exactly synchronous. Even if they are off by a small fraction of a second, your whole premise is completely flawed.

Second, because photos are 2-D (and the front view is not razor sharp and is taken from somewhat far away to begin with), I don't see how you can say that Lundy's pad is exactly on the line at the point where the puck is. His pads are on an angle and it is impossible to gauge where the pads are in relation to the line.

Third (this is a combination of points 1 and 2): if the front view was snapped a fraction of a second later than you claim and his pad was moving forward, then the picture wouldn't have capture the instant where the puck was over the line.

Anyway, water under the bridge. See y'all on Friday.

dire wolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 03:31 AM
  #39
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,042
vCash: 500
great post, im going to try to do a writeup on this tomorrow.

well spotted.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 05:29 AM
  #40
MrAlfie
 
MrAlfie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Rehab
Country: Spain
Posts: 5,249
vCash: 500
man wheres the nasa when you need it?

MrAlfie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 05:48 AM
  #41
vladmyir111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,860
vCash: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by dire wolf View Post
I'm not interested in argument, because I think the refs made the call they had to make based on the rules and the available camera angles (which are surprisingly lame), but you guys are ignoring a couple of important facts in your little science experiment:

First, even if the photos are almost synchronized, it is remarkably unlikely that they are exactly synchronous. Even if they are off by a small fraction of a second, your whole premise is completely flawed.

Second, because photos are 2-D (and the front view is not razor sharp and is taken from somewhat far away to begin with), I don't see how you can say that Lundy's pad is exactly on the line at the point where the puck is. His pads are on an angle and it is impossible to gauge where the pads are in relation to the line.

Third (this is a combination of points 1 and 2): if the front view was snapped a fraction of a second later than you claim and his pad was moving forward, then the picture wouldn't have capture the instant where the puck was over the line.

Anyway, water under the bridge. See y'all on Friday.
A fraction of a second later would not place all 3 sticks in the same locations in all the pictures seeing is how they were moving very fast as well. But like I said it's not 100%, but it's a lot more proof of a no goal then a goal.

vladmyir111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 07:26 AM
  #42
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,811
vCash: 500
One thing that has been in my head is the fact that the puck was flat in the overhead but on edge in the front view. This means several things for both arguments however. True the puck is on edge and off the ice in the front view, but that has to be a result of Lundqvist making the save. What I am wondering is if the puck was flat on the ice prior to the save which would render the angle of the camera and perspective argument moot. If it is on the ice, the puck was on the goal line and not merely obscuring it due to video angle.

But if the puck was on edge, there is a possiblity that Henrik stopped the puck while it was on the goal line but it may have come off that line and entered completely into the net when it went on edge and became "smaller". I am confident that Henrik stopped the puck on the line and didn't allow enough space for a puck's diameter but what I'm not sure of is if he was able to eliminate enough space for a puck's height when it went on edge.

This is all conjecture until someone can produce a photo or video of the shot from a frontal view that was taken prior to the save to deteremine where the puck was in relation to the ice surface. This thread is evidence enough that without something akin to the Warren Commission this video is inconclusive, which an overwhelming majority of Sabre fans acknowledge. Once again I'll say that I hope the remainder of the series will not have to rely on videos or judgements to determine the winner.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:08 AM
  #43
bcrt2000
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,495
vCash: 500
Okay, I think I've placed where the puck actually is when everyone thinks it disappears. I bet if we had HD cams it would be easier to see:






Frame 2 seems to correspond with this image:


The puck goes vertical for that split second so thats why its hard to see. Theres no way for the puck to go behind the line and then go to where it is in Frame 3 based on the speed it was going. The puck already has contacted the hook of the pad in Frame 1, and it bounces off the main part of the pad in Frame 2.

bcrt2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:11 AM
  #44
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,111
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mugerya View Post
One thing that has been in my head is the fact that the puck was flat in the overhead but on edge in the front view. This means several things for both arguments however. True the puck is on edge and off the ice in the front view, but that has to be a result of Lundqvist making the save. What I am wondering is if the puck was flat on the ice prior to the save which would render the angle of the camera and perspective argument moot. If it is on the ice, the puck was on the goal line and not merely obscuring it due to video angle.
My best guess is that the front shot is of the same moment when everyone was originally saying "omg, it's in cuz it's under his pad!!"

We see one shot of the puck still laying flat and almost over the line, but still on the line. In the next frame, it appears to be gone, and everyone assumed it was under Lundqvist's pad (or at least obscured by the angle of his pad) and in the net.

Instead, I think the puck is actually bouncing on his pad in that next frame and it's basically the same frame as the front shot, which looks like it's not in.

Again, this is nothing definitive, but it seems like in any case, there was an extremely small window for that puck to be all the way over the line. Which makes it an extremely difficult call.

edit: bcrt2000 just graphically illustrated what I was trying to say, and basically did what I was thinking of doing. It's some guesswork as to whether one black blob is the puck or part of a pad, but if you watch the videos carefully and note how the puck come out, it seems about right.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:14 AM
  #45
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,486
vCash: 500
The only thing that is clear...

is that the puck is under Lundqvist's pad prior to crossing the line. Further, Lundqvist's pad is moving forward at the same time. One doesn't know, however, when the puck got caught in the pad's sweeping motion and thus we will never know if the puck slipped under the pad and over the line. I don't think hi-res cameras would be able to determine that either because I do believe it would still be obstructed by the pad. My guess would be that it crossed the line. That's just a guess and there is a decent chance it did not.

It would've been tough to call that a goal from the on-ice official, and the video; much tougher than calling it a non-goal, I believe.

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:21 AM
  #46
Sad London Ranger
RIP Boogie
 
Sad London Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: london england
Posts: 2,455
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Sad London Ranger
ok - I want the Rangers to win and I am happy the goal wasn't given but I must admit that I feel this was a goal. From the perspective of the camera you see the goal line in line with the top of the keeper's pad. the Bottom of the Lundy's pad was probably much further inside the goal then the top of the pad.

The puck was stopped by the bottom of the pad nearest to the ice which was probably why the puck was inside the line. especially since the puck, as we can see from the photograph above went vertical ie flat. The chance of the entire puck having crossed the line is increased 3 or 4 times.

it looks like whe shall never have the footage to prove it conclusively - but common sense basically dictates the obvious.

Let's go Rangers. it's the advantage we needed and that could be decisive.


Last edited by Sad London Ranger: 05-03-2007 at 08:30 AM.
Sad London Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:36 AM
  #47
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 14,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
The only thing that is clear... is that the puck is under Lundqvist's pad prior to crossing the line
I truly think people don't even read the thread.
You can clearly see that the puck DID NOT go under Lundqvist's pad. That it hit his pad in the now famed puck on the line picture, then it bounced up. His pad was moving forward at the time, so it hit his pad and bounced out. Everyone could see that the puck was not under Lundqvist's pad when the play ended, instead it had bounced out and was in the front of the crease.

Also as pointed out by bcrt2000 you can see that the puck had moved up in the replay and then came out. I think it's now becoming more and more conclusive that the puck never had crossed the line.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:46 AM
  #48
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,111
vCash: 500
I don't think we should be going around claiming conclusive proof of anything...while it does kind of make me shake my head when people say "everyone knows it's in, physics demands it!" like they're all physicists, I don't think we should start claiming "it's definitely not in, look at these grainy pictures, complete with some guesswork on where the puck is and missing frames!"

Whatever it is, it's close. Though I don't think the puck going up on edge necessarily means it was it was any closer to being a goal. I don't think it went up on edge until it hit the pad, and therefor, when it was already coming back out.

The real question is whether it fully crossed the line before hitting Lundqvist's pad.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:46 AM
  #49
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrt2000 View Post
Okay, I think I've placed where the puck actually is when everyone thinks it disappears. I bet if we had HD cams it would be easier to see:






Frame 2 seems to correspond with this image:


The puck goes vertical for that split second so thats why its hard to see. Theres no way for the puck to go behind the line and then go to where it is in Frame 3 based on the speed it was going. The puck already has contacted the hook of the pad in Frame 1, and it bounces off the main part of the pad in Frame 2.
I think you nailed it there. Seems it was no goal.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2007, 08:49 AM
  #50
Jackson Ranger
Registered User
 
Jackson Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,480
vCash: 500
With all of the work being done on this goal/non goal, I was wondering if any of you could help me with a tape I have from Texas, the Zapruder tape. It was "shot" in 1963 and I have a few questions for you.

Seriously, I had my doubts it went in the night of the game and I think the proof and arguments from vladmyir have some validity as well as the comments made by dire wolf. I think it all boils down to their is absolutely NO, 100% proof of a goal or not a goal and the decision on the ice stands.

This is a three game series and hopefully there won't be anymore controversial calls in these games to spoil what has been a very good series to this point. But then again, this in the NHL!

Jackson Ranger 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 03:51 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.