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

Just a thought on video review

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-02-2007, 11:23 AM
  #1
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Just a thought on video review

Is it possible goalies, who know there are cameras watching their every move, are doing what they can to make video calls inconclusive by moving in such a way to add a certain amount of doubt? It seems like it would take a lot of reflexes to stop the puck and position yourself so that a video replay is ambiguous. But who knows. Everyone tries to fight for an advantage.

Maybe they should bring back the pucks that they used when Fox was showing the games and only use the light feature when reviewing necessitates it. It might help when there are player(s) and pads are on top of the puck.

Just a thought, not looking to get flamed here and I’m not accusing anyone of anything - just thought this warrants discussion. In the end I think we all want the correct call - not a weak subjective call when punching or kicking the puck comes in to play.

zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:29 AM
  #2
NYRSinceBirth
Registered User
 
NYRSinceBirth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 2,847
vCash: 500
Bring back the fire puck? No. And I doubt that goalies are more worried about blocking a camera than making a save. But something definitely needs to be done technology wise to fix the review crap.

NYRSinceBirth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:31 AM
  #3
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,623
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zestystrat View Post
Is it possible goalies, who know there are cameras watching their every move, are doing what they can to make video calls inconclusive by moving in such a way to add a certain amount of doubt? It seems like it would take a lot of reflexes to stop the puck and position yourself so that a video replay is ambiguous. But who knows. Everyone tries to fight for an advantage.

Maybe they should bring back the pucks that they used when Fox was showing the games and only use the light feature when reviewing necessitates it. It might help when there are player(s) and pads are on top of the puck.

Just a thought, not looking to get flamed here and I’m not accusing anyone of anything - just thought this warrants discussion. In the end I think we all want the correct call - not a weak subjective call when punching or kicking the puck comes in to play.
I doubt that positioning themselves in a manner to hinder the cameras even crosses the mind of a keeper. They're trying to stop the puck, plain and simple- doing so makes cameras irrelevant. Also, netminders are so dependent on reflexes, there's not a whole lot of planning that goes into many saves.

I don't know that the puck glow would have helped. We would have seen a blue/red blur underneath Henrik's pad, but it won't show us conclusively where the puck is unless it is limited to the exact size and dimensions of the puck itself (as opposed to a surrounding glow).

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:33 AM
  #4
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRSinceBirth View Post
Bring back the fire puck? No. And I doubt that goalies are more worried about blocking a camera than making a save. But something definitely needs to be done technology wise to fix the review crap.
Hey I know it wasn't the NHL's finest moment but that technology is available yesterday and if you only use it in the video review arena, it doesn't offend me at all.

And I did say that I find it hard to beleive it's possible to "to stop the puck and position yourself so that a video replay is ambiguous" so I do somewhat agree that it's might be a bit far fetched.

But you never know...

Also if you were to add something like the first down line in the NFL across the goal line, combined with an accurate representation of the puck that is lit up, it would help.


Last edited by zestystrat: 05-02-2007 at 11:40 AM.
zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:49 AM
  #5
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
If a goalie is worrying about this position...

of the cameras, then he's going to be letting in many more goals. Consider last night, Lundqvist had zero time to think about how he's going to make the stop let alone how to obstruct a camera

Fletch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 11:52 AM
  #6
Kodiak
Registered User
 
Kodiak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ranger fan in Philly
Posts: 2,185
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Kodiak Send a message via AIM to Kodiak Send a message via Yahoo to Kodiak
Quote:
Originally Posted by zestystrat View Post
Is it possible goalies, who know there are cameras watching their every move, are doing what they can to make video calls inconclusive by moving in such a way to add a certain amount of doubt? It seems like it would take a lot of reflexes to stop the puck and position yourself so that a video replay is ambiguous. But who knows. Everyone tries to fight for an advantage.

Maybe they should bring back the pucks that they used when Fox was showing the games and only use the light feature when reviewing necessitates it. It might help when there are player(s) and pads are on top of the puck.

Just a thought, not looking to get flamed here and Iím not accusing anyone of anything - just thought this warrants discussion. In the end I think we all want the correct call - not a weak subjective call when punching or kicking the puck comes in to play.
These types of plays tend to happen way too fast for goalies to worry about where the cameras are. If you could get inside Lundqvist's head on that play last night, it would probably be something like this: "****! ****! No! Stop!" or the Swedish equivalent.

Kodiak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:06 PM
  #7
NJRanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
what they need to do is have some sort of sensor on the puck or the goal line so when the puck crosses the goal line the red light would light up automatically.this would get rid of that guy in the cage behind the glass as well.

NJRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 12:10 PM
  #8
007
You 'Orns!
 
007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Mannahatta
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to 007 Send a message via MSN to 007
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRanger View Post
what they need to do is have some sort of sensor on the puck or the goal line so when the puck crosses the goal line the red light would light up automatically.this would get rid of that guy in the cage behind the glass as well.
I'm actually a bit surprised they haven't done this already. They have the technology: Fox's old 'glowing puck' might be useful for something afterall.

007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:09 PM
  #9
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
anyone who's played hockey.. specifically goaltender knows the answer to this...... heck any continuous sport..

in the hall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:14 PM
  #10
rickyrod
Registered User
 
rickyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zestystrat View Post
Hey I know it wasn't the NHL's finest moment but that technology is available yesterday and if you only use it in the video review arena, it doesn't offend me at all.
I'm more worried that anything you put inside of the puck changes how it reacts. Just like how no one liked the new football during the world cup because it reacted differently (due to no stitching, I think).

Human error is part of the game. Every game.

rickyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:29 PM
  #11
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRanger View Post
what they need to do is have some sort of sensor on the puck or the goal line so when the puck crosses the goal line the red light would light up automatically.this would get rid of that guy in the cage behind the glass as well.
Agreed.

I also don't think the reason they got rid of the Fox puck was b/c it reacted differently, but b/c most didn't like the idea.

zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:33 PM
  #12
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,266
vCash: 500
I don't understand why they can't just install a camera on the backside of every crossbar aimed directly down at the goal line. This would provide the proper angle to review the play and would work better than the cameras that are above and behind the goal.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:36 PM
  #13
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,158
vCash: 500
You'd think with all the technology out there they would find a way to mount small cameras inside the crossbar and posts covered by a protective material, while not compromising the shape and rebound of the puck from a shot.

Two of the biggest things i always mention when they have these "puck over the line?" calls is the angle of the "overhead" camera (it isnt directly overhead cause the crossbar blocks the view) and the simple fact that when you are determining this call you are looking for white space in between the puck and the line. You are looking through a net that is white and one thread might make it look like a white space where the puck is crossing the goal line.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:37 PM
  #14
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
I don't understand why they can't just install a camera on the backside of every crossbar aimed directly down at the goal line. This would provide the proper angle to review the play and would work better than the cameras that are above and behind the goal.
I always say that but think about if the puck hits that area?

Whats the effect? Different carom? Not true to the rest of the iron? No Ping? That would suck.

What we i was saying would be directly under the crossbar, but it still can be hit from in close.

What you are sayign makes more sense. The BACK of the crossbar under the net.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:40 PM
  #15
NYR fan 2
Registered User
 
NYR fan 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,806
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR fan 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
I don't understand why they can't just install a camera on the backside of every crossbar aimed directly down at the goal line. This would provide the proper angle to review the play and would work better than the cameras that are above and behind the goal.
Yeah I was talking to my friend today and we came up with that idea. Have one on the inside of the crossbar than on one or both sides of the post, right above where the pegs would go. Then they can run the wire through the posts and connect to the camera thats already in the back of the net. I think this would work best but who knows how much it would cost..

NYR fan 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:42 PM
  #16
NJRanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
am i the only that hated that glowing puck from fox

NJRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:43 PM
  #17
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,623
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRanger View Post
am i the only that hated that glowing puck from fox
No, I think everyone did.

nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:45 PM
  #18
HockeyBasedNYC
Registered User
 
HockeyBasedNYC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Here
Country: United States
Posts: 13,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRanger View Post
what they need to do is have some sort of sensor on the puck or the goal line so when the puck crosses the goal line the red light would light up automatically.this would get rid of that guy in the cage behind the glass as well.
Crazy, you would have to place it directly in the center of the puck and compensated its area to the exact edges of the puck (which chip and split all the time so it woudlnt be totally accurate)

And also have one on the goal line which has ice and snow build up on the edges.

This would be tough to pull off, but they do it with tennis and baseball dont they?

Qwez-tech? (sp.?)

I think thats totally different though... its like a GPS thing.

HockeyBasedNYC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 01:49 PM
  #19
NJRanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
i mean the sensor wouldn't be huge (just like the sensor that they put on cd's/dvd's ) just a tiny strip of metal and something below goal line woudl be enough.

NJRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:32 PM
  #20
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
I always say that but think about if the puck hits that area?

Whats the effect? Different carom? Not true to the rest of the iron? No Ping? That would suck.

What we i was saying would be directly under the crossbar, but it still can be hit from in close.

What you are sayign makes more sense. The BACK of the crossbar under the net.
In the scenario I'm suggesting the camera would be attached to the backside of the crossbar, and aimed straight down. It would be nearly impossible for the puck to hit it...except for a roof shot that was made from inside the crease.

Or, they could install a camera on the underside of the crossbar, where the lens of the camera was flush with the rest of the bottom of the crossbar. They could even recess it a tiny bit, if needed, to ensure that it would in no way protrude.

In either case, you run the power and video cables through the post and down through the pegs below the ice. This really doesn't seem that difficult, and it would prevent a great deal of controversy.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 02:37 PM
  #21
rickyrod
Registered User
 
rickyrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: nyc
Country: United States
Posts: 1,294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
I don't understand why they can't just install a camera on the backside of every crossbar aimed directly down at the goal line. This would provide the proper angle to review the play and would work better than the cameras that are above and behind the goal.
It likely wouldn't have made any difference at all in last nights call.

I know at the all-star game in Minnesota, they had a camera under the ice. I don't know how practical that is, though. And Garden ice is crappy enough without stuff being put under it.

rickyrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:16 PM
  #22
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJRanger View Post
i mean the sensor wouldn't be huge (just like the sensor that they put on cd's/dvd's ) just a tiny strip of metal and something below goal line woudl be enough.
How about the technology on the invisible fences for dogs, or the security they have in retails stores. All react when a perimeter has been crossed. There are plenty of options available.

This is a fixable problem and even though I think itís a low cost fix, even if it wasnít, itís worth it to keep the questionable calls at a minimum.

zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:22 PM
  #23
LiquidClown
Registered User
 
LiquidClown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Huntsville, Al
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,640
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to LiquidClown Send a message via AIM to LiquidClown
Quote:
Originally Posted by zestystrat View Post

Maybe they should bring back the pucks that they used when Fox was showing the games

Gary Bettman is that you?

A sensor might be nice, they've been toying with the idea in FIFA as well.

LiquidClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:30 PM
  #24
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBasedNYC View Post
Crazy, you would have to place it directly in the center of the puck and compensated its area to the exact edges of the puck (which chip and split all the time so it woudlnt be totally accurate)

And also have one on the goal line which has ice and snow build up on the edges.

This would be tough to pull off, but they do it with tennis and baseball dont they?

Qwez-tech? (sp.?)

I think thats totally different though... its like a GPS thing.
When I first started racing radio controlled cars at age 12, we were all given a device called a "transponder" before qualifying. You would install the transponder in your RC car and as soon as it crossed the sensor at start/finish, your car would be scored. Not only could you determine which car crossed that line first, you could also derive lap times or even splits if multiple sensors were located around the track. Results were printed out on a dot matrix printer and posted for all to see.

I raise this example because this was the late 80's, long before windows based operating systems. This system was used by kids racing scale models of race cars at facilities that had little more than a smooth surface to run on. It's hard for me to imagine that, 20 years later, even this technology cannot be employed by a professional sports league. While certainly not cutting edge by any means, it would take the guesswork out of these reviews.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2007, 03:39 PM
  #25
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,680
vCash: 500
http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.c...shirtbulletin/

According to Blueshirt Bulletin if MSG had been doing the game instead of VS. there would have been more camera angles.

eco's bones 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 02:18 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.