STANLEY CUP FINALS

[shrader]

Poor wording on my part. I meant closer to the goal line on a horizontal plane. I don't know why so much of the inside of the net has to be visible.

 

Like Moongate said, if they get too close to the goal line, the crossbar blocks the view.

 

The horn drowned out the whistle? Possibly.

 

I don't understand your last sentence. Not signaling a goal would end the play?

 

Poor wording from me. If they had signaled a goal, that would've ended the play.

[carpandean]

What they need are a series of high-res cameras at various angles and a high-power computer with composite imaging capability. Much like how they did the frozen spin arounds in The Matrix, but in addition, the software would use the composite images to calculate the puck's exact position. It would determine the central location as well as the orientation. After churning for a while, it would either put up a big thumbs up icon for a goal, or a thumbs down icon for "no goal".

[FogBat]

http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/clt/1773142424.html

 

Dustin's manhood for sale now on Craigslist.

 

I have in my possession the manhood of Chicago Blackhawks uber player Dustin Byfuglien.

 

It was found in a dumpster outside the Wachovia Center in South Philly last night after being taken by Chris Pronger of the Philadelphia Flyers during the course of Games 1, 2, and 3 in the Stanley Cup Final.

Typical classless Broad Street Beavers fan. That post is definitely worth flagging off of craigslist.

 

BTW, I hope Byfuglien gets the Conn Smythe trophy, just enough to p/o the BSB fans. :thumbsup:

[FogBat]

I really hope that when the other team taunts him, they keep mentioning how ugly he is. My god, that cannot be mentioned enough.

Was Carcillo ever a part of this guy's progeny? If so, that might explain a few things.

[wjag]

It used to be that when the goal light went on, the clock stopped. Don't know if that still applies as I've seen instances where the goal judge flipped the light on too early and turned it off right away and play continued. I guess in this case, since the puck did enter the net (after the play was dead, more or less) the goal light would have been turned on.

Doesn't it seem like the obvious thing to do is stop the game when the goal light comes on? Afterall, that is a game official that just called a goal (right or wrong). Go to video review immediately. That playing on and potentially washing out all future play until a stoppage is stupid.

[SDS]

Here's a decent way of picturing it. Put a piece of paper or something like that on your desk to create a line. Now take a pen and hold it upright behind that line, but tilt it so that the top of the pen is hovering over the line. If you look at that line from directly over head, it isn't possible to see any of the desk. But if you move slightly in front of that line, you can see the desk, even though the pen is not completely across the line.

 

yeah, but that puck was almost, if not completely, on it's edge. There's no way that puck was "leaning" over the red line.

[Buffalo Wings]

Doesn't it seem like the obvious thing to do is stop the game when the goal light comes on? Afterall, that is a game official that just called a goal (right or wrong). Go to video review immediately. That playing on and potentially washing out all future play until a stoppage is stupid.

I could be wrong, but I thought play stops only when a whistle is blown...which includes a goal. If the ref doesn't blow his whistle on a goal, then play continues.

 

This would lead me to believe that we don't stop play because the goal judge thought the puck crossed the line when the on-ice officials are controlling the play.

[SwampD]

I could be wrong, but I thought play stops only when a whistle is blown...which includes a goal. If the ref doesn't blow his whistle on a goal, then play continues.

 

This would lead me to believe that we don't stop play because the goal judge thought the puck crossed the line when the on-ice officials are controlling the play.

That makes me think that the simple solution would be a goal judge is only allowed to blow the horn after he sees the ref point at the net.

[Stoner]

That makes me think that the simple solution would be a goal judge is only allowed to blow the horn after he sees the ref point at the net.

 

Excellent suggestion. And it makes far too much sense for the league to adopt it.

 

Heck, how hard would it be to find a technological solution where the ref activates the light?

[Kevbeau]

Doesn't it seem like the obvious thing to do is stop the game when the goal light comes on? Afterall, that is a game official that just called a goal (right or wrong). Go to video review immediately. That playing on and potentially washing out all future play until a stoppage is stupid.

 

Goal judge isn't supposed to turn the light on until the on-ice official signals a goal.

 

EDIT: Just read post directly above. The GJ(s) are instructed to not activate the light until the the ref points that it's a good goal. Maybe they get caught up in the moment, and in many of the new arenas have been moved to the back of the lower bowl so maybe the sight lines aren't there.

[shrader]

yeah, but that puck was almost, if not completely, on it's edge. There's no way that puck was "leaning" over the red line.

 

The key word is almost. My problem is that I've seen that exact same play go the other way more than once. The review process needs to be far more consistent than it is. Basically, they didn't dare leave that as a non-goal in that building.

 

Goal judge isn't supposed to turn the light on until the on-ice official signals a goal.

 

EDIT: Just read post directly above. The GJ(s) are instructed to not activate the light until the the ref points that it's a good goal. Maybe they get caught up in the moment, and in many of the new arenas have been moved to the back of the lower bowl so maybe the sight lines aren't there.

 

That and the goal judges are completely for show. They served a purpose at one point, but now they are completely ornamental.

[Eleven]

That makes me think that the simple solution would be a goal judge is only allowed to blow the horn after he sees the ref point at the net.

 

Do goal judges blow horns, or is it the sound effects operator?

[Stoner]

Do goal judges blow horns, or is it the sound effects operator?

 

I wish I could blame it on long-term drug use, but I keep reading that sentence, and I love it.

[Mbossy]

FWIW, my 2 cents and be it known I hate Philly.

 

Looked at some DVR of the game and I'd say they made their decision on a few of camera shots put together.

 

The over head: I'll agree that it's tough to call from this one. The puck is over with this angle, but if it's up in the air it may not be.

 

Back of net camera: You can clearly see that as the puck comes in it taps the ice just before hitting the post (low) and stands up on end spinning.

 

Other camera: I assume this camera is in the boards because it very low to the ice, maybe 6 inches up. The angle it gives is about 4 inches over the back of the mesh. From this angle you can see that when the puck hits the post and starts its spin, it is on the ice or barely a centimeter off of it.

 

By combining the "other camera", showing that the puck was on or very near the ice, you can justify using the overhead camera angle to say it was in.

[Buffalo Wings]

 

Looked at some DVR of the game and I'd say they made their decision on a few of camera shots put together.

 

Are they allowed to do that? It makes sense - I've seen numerous occasions where the combination of 2-3 different angles proves the puck is over the line, but I didn't know if the replay officials could use all of them to make that determination.

 

I believe the NFL can NOT do this, as stupid as that may be.

[Buffalo Wings]

 

Heck, how hard would it be to find a technological solution where the ref activates the light?

 

Even better, how hard would it be to have a sensor inside the net to trigger the red light? You'd have to make it so that it only comes on when the entire puck is over, but I can't see how that would be God-awful difficult.

[Stoner]

Even better, how hard would it be to have a sensor inside the net to trigger the red light? You'd have to make it so that it only comes on when the entire puck is over, but I can't see how that would be God-awful difficult.

 

I should call myself on the "how hard can it be" comment. I mean, how hard can it be to figure out someone who wants to learn to take off in a 747 but not land it is trouble; or to get basic supplies to hurricane victims; or to sensibly regulate financial systems; or plug a damned oil gusher underwater.

 

Competency is not exactly the word of the day in our society. Technology is often the root of the problem; stupid people don't help.

[shrader]

Even better, how hard would it be to have a sensor inside the net to trigger the red light? You'd have to make it so that it only comes on when the entire puck is over, but I can't see how that would be God-awful difficult.

 

A puck on edge vs. a flat puck could cause some trouble though. In the big picture, is it really worth the money that would take? The situation where it would actually be useful is very rare.

[Kevbeau]

A puck on edge vs. a flat puck could cause some trouble though. In the big picture, is it really worth the money that would take? The situation where it would actually be useful is very rare.

 

To shrader's point, every puck would then cost $10 as compared to a dollar. Also, I believe they've tried out various "chips" in the pucks (Fox speed puck anyone?) and found that freezing the pucks could have an averse affect on the performance of the technology...(not to mention the abuse/impact it goes through.)

[shrader]

To shrader's point, every puck would then cost $10 as compared to a dollar. Also, I believe they've tried out various "chips" in the pucks (Fox speed puck anyone?) and found that freezing the pucks could have an averse affect on the performance of the technology...(not to mention the abuse/impact it goes through.)

 

Fox trax took a lot of heat, but I'll give it credit for one thing. It was actually helpful when the puck was along the near boards. The rest? Yeah, pure crap.

[Stoner]

Fox trax took a lot of heat, but I'll give it credit for one thing. It was actually helpful when the puck was along the near boards. The rest? Yeah, pure crap.

I liked it. Maybe I had/have a crappy TV, but there's no way I could/can see a 100 mph slapshot going through traffic. People can say they always see the puck, but I never believe it.

[shrader]

I liked it. Maybe I had/have a crappy TV, but there's no way I could/can see a 100 mph slapshot going through traffic. People can say they always see the puck, but I never believe it.

 

It was a decent idea, especially for the reasons you mentioned. The tail on slapshots was absurdly stupid though.

[Stoner]

It was a decent idea, especially for the reasons you mentioned. The tail on slapshots was absurdly stupid though.

How else could it have been done, if not with a tail?

[shrader]

How else could it have been done, if not with a tail?

 

Just stick to the glowing dot for the entire time.

[SwampD]

Just stick to the glowing dot for the entire time.

What about a dot that looks like a puck? :D