alt kilgore Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 John Shannon of Sports Net explains why Bennett's goal was inconclusive. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-geometry-created-the-illusion-of-a-flames-goal/ I have to say, I was utterly convinced that Calgary got shafted. They still might have, but I can now see the inconclusive part. I assumed that the puck was on the ice surface or close to it. And when I heard excuses like there was snow in front of it that was simply stupid. The line was still visible, so that would mean somehow a sliver of snow, an inch or more in height followed the puck in, and there was no snow puff when it was kicked out. But, it does make sense to see that gap if the puck was above the surface by a few inches when it went in (or didn't). And I'm still not convinced that it was high enough to cause this illusion, but at least there is some explanation. I just wish the NHL would have done a better job at explaining this at the time. It would have been a Red Mile Riot if the Flames had lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 John Shannon of Sports Net explains why Bennett's goal was inconclusive. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/how-geometry-created-the-illusion-of-a-flames-goal/ I have to say, I was utterly convinced that Calgary got shafted. They still might have, but I can now see the inconclusive part. I assumed that the puck was on the ice surface or close to it. And when I heard excuses like there was snow in front of it that was simply stupid. The line was still visible, so that would mean somehow a sliver of snow, an inch or more in height followed the puck in, and there was no snow puff when it was kicked out. But, it does make sense to see that gap if the puck was above the surface by a few inches when it went in (or didn't). And I'm still not convinced that it was high enough to cause this illusion, but at least there is some explanation. I just wish the NHL would have done a better job at explaining this at the time. It would have been a Red Mile Riot. Very similar to the 2004 goal, or non-goal, depending on who you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I thought this thread would be about something else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2SKATES1STICK Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 from the sweeping motion of Eighteen-Year-Old's 'shot' i think it unlikely the puck was off the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonMexico Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I didn't need any further explanation. The call on the ice and the video review at the time were enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Very similar to the 2004 goal, or non-goal, depending on who you are. This one at least didn't screw Calgary out of a cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I thought if anything was clear it was off the ice. I think it was in but the view with the elevated puck was inconclusive and because the net was off, the overhead view was useless. I thought it was in but no goal was the correct call by the rules, because that was the call on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I don't think the puck was high enough off the ice, if at all, to make the case for that angle. Regardless, what is mickey mouse is leaving it to theory. Where is the actual goalpost footage? Right. Let's debate and speculate instead of using abc tecnology to do a simple job and resolve a controversy. Anyone seen any real footage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I thought they were going to show an actual puck about an inch off the ice not some computer generated image which means absolutely nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaGuy Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I don't think the puck was high enough off the ice, if at all, to make the case for that angle. Regardless, what is mickey mouse is leaving it to theory. Where is the actual goalpost footage? Right. Let's debate and speculate instead of using abc tecnology to do a simple job and resolve a controversy. Anyone seen any real footage? Saw on Twitter, @TheStanchion I believe, that the league said those goal post cameras aren't pointed at the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Saw on Twitter, @TheStanchion I believe, that the league said those goal post cameras aren't pointed at the ice. LOL. "Who's the leader of the club that's made for you and me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I don't think the puck was high enough off the ice, if at all, to make the case for that angle. Regardless, what is mickey mouse is leaving it to theory. Where is the actual goalpost footage? Right. Let's debate and speculate instead of using abc tecnology to do a simple job and resolve a controversy. Anyone seen any real footage? The goalpost cameras were obscured in the shot. Even then, when the post is off the moorings, not sure how much would have helped. Seems to me that one easy way to fix this would be to make the ice in the net a different colour (though this still wouldn't matter if puck in the air). The crease is blue could just extend back into the net though a bolder colour would be better. Red would be ideal though wouldn't work unless they changed the goal line to blue. If you see a flash of red between the puck and the now blue goal line, you know it is a goal. Having a different colour goal line than the icing line may also be helpful when the net is partially nocked off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 The goalpost cameras were obscured in the shot. Even then, when the post is off the moorings, not sure how much would have helped. Seems to me that one easy way to fix this would be to make the ice in the net a different colour (though this still wouldn't matter if puck in the air). The crease is blue could just extend back into the net though a bolder colour would be better. Red would be ideal though wouldn't work unless they changed the goal line to blue. If you see a flash of red between the puck and the now blue goal line, you know it is a goal. Having a different colour goal line than the icing line may also be helpful when the net is partially nocked off. the post wasn't off the moorings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 the post wasn't off the moorings. It can't get any more clear than that picture lol. No goal... Smh... NHL Rule book age 87 Section 41.8c If a California team is scored on and the puck crosses the line in a pivotal moment of a game; the goal MAY be waived off if the puck doesn't ripple the net. Should the puck only cross the line fully, it does not necessarily need to count as a goal. Unless the game is already out of hand. Then in that case, please call a goal so we don't waste a fix in a useless manor. Kindly note: should this be the California team shooting, it will be called as a goal due to super top secret camera angles that can't be revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asian player Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Or... notice where Anderson's pads were when he kicked it out. As much as I hate Calgary, it was a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 It can't get any more clear than that picture lol. No goal... Smh... NHL Rule book age 87 Section 41.8c If a California team is scored on and the puck crosses the line in a pivotal moment of a game; the goal MAY be waived off if the puck doesn't ripple the net. Should the puck only cross the line fully, it does not necessarily need to count as a goal. Unless the game is already out of hand. Then in that case, please call a goal so we don't waste a fix in a useless manor. Kindly note: should this be the California team shooting, it will be called as a goal due to super top secret camera angles that can't be revealed. Yes. The idea that this angle can be inconclusive when the puck is elevated off the ice may have some validity and is potentially preferable to the use of appropriate technology. 'Inconclusive evidence', although seemingly remarkably antiquated, leaves way for leeway, which can be selectively 'productive' in the right circumstances. Unfortunately, how exactly the goal-line camera angle was 'obscured' is a mystery. The goaltender's pad was not above/covering/hiding the puck. There was no goal mouth scrum with players potentially blocking the line of view to the ice surface. The puck was in plain view - the goalpost was on the mooring. The "parallax" view may be interesting from a physics perpsective, however in this instance the need to rely on it appears to be full of shat - the preferable view imo would be the "ex-lax" view, once all the bullshat has been cleaned out of the 'tract' / pov. As it stands - was it a goal? It "Depends", Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayRayDown Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I think it was a good call, was unconclusive and you can see Anderson's pad under it so it was clearly elevated. Also the overhead was unconclusive too. In the end Calgary won (Refs kind of kept Calgary in the game by making offsetting penalties when Stajan??? ran Anderson and someone shoved him after) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I don't buy it. Should have been a goal. There was no conclusive birds eye angle like the one that was exampled in the video. The only conclusive video is where the puck can be seen crossing the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 the post wasn't off the moorings. You see that silver thing between the post and the ice. Also when you see the overhead view you can see the crossbar clearly shifted back obscuring the view of the puck. I think the call was wrong but the implementation of the rule was done correctly. When you see the replays in motion it is clear that the puck is at the very least wobbling if not off the ice and it is very clear in the picture provided that the net is lifted. Not sure what you are looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 You see that silver thing between the post and the ice. Also when you see the overhead view you can see the crossbar clearly shifted back obscuring the view of the puck. I think the call was wrong but the implementation of the rule was done correctly. When you see the replays in motion it is clear that the puck is at the very least wobbling if not off the ice and it is very clear in the picture provided that the net is lifted. Not sure what you are looking at. Doesn't matter if the net is lifted. The tube thing is still in the ice. Bottom line is that this league is fixed and we'll never have a true cup champ as long as there's this much money involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.