Flames pull off signature move twice in a week

[Zirakzigil]

And then we would start admiring the way the pucks just come apart after a heavy shot is taken, or from it hitting the boards at high speed.

Yeah, no. This isnt rocket science. Its been done already. IIHF uses chip imbedded pucks.

IIHF - How puck, player tracking works

A glimpse into new technology

www.iihf.com

 

[Ghost of Murph]

Just ridiculous that the NHL is still dealing with this issue. They were able to make a puck annoyingly glow on my crt TV screen 30 years ago, but now struggle to see if the puck crosses the line. Embarrassing.

 

[Golden_Jet]

They could literally put chips in pucks. But hey hundred of dollars would put the league down

They already have that, that’s you see how hard a shot is.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

One of those looks like a goal and the other not.

A real shame the NHL cannot figure out technology to count a goal even if concealed from camera by players.

 

[State of Hockey]

If you zoom in, Pic 1 is obviously not a goal.

And Pic 2 is not obviously a goal (i.e., no definitive evidence to overturn a ‘no goal’ call)

Tough break for CGY though.

Call on the ice should have no influence on the call on review. We're talking millimeters. There's no way the referee's call is anything more than a guess. The 2nd is a goal. That's not breaks or luck. That's poorly officiating your own game.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I believe the simplest theory was to put sensors in the goal line, posts, crossbar and puck. That would allow you to project three dimensionally where the puck is at any given time. There was multiple proposals at one point but the NHL was never interested.

It comes down to declining returns. Goal line reviews are pretty rare. On the rare occasion when they happen, the camera is going to give you the information you need to make a definitive call 95% of the time. Of the other 5%, most are going to have a negligible impact on the outcome of the game. Of the remaining fraction, where a camera fails to give enough information on an important goal line review, most of those games aren’t going to change the standings. In all of those scenarios, the outcome of the call will be forgotten within a day or so.

Out of some 130,000+ games in league history, only one persists as a controversy in popular memory — the Calgary/Tampa playoff game.

So you’re talking about putting chips all over the ice, and hiring people to install and then operate the system which monitors them, in order to solve for essentially one game every few decades. It’s just not worth the money or effort.

 

[D1az]

Time, like the puck, is a flat circle.

The Flames will play their next playoffs series in Carcosa?

 

[Mr Nogatco]

They could literally put chips in pucks. But hey hundred of dollars would put the league down

It comes down to declining returns. Goal line reviews are pretty rare. On the rare occasion when they happen, the camera is going to give you the information you need to make a definitive call 95% of the time. Of the other 5%, most are going to have a negligible impact on the outcome of the game. Of the remaining fraction, where a camera fails to give enough information on an important goal line review, most of those games aren’t going to change the standings. In all of those scenarios, the outcome of the call will be forgotten within a day or so.

Out of some 130,000+ games in league history, only one persists as a controversy in popular memory — the Calgary/Tampa playoff game.

So you’re talking about putting chips all over the ice, and hiring people to install and then operate the system which monitors them, in order to solve for essentially one game every few decades. It’s just not worth the money or effort.

the pucks have had sensors in them for a few years now

 

[isles55]

And people say this league is inconsistent? Looks like at least 21 years of consistency to me.

 

[DJN21]

It comes down to declining returns. Goal line reviews are pretty rare. On the rare occasion when they happen, the camera is going to give you the information you need to make a definitive call 95% of the time. Of the other 5%, most are going to have a negligible impact on the outcome of the game. Of the remaining fraction, where a camera fails to give enough information on an important goal line review, most of those games aren’t going to change the standings. In all of those scenarios, the outcome of the call will be forgotten within a day or so.

Out of some 130,000+ games in league history, only one persists as a controversy in popular memory — the Calgary/Tampa playoff game.

So you’re talking about putting chips all over the ice, and hiring people to install and then operate the system which monitors them, in order to solve for essentially one game every few decades. It’s just not worth the money or effort.

all I know is Hull was in the crease and I want mine. I dont care about all of this lol

 

[tarheelhockey]

the pucks have had sensors in them for a few years now

Yes but not in such a way that it could be useful for goal line calls (or offside for that matter). We’d be talking about a much larger amount of expense and effort, which honestly isn’t worth the investment from a profit/loss standpoint.

 

[Mobiandi]

I don’t even think it’s the cameras. I don’t think the goalline looks even because of the diffraction of light through the ice.

With how much time and effort has been invested in coaches’ challenges since their implementation, it’s incredibly bizarre not to have done something about goalline technology.

It comes down to declining returns. Goal line reviews are pretty rare. On the rare occasion when they happen, the camera is going to give you the information you need to make a definitive call 95% of the time. Of the other 5%, most are going to have a negligible impact on the outcome of the game. Of the remaining fraction, where a camera fails to give enough information on an important goal line review, most of those games aren’t going to change the standings. In all of those scenarios, the outcome of the call will be forgotten within a day or so.

Out of some 130,000+ games in league history, only one persists as a controversy in popular memory — the Calgary/Tampa playoff game.

So you’re talking about putting chips all over the ice, and hiring people to install and then operate the system which monitors them, in order to solve for essentially one game every few decades. It’s just not worth the money or effort.

But offside reviews happen very regularly. Some sort of technology that could conclusively determine when a puck has entered the zone could save significant time in reviews. It’s stubbornness from the league and at this point it is a yearly Flames tradition to see blurry lenses and hear about parallax angles

 

[Osakahaus]

SO IT HAPPENED AGAIN

 

[tarheelhockey]

But offside reviews happen very regularly. Some sort of technology that could conclusively determine when a puck has entered the zone could save significant time in reviews. It’s stubbornness from the league and at this point it is a yearly Flames tradition to see blurry lenses and hear about parallax angles

Simpler solution is to just not review offside calls.

 

[zizbuka]

More like a game of millimeters rather than inches.

What are these millimeters? Is that some new insect?

 

[JurassicTunga]

Classic Flames

 

[Mobiandi]

Simpler solution is to just not review offside calls.

That cat will never be put back in the bag

 

[Pizza!Pizza!]

solid nets filled with ballistics gel would resolve all doubt

 

[tarheelhockey]

That cat will never be put back in the bag

The crease reviews were.

 

[Anglesmith]

The crease reviews were.

I think that's a bit false. They didn't back off of reviews for the crease rule, they backed off of the crease rule itself. The league took a step in that direction by modifying the offside rule with review in mind, but I don't think they will ever outright remove the rule because it is fundamental to the sport.

I think it's more likely that they reinstate the crease rule to simplify goalie interference review than it is that they get rid of offside.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think that's a bit false. They didn't back off of reviews for the crease rule, they backed off of the crease rule itself. The league took a step in that direction by modifying the offside rule with review in mind, but I don't think they will ever outright remove the rule because it is fundamental to the sport.

The league recognized that disallowed goals due to crease reviews were a problem, and modified the rules in order to eliminate the issue. The elimination of the rule and the elimination of replays were tied together.

The difference between then and now is that the worst-case scenario (the Hull goal) happened almost immediately and they couldn’t ignore the uproar. Whereas now, they’ve been sitting on their hands for years waiting for the worst case to happen, despite people openly talking about the problem.

I think it's more likely that they reinstate the crease rule to simplify goalie interference review than it is that they get rid of offside.

It would truly be a head-in-hands moment if they were dumb enough to reinstate a rule that notoriously ruined a Stanley Cup any is still talked about as a black eye nearly 30 years later.

 

[Canadienna]

I believe the simplest theory was to put sensors in the goal line, posts, crossbar and puck. That would allow you to project three dimensionally where the puck is at any given time. There was multiple proposals at one point but the NHL was never interested.

Personally, I have zero interest in goals being called based on a model that are never seen with a camera.

 

[Boyon90]

That would increase the budget by like $2,000 you think Gary is made of money?

ah ok

 

[Boyon90]

Not gonna lie, this is fairly comical. No one does it like us.

On the right occurred in the Utah game. Not enough spatial resolution.

On the left occurred tonight against Vegas.

that is seriously bs idk what to think lol, if that occured in the playoff people would riot

 

[TMLeafer]

Goal line technology maybe by 2098