Why are there so many incorrect review calls?

[Norman99]

The latest in the Oiler/Flames game, good goal to Calgary . The camera's at board level too, so almost no parallax error.

I'm not really here to complain about this specific goal, but more broadly, how does Toronto keep getting things like this wrong? Isn't the whole point of the review to get correct calls. Understandably sometimes angles are inconclusive, but I've seen to may that are clear cut still called incorrectly.

Click to read more...

 

[FlappyGiraffe]

Looks high to me but the camera also looks like it's sitting lower than the crossbar, so inconclusive is probably the right call.

Can't say for sure it was higher even though it most likely was

 

[Goptor]

Looks high to me but the camera also looks like it's sitting lower than the crossbar, so inconclusive is probably the right call.

Can't say for sure it was higher even though it most likely was

Whats the point of having a camera watching playing with high sticks if its unusable for review. If its not used for watching high sticks, why don't they just raise the cameras slightly so they are at the correct height to do so?

 

[PlayersLtd]

Whats the point of having a camera watching playing with high sticks if its unusable for review. If its not used for watching high sticks, why don't they just raise the cameras slightly so they are at the correct height to do so?

Maybe they do but that particular camera was obstructed... Not like you can have unlimited cameras at unlimited angles and heights for every type of call.

 

[kylbaz]

Look at tampas first goal today. I just don't see how you could possibly call that a good goal.

 

[NotAVacuumSalesman]

It’s called game management.

Get used to it.

 

[BB79]

Even sitting at board height it looks high to me. Neutral fan, I don't have anything against either team. It's amazing that this day and age that they don't have cameras set up at opposing angles to review high stick goals.

 

[eojsmada]

The latest in the Oiler/Flames game, good goal to Calgary . The camera's at board level too, so almost no parallax error.

View attachment 926048View attachment 926049

I'm not really here to complain about this specific goal, but more broadly, how does Toronto keep getting things like this wrong? Isn't the whole point of the review to get correct calls. Understandably sometimes angles are inconclusive, but I've seen to may that are clear cut still called incorrectly.

Tim Peel has the answer to all your NHL Reffing questions.

 

[f7ben]

Tim Peel has the answer to all your NHL Reffing questions.

Not just nhl

 

[Hockeyfan200]

because refs / nhl don't want to swallow and admit their wrong. something happened in the Seattle game against Seattle where wild challenged and it was blatantly clearly on review, yet they upheld the call. Even the NHL network called them out after.

 

[MadLuke]

For something like in the op message, I really doubt ego are much in play or that they care much either way, specially if the reviewer making the call are completely different people in a different building.

Really fast sport, a foot max out on an non-obvious line, nobody will judge them to getting it wrong on the ice in real-time.

 

[Anglesmith]

I was busy with my kid at the time and still haven't seen the goal, but I'm just wanting to point out that a screenshot cannot itself prove this point.

Seeing that the stick/puck is above the crossbar at this point is one thing, but you also have to prove that this frame is where contact occurred.

 

[syz]

Because the NHL is a mickey mouse league.

 

[Hint1k]

The topic name is heavily misleading, promotes stupidity and conspiracy theories.

The reviews in Toronto situation room are always correct. The is no possibility to make a mistake when an episode can be viewed from different angles and frame by frame and by multiple refs.

If you as a fan have a different opinion then you are wrong. It is that simple.

 

[GreatSaveEssensa]

The topic name is heavily misleading, promotes stupidity and conspiracy theories.

The reviews in Toronto situation room are always correct. The is no possibility to make a mistake when an episode can be viewed from different angles and frame by frame and by multiple refs.

If you as a fan have a different opinion then you are wrong. It is that simple.

Check out the Jets/Tampa game tonight and your theory is instantly put in the trash.

 

[WatchfulElm]

I'm always impressed that in 2024, a pro league with billions of dollars of income, that can implement digital ads on boards, still has to rely on crappy pixelated video reviews with bad angles to determine if a goal is good or not, instead of having some kind of chip inside the puck that would collect live data about the puck exact position, movement and contacts. But maybe I'm just stupid for thinking such a technology would be easily available.

 

[WatchfulElm]

The topic name is heavily misleading, promotes stupidity and conspiracy theories.

The reviews in Toronto situation room are always correct. The is no possibility to make a mistake when an episode can be viewed from different angles and frame by frame and by multiple refs.

If you as a fan have a different opinion then you are wrong. It is that simple.

Lol sure. Higher powers can do no wrong. They are perfect. If they tell you water is dry and oranges are blue, we are wrong to cast any doubt about it.

Geez... I'm the first to talk against conspiracy theories, but this blind belief that human beings in position of power don't have biases, never make any mistake, never have a bad day and rely on perfect see-it-all technology is one of the most simple minded statement I've ever read.

 

[Three On Zero]

Looks high to me but the camera also looks like it's sitting lower than the crossbar, so inconclusive is probably the right call.

Can't say for sure it was higher even though it most likely was

During the game the replays showed the stick was at crossbar height.

 

[Hint1k]

Lol sure. Higher powers can do no wrong. They are perfect. If they tell you water is dry and oranges are blue, we are wrong to cast any doubt about it.

What you just wrote is a conspiracy theory. The problem with all such theories - they are not based on facts. Hence the name.

So unless you have some facts that Toronto situation room was bribed or influenced by someone and it was recorded and you have such recording...

Check out the Jets/Tampa game tonight and your theory is instantly put in the trash.

Your message looks like this:

1) You watched an episode from the game. You don't know rules. You are not a pro ref. And you have some opinion.

2) Multiple pro refs watched the same episode from different angles, frame by frame. And they have a different opinion.

I suggest you to think it through.

 

[Shlep]

Looks high to me but the camera also looks like it's sitting lower than the crossbar, so inconclusive is probably the right call.

Can't say for sure it was higher even though it most likely was

Beyond that, it looks like the camera was behind Calgary's goal line. Think Pythagoras Theorem, an inch from the point of view looks like a foot from the right distance. I'm not going to do the math myself but I can easily understand why this was called back.

 

[WatchfulElm]

What you just wrote is a conspiracy theory. The problem with all such theories - they are not based on facts.

Damn, I'm a journalist. I know what a conspiracy theory is.

But not questionning any decision taken by decision makers and accepting them as infallible truth makers is worse and a lot more dangerous.

What you are serving us is just the classic authority argument. The truth is X because people in power said so. It's a simple minded and dangerous way of thinking.

 

[Hint1k]

Damn, I'm a journalist. I know what a conspiracy theory is.

But not questionning any decision taken by decision makers and accepting them as infallible truth makers is worse and a lot more dangerous.

What you are serving us is just the classic authority argument. The truth is X because people in power said so. It's a simple minded and dangerous way of thinking.

For a journalist your "reading" skill is not very well developed. Cause I never said anything you just wrote and never even implied anything like that.

You can question anything you like, but unless you have a fact to support your opinion - it just an opinion.

The refs decision is not an opinion. It is their duty to make such decision.

So when you question a duty of a person who is a pro in his field and you are not - you better bring some supporting arguments (facts) or your opinion would be correctly called - conspiracy theory.

 

[Soundwave]

The topic name is heavily misleading, promotes stupidity and conspiracy theories.

The reviews in Toronto situation room are always correct. The is no possibility to make a mistake when an episode can be viewed from different angles and frame by frame and by multiple refs.

If you as a fan have a different opinion then you are wrong. It is that simple.

 

[WatchfulElm]

For a journalist your "reading" skill is not very well developed. Cause I never said anything you just wrote and never even implied anything like that.

You can question anything you like, but unless you have a fact to support your opinion - it just an opinion.

The refs decision is not an opinion. It is their duty to make such decision.

So when you question a duty of a person who is a pro in his field and you are not - you better bring some supporting arguments (facts) or your opinion would be correctly called - conspiracy theory.

Of course you need to bring supporting arguments... What makes you think I don't support that?

You talk as if these refs were working in some highly specialized field not accessible to common mortals, when all we talk about here is if a puck crossed a line or not, if a stick was too high, if a goalie got pushed, etc. Breaking news : these "professional" knowledges are accessible to a lot of people. Not need to rely on the authority argument here.

Secondly, on many types of calls, especially goalie interference, we talk about highly subjective rules subjected to human judgement. There's rarely a "black or white" kind of truth here. You talk as if humans had no biases, no bad day at work, no different interpretation of the same rule, etc. I'm sorry but, many decisions in the past have been highly controversial, and often blatantly wrong. Wanna talk about the Brett Hull goal? The Alain Côté non goal?

To think mistakes never happen is simply dumb. But I wish I was living in your unicorn world.

 

[Bank Shot]

Maybe they do but that particular camera was obstructed... Not like you can have unlimited cameras at unlimited angles and heights for every type of call.

With how cheap, small, and high quality cameras are nowadays you could easily have like 4-6 cameras stationed at crossbar level around the offensive zone and never get a high-tech call wrong again.

You could literally have a go pro style camera embedded in every stanchion around the rink.

It seems like wrong calls in the NHL is a feature and not a bug at this point.

It is obvious that they do not care about getting calls right.