NotAVacuumSalesman
The Guide And Record Book™
- Jun 19, 2017
- 4,237
- 7,695
To be human is to make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. It’s just what we do.
Nobody is perfect. Get over it.
Nobody is perfect. Get over it.
That is not how anything works.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.
I guess that begs the question then what vested interest is there in getting calls wrong?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.
I guess that begs the question then what vested interest is there in getting calls wrong?
Yes and then the NHL cherry on top. How dare you challenge.... shorthanded and down 2-0 take that.Look at tampas first goal today. I just don't see how you could possibly call that a good goal.
You are talking about perfection.Their logic is probably something stupid, ie: too many cameras would require too much time to review, so we'll purposefully have fewer cameras and if you can't get a conclusive call from that, then too bad.
According to the NHL, that infrastructure is pretty much already in place.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.
Manipulation/control of the betting line?I guess that begs the question then what vested interest is there in getting calls wrong?
I dont think they are doing it on purpose.I guess that begs the question then what vested interest is there in getting calls wrong?
My dad thought it was no goal but I told him that angle was inconclusiveDuring the game the replays showed the stick was at crossbar height.
That is not how anything works.
Simple example:
2 + 2 = 4.
Anyone has a right to say - this equation is incorrect.
And then bring a different math system where "2" actually means "1" and "1" means "2".
And using that new system show that 2 + 2 = 1 not 4.
However, one would need to have the whole humankind agree with that new math system. Until that happened - such opinion is wrong. It contradicts known facts.
That is how everything works.
What you think were mistakes - were in fact correct decisions. The humankind never agreed with you in the first place.
Here's your conspiracy theory in a nutshellWhat 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...
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.
Sounds like appropriate logic to me. You have to consider the delay to the game and since 100% infallibility is impossible to achieve the good enough line needs to be drawn somewhere.Their logic is probably something stupid, ie: too many cameras would require too much time to review, so we'll purposefully have fewer cameras and if you can't get a conclusive call from that, then too bad.
The answer is already in your post; income. The digital ads and the ability to have different ads for different markets, created more income. Implementation of that tech was worth it. The kind of review tech fans want, is going to be expensive, with very little to no forseeable financial gain.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.
In your attempt to try and sound smarter than everybody else you are failing miserably.That is not how anything works.
Simple example:
2 + 2 = 4.
Anyone has a right to say - this equation is incorrect.
And then bring a different math system where "2" actually means "1" and "1" means "2".
And using that new system show that 2 + 2 = 1 not 4.
However, one would need to have the whole humankind agree with that new math system. Until that happened - such opinion is wrong. It contradicts known facts.
That is how everything works.
What you think were mistakes - were in fact correct decisions. The humankind never agreed with you in the first place.
What I don't understand is why they video reviewed the goal, since the Oilers never challenged the goal in the first place.