Why are there so many incorrect review calls?

[Ghost of Murph]

They get the vast majority of calls after watching replay correct. When in doubt they normally defer to the call on ice and roll with that. It's definitely frustrating when the replay people mess up. I doubt there is anything nefarious going on, just human error. The replay room knows a lot more than fans know.

Signed,

Dave Jackson

 

[MadLuke]

What you wrote is a common misconception about pretty much everything. It is exactly the point of objectivity vs subjectivity.

that example has an objective answer, same for puck did go in, or offside, was it goaltender interference, that can become quickly subjective, without an actual answer that exist to be found by a scientific process.

The replay room knows a lot more than fans know.

And angle available can be different, broadcast truck team do a really good job thought, so not necessarily always in an advantage Toronto way, but can be.

 

[Chet Manley]

It's pretty crazy that our current technology hasn't resolved some of the measurement type stuff. Like three different camera views of the puck at any time should be enough to get height. Or the holy grail of a practical transmitting puck and a gazillion sensors around the parts of the ice that matter. Could be soon.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

The issue with this is that the point of contact between puck and stick will always be at different points on the rink. Sometimes it’s inside the crease, sometimes it’s 15 feet away. And then the same issue with elevation. So there’s no particular place where you can put a camera that it won’t have this issue with trying to triangulate between the crossbar and the point of contact. Given that the margin for error is often miniscule with these high-stick calls, it would take a comical number of cameras to cover all the potential angles without creating a misleading effect.

It would be more practical for them to solve for the issues that currently prevent effective use of puck-chip technology.

 

[Hint1k]

that example has an objective answer, same for puck did go in, or offside, was it goaltender interference, that can become quickly subjective, without an actual answer that exist to be found by a scientific process.

Ok, since you clearly do not know how anything works in real live, here is a short explanation for you:

When we (humans) need to establish an objective fact we use several ways. Most common once - numbers and / or experts.

So, facing the problem of high speed of NHL games we established an expert body - the situation room in Toronto.

Therefore, a decision made by refs in the room is an established objective fact.

What you think about it - is your subjective personal opinion. And it is irrelevant since the fact is already declared by the experts.

In order to overcome any objective fact established by group of experts - you would need a bigger group of experts or better experts or noticeable advancement in science and technology.

Do you have any of these things? Obviously not.

 

[Eyeseeing]

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.