Logic and Netting: An Idea For Video Replay
Kevin Burgundy | Nov 14, 2009 | Comments 8
It goes without saying that every goal matters. Even if the goal in question is for the Toronto Maple Leafs.
The ramification of goals being called back is huge. One goal could be the difference between a win and a loss. It could be the difference between making the playoffs and not. It could potentially mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue. I’m getting ahead of myself (especially when talking about a Leaf goal) but you get my drift.
So when NHL officials review questionable goals/non-goals, you have to wonder why they don’t make things easier for themselves. Or more conclusive. Or just do something!
Case in point: the Leafs-Blackhawks game on Friday night. Take a look at this…
A closer look at the Toronto Maple Leafs no goal
What the hell is this?
No wonder this wasn’t ruled a goal. Can you see anything through the white bar and that thick netting? I certainly can’t. Why can’t the NHL use a smaller inner-crossbar and thinner netting like the stuff around the glass to protect the crowd? (using a white version, obviously). And why can’t the NHL use logic when reviewing plays like this?
I understand the reasoning for conclusive proof. For the most part, I like that rule and avoiding the use of assumptions. However, what about logic? I think there’s a difference between assumptions and logic.
Let’s try using logic on this particular example. If Cristobal Huet’s trapper is well behind the goal line and the puck is deep in the palm of the trapper, isn’t it a goal? We know where the puck is, despite not being able to see it. We can pin-point the puck’s location down to somewhere between the edge of the post and inside the trapper. Translation: over the goal line.
For those keeping track: Logic- 1, NHL goal review committee-0.
Quick recap- let’s use thinner (white) netting, smaller inner-crossbars and a bit more logic in determining whether goals are, well, goals.
Stay classy, disallowed NHL goals.
–
Burgundy is the chief editor for Stayclassy.net. Follow him on Twitter (@Stay_Classy) or email him.
Filed Under: Chicago Blackhawks • Featured • NHL • Toronto Maple Leafs
I’ve been saying for years there should be another (thin) line behind the goal line in the net, and the difference between the two lines should be just wider than the diameter of a puck. It wouldn’t be applicable in this situation but for a lot of replays all the would have to see is whether or not the puck touches the second line at all.
Could make a difference and doesn’t affect the esthetics of a rink
If it’s logical the NHL will run in the other direction.
Smaller netting and bars – it seems simple enough to me.
The overhead camera and net-cam are good ideas, but I’d love to see the NHL step into the 22nd century by putting in an innovative under-the-ice cam. i.e. a camera that’s embedded in the ice that points up and scans the area inside the goal. Obviously, they would need some technology to illumine the ice and delineate the goal line when bodies, sticks, skates and the goalie’s trapper block out light, but it might conclusively resolve some of the currently inconclusive situations where a goalie traps the puck maybe-in-the-net, maybe-in-the-crease.
I’m sure I’ve seen the idea used in submarine technology.
@Penguins March – I love the idea. Can we have the Penguin (official monitoring the parascope must be Danny DeVito or someone of close resemblance). Something I’ve always thought – why can’t pucks be injected with a chemical that goes under special cameras? Sort of like infrared or those FBI heat cameras, etc… You know? At least then, there’d be no argument where the puck is, regardless of gloves, bodies or anything else covering it.
@RyanB – Thanks for the comments and for the twitter note. You’ve been doing some great blogs lately.
@Matt – Yup. I agree with you. Need to make sure we get the call right. That’s where the emphasis should be.
Burgundy, it’s a good idea.
The best solution may be technological – Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags could be installed across the goal line and ringing the outside of the puck. It wouldn’t be hard to have a wireless network set up that would activate the RFID and trigger the goal when all tags cross the boundary. At that point, all you’d have to do is determine if the net was off, the time ran out, etc. before it went in.
There would be SOME challenges (like the low temperature) but it could be done….I asked Bettman about that on his radio show last year, and he dodged it. I’m not hopeful they’ll do it.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BDGallof and Scott Lewis, Ryan Batty. Ryan Batty said: @Stay_Classy calls for logic from the #NHL when reviewing goals. http://bit.ly/1PE76G [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by ryan_batty: @Stay_Classy calls for logic from the #NHL when reviewing goals. http://bit.ly/1PE76G...
I didn’t watch the game, so the picture above is all I have to go on. In the picture, the glove is not completely over the line. We know that the puck is in the glove, but can’t see where. Since the puck has to completely cross the line, I think I agree with the call to not overturn (assuming it was called a no goal at ice level). Why it wouldn’t have been called a goal in the first place is beyond me.