The no-goal call on Sam Bennett on Tuesday night caused a storm of controversy in Flames-land, but as John Shannon explains, simple geometry, or the parallax view is the reason why it was not a goal.
Lightning fan. Very informative video -- thank you for posting. I could swear I've seen something like this happen before, years ago. And Calgary even rings a bell too. Hmm.......oh well. Probably wasn't an important game anyway.
Facts. You don’t even need to go this in depth. If you watch the original feed from 2004, not the 3 second gif of Gelinas’ “goal,” the 2004 feed actually shows the live overhead replay. No goal in 2004. No goal today. No goal forever.
+Al Montoya That absolutely IS the factor, it's actually what the presenter meant by that "inch and some more". It's not the puck above ice distance, it's the puck above the paint distance. Not to mention that the shallower angle you look from, the bigger is the effect of the ice refraction.
Forget "old time hockey" we have the technology available to not only get these calls right, but get them right 99.9999% of the time which I'm fairly certain is a bit of improvement on the league's current ratio. Put a sensor in the pucks, goalposts, and net and get these calls right for a change. I'm not saying the Calgary goal was an incorrect call I'm more so referring to goals like LA vs Edmonton where the puck more than likely crossed the line but was not visible to the overhead camera.
They could solve some of these situations by putting a camera inside the crossbar itself, pointing straight down. Obviously it would have to be very small (and thus not nearly as high-quality as the TV cameras), but it would be good enough for this purpose and there would be no parallax. Though, I suspect the reason they don't do this is such a camera might not survive a shot to the crossbar, and those happen fairly frequently. Also, it wouldn't solve all situations because sometimes the goalie himself would be in the way of the camera.
+Wildwind Ok, so I'm not crazy, but my memory sucks. They do, in fact, use cameras in the crossbar. See also yesterday's Stars/Wild game, where a camera high above the rink makes it look like a goal was scored, but the camera in the crossbar clearly showed that it was not (though only by a very narrow margin!). I could have sworn I'd seen cameras in the crossbar used before, but in a quick search couldn't find any examples. Possibly because of the fact that the goalie frequently does block the relevant view.
The lines are painted about an inch below the actual ice surface, so the puck doesn't need to be in the air for the parallax to apply. Just because you see white space between the puck and the line from the usual camera angle means nothing, because there's an inch of transparent ice between the puck and the actual line.
This is a pretty good explaination. Maybe John Shannon should also come up with an explanation on Kesler's GHOST hand grabbing on Cam Talbot's pad last playoff. Did the video room and refs also determined that was due to Geometry?
🤡🤡🤡Kesler was shoved into the crease and was being held down by a defenseman, he wouldn’t be in that position if the goalies own teammate didn’t put in there himself😂
u would think that in this day and age they would have some sort of chip in the puck to automatically determine when it completley crosses the line. is there a reason they dont have this yet?
+Matthew Williams almost impossible to track a puck with an accelerometer, forces are way too high when it rings off a post/the boards/gets blocked/etc, there's just not a feasible solution. Pucks are small too, so you can't really put a very high tech rig in there. Not really a good alternative to accelerometers either. I mean can you name what "sort of chip" the should be throwing in there? Technology isn't magic, most tracking can't be done on small objects to the millimeter
+Devon Lethbridge yes i do remember those pucks. Fox producers took real pucks cut them in half, inserted a chip and reglued them together. The players didnt like them because they felt differently after being cut. That was also close to 20 years ago. We now have far better technology. I dont think it would be too hard to do in 2015.
+Matthew Williams Then we replace the linesmen with sensors on the players and lines. Then the refs with automatic penalty calling bots. After that we should replace the players with puck firing robots. It subtracts from the game. Mistakes happen. Live with them and lets play some damn hockey!
AlkalineGamingHD stay on planet earth here pal...i agree with you and would prefer the more "old fashioned" approach too. I hate all the game stops also. But if they are going to go upstairs for 10 minutes everytime a iffy goal is scored i would prefer it to just be quick.
+alfredo aguilar non sequitur different event and situation demands separate judgment. You can't just state "angles can be misleading" (which is the basic argument for the parallax rationale) and _thus_ conclude "therefore it's not in". even with off-angles there are possibilities to make judgments, if you know the measurements of puck and angles... The camera from left of Quick (looking over the shoulder / right around of McDavid) wasn't even taken into consideration by the war-room. And if you do take it into consideration, you gotta be very careful about if to or if not to rule it conclusive. The league just doesn't care about multiple angles here, and plays the "I can't see it from above" card way, way too easily; like playing peekaboo with a child. There is also an image circulating from behind the goal, that shows a tiny bit of the puck, way too far behind the goal-line to be out!
+alfredo aguilar no, there are other pictures and angles that make it 100% obvious the puck was in the net. Just nothing the NHL uses to make their calls.
alfredo aguilar...nope MCdavids goal was over the red line. If this Flames puck was over than yes. Should have been a goal. But it wasn't. So no goal. Too bad though.
Show me the angle on the ice or an overhead that proves that it was high enough to create that illusion. The puck looks pretty flat and hitting the pads pretty low to be the 8 inches they’ve suspended above the ice there and even with that it’s almost still over the line. Most likely it was in. They can fix this with sensors
This could explain the Penguins "no goal" in game 2 last weekend as well. The puck looked to be behind the line from the angle of the camera by just a hair. Anyone else think that might be it?
And yet this is why I say no goal as well with the 2004 playoffs vs Tampa, all people who says it was in is biased and so not know how to be a goal judge . You know if you said this was in you’d be fired
last year baseball added the coaches challenge on plays they think are close. this year its in hockey. challenges like this where they have to use slow-mo to determine something is sometimes the only way. but they're not using the right camera for it. the frames are all blurry and its hard to accurately tell if, in this situation, the puck crossed the line completely. the NHL should invest in cameras that have the right amount of FPS so that in need of a review with slow-mo they can make an accurate call. although they are not cheap, the league could still be able to fund them.
All you would need is greater magnification. ... Oh, yeah -- is that the exact puck that was used in the hockey game?; was the puck placed in the exact location? I don't think so; thus, the actual puck might have indeed crossed the line. The best view was the front view because you can see it absolutely clear. That's when there is no doubt. If the guy wanted to prove it wasn't a goal, he would have placed the puck exactly where it was in the net in the 2004 playoffs and then show it. This cannot be done. I appreciated the video; it gave a good explanation. If this was shown in 2004, that would clear out any confusion; but, then again, the real question is where was the actual puck when this happened? It surely looks like a goal.
never understood this till now, because of the space between the puck and the actual paint under the ice, this can happen, but why look at that angular view rather than overhead? that view shouldn't come into question when you have overhead as the effect is known lol, why did he make it seem like Toronto judged the goal based on that video
It’s too bad they ignore the above angle where the camera simply didn’t have enough frames to show that the puck did cross the line. Where it hit Khabibulins pad would have been on the other side of the goal line, with him kicking his leg out to kick it away. The cameras of 2004 didn’t have the frame rate to see it happen, but the puck couldn’t have physically stopped mid air and floated there before khabibulin made contact with it, that would defy the laws of physics.
The puck was not 1.5" above the ice. It was sliding along the ice before it hit Freddy's pad. Look at the construction of the pad and the lines in the embroidering. It's a cooked up story and lame-duck excuse. (puns intend)
Exactly the puck never lifted above an inch off the ice(if that!). The puck barely trickled off the ice as it hits the goalies pad then toe, both which happened after the white line shows!
so basically he explained why the league is still too incompetent to properly determine whether a goal has been scored. even he didn't say that it wasn't a goal. he just told us why there was inconclusive evidence.
So where did you come up with the 1.5" number? That's a puck and a halfs worth of height between the ice and the bottom of the puck, supposedly. At :41 seconds, where it's hard up to his pad, wouldn't we see that height in relation to the pad?
+Victor duarte With that technology you need multiple cameras and they all need to "see" the puck, which would be near impossible because of the goalie + all the players so I don't think it would work.
It was in when you use overhead camera and the puck is still touching the line? What you saw in that video was a illusion over head camera shows puck still touching line , that means it did not cross the line completely . So we should award goals even if not cross completely ?
Don’t know how they haven’t figure a way to get cameras on the goal line, maybe putting them in the posts or crossbar. Or an idea I saw a while back was have a “green line” to be painted inside of the net exactly the width of a puck behind the goal line
However, don't forget that in order for the Parallax error to come into effect, the puck has to be off the ice. If the puck is sitting flat on the ice, there is no parallax effect.
Joe Bobb Hi. An NHL ice hockey surface and the layer of white, red, blue paint are beneath the surface of the ice approx. 3 cm. Depending on the angle and height of the camera's point of view a "white space" between the puck and "red line" varies. Overhead camera view is the only way to accurately confirm if the puck was crossed the line. It can also be determined through mathematics, but that is not practical.
This is not true. Puck is not on the red line. Red line is 10 centimetres under the surface. This would be true when shot is on the air no puck on the ice.
Great, and I just spent half the day arguing with some guy about this and now I see that I am wrong. And I went to the dentist this morning and I have a cracked rib. So, pity me, ye gods and little fishes!
I'm sorry but youd need to show this in the actual moment, which you cant. You cannot create a mock scenario with no proof it happened like that. Puck was behind the line.
American Hockey The puck maybe wasn't in the air, but it was a couple of inches above the paint. The paint is underneath the ice, which creates the illusion it crossed the line. This could have all been avoided with better cameras on the goal-line, or maybe cameras inside the goalposts
+ssvoogel How thick, you think, the ice is? Look at the goalposts, where they touch the ice.. In your logic, from the common angle, there should be illusion of flying goalposts. It's not this way, though..
+Ondřej Fessl There's almost 1 inch from the ice to the paint. entertainment.howstuffworks.com/ice-rink4.htm Which is more than enough to severely distort the reality when you look at a shallow angle. If you look at that higher angle replay, where the frame rate is quite shitty, you can still see it's quite a difference compared to the shallow angle. Move directly above the goal line and suddenly the puck is touching the line.
It was less than an inch in the air, but the depth of the pad meant that it completely crossed before it bounced out... Good goal even if they say it was an illusion...
This video linked below from global news actually compares with REAL ICE and not digital screens on the floor. It was in. If you're gonna try to sound smart at least compare the same thing to each other... globalnews.ca/video/1986743/was-the-goal-in-video-recreates-no-goal/
haha that's the stupidest thing I have ever watched in my entire life. all it does is take away the players and leave the puck in the same spot. how should that change the opinion of anyone? off the ice, no goal.
The puck never lifted above an inch off the ice(if that!). The puck barely trickled off the ice as it hits the goalies pad then toe, both which happened after the white line showed! HAVE to show the puck come down after the white line is showing. The video stopping at that point is BS!
Wait, that makes no sense. Here's why. This is not an Ice Hockey surface. Painted ice hockey rinks are painted on the surface of the rink, not underneath. It would be impossible for the puck to be laying flat on the ice and appear to be across the line but not actually be in. If the ice surface is painted, and the puck is FLAT on the ice and appears to be in, it is 100% in. This example from the SN studio is obviously NOT on a painted ice hockey surface. It is on a multi-layered floor, with floor lighting implanted underneath the top layer of flooring. Hence why when the camera angle moves above the puck, it suddenly appears on the line. THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE ON A PAINTED ICE SURFACE.
Wait, you seriously think that there's actual paint on the ice? Well, there isn't. The paint is under the ice which is about an inch thick. Therefore, the circumstanses in the SN studio is probably pretty similar to real ice.
They claimed that the puck was not on the ice, but an inch and a half above it, when the video is paused. So, if true, you are seeing under the puck, which explains how the puck can still be over the red line, but you see the white ice under the puck from that angle.
