The NHL's "Angle"

[EspoForever]

Here is what a leaning puck looks like viewed from an angle similar to the one used on the video review of the Flyers 2nd goal in game 3, called "NO GOAL" on the ice:



[attachment=1]Leaning_Puck_from_Angle.jpg[/attachment]



Now here is that same puck viewed from directly from above. Unfortunately the NHL does not have cameras directly above the goals. They are on an angle out in front of the nets.



[attachment=0]Leaning_Puck_Overhead.jpg[/attachment]



To overturn a call there is supposed to be indisputable evidence that the call on the ice was wrong. I think this demo disputes it.



I think the view from behind the net showed the puck on that "no goal" call leaning even more than the way I mounted the puck on this little demo.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Oh I get what you're saying now... I don't see how hard a pinhole camera in the cross-bar would be to put in as others were saying.

 

[EspoForever]

[quote name="Stu Grimson"]Thanks for those pics but I think we're looking into it too much and I felt it was a pretty easy "no goal" call.



Interesting, though![/quote]

Thanks...no withstanding this call, regarding all the others I know we should not dwell like this, but I had to do something as "rape therapy" after the way the stripes have rubber-hosed us in games 1 and 3...not coincidentally the Bill McCrappy games. Cannot believe he gets to do finals games.



I printed this out and mailed it to the NHL yesterday...there. I feel better. A little. Grin.

 

[EspoForever]

[quote name="Stu Grimson"]Oh I get what you're saying now... I don't see how hard a pinhole camera in the cross-bar would be to put in as others were saying.[/quote]

Exactly...That has to be pretty easy with today's technology.

 

[bierboy]

I watched yesterday's replay of the entire game on CSN with specific attention given to that disputed goal. I am ALMOST convinced this was NOT a goal. The discussions here on this board, coupled with my knowledge of geometry (which I aced in high school), convinces me to nearly a 100% certainty that, if we (or the NHL) had a completely unobstructed view from DIRECTLY above the goal line, it would have shown the puck, even on edge, did not completely cross the goal line. There was so little white space between the puck and line on the only overhead angle we had, that your assessment proves the point.



That being said, we still lost the game. Tonight's game is must win in my book. But my feeling about tonight's game is good. We will win tonight....bad angles, poor officiating, lousy PP and all.

 

[EspoForever]

[quote name="bierboy"]I watched yesterday's replay of the entire game on CSN with specific attention given to that disputed goal. I am ALMOST convinced this was NOT a goal. The discussions here on this board, coupled with my knowledge of geometry (which I aced in high school), convinces me to nearly a 100% certainty that, if we (or the NHL) had a completely unobstructed view from DIRECTLY above the goal line, it would have shown the puck, even on edge, did not completely cross the goal line. There was so little white space between the puck and line on the only overhead angle we had, that your assessment proves the point.



That being said, we still lost the game. Tonight's game is must win in my book. But my feeling about tonight's game is good. We will win tonight....bad angles, poor officiating, lousy PP and all.[/quote]

Damn I hope you're right, Bierboy!! Go Hawks!!!

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

[quote name="bierboy"]I watched yesterday's replay of the entire game on CSN with specific attention given to that disputed goal. I am ALMOST convinced this was NOT a goal. The discussions here on this board, coupled with my knowledge of geometry (which I aced in high school), convinces me to nearly a 100% certainty that, if we (or the NHL) had a completely unobstructed view from DIRECTLY above the goal line, it would have shown the puck, even on edge, did not completely cross the goal line. There was so little white space between the puck and line on the only overhead angle we had, that your assessment proves the point.



That being said, we still lost the game. Tonight's game is must win in my book. But my feeling about tonight's game is good. We will win tonight....bad angles, poor officiating, lousy PP and all.[/quote]



They taught Geometry in the 1860's?

 

[phranchk]

[quote name="Stu Grimson"]



They taught Geometry in the 1860's?[/quote]

No. He learned from Aristotle.....or maybe it was Euclid.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

[quote name="phranchk"]

No. He learned from Aristotle.....or maybe it was Euclid.[/quote]





He is not that young...I think he learned it from the Babylonians

 

[bierboy]

You guys are brutal.....but accurate. We used an abacus.

 

[esbrechtel]

ha, I tried to explain this to my girlfriend and she claimed I was just being a homer. I guess a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[genefoley]

THANK YOU ESPOFOREVER. I've been trying to tell people this is what happened yet no one would believe me. It should have been no goal. Not surprised though.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Not something I want to dwell on either but we got fucked. There was one angle that clearly showed from the side that the puck never completely crossed the line and the network never showed that angle again. The very quick "one angle" review is bullshit also. They take more time to determine far easier plays.



Let's Go Hawks!!

 

[EspoForever]

[quote name="genefoley"]THANK YOU ESPOFEVER. I've been trying to tell people this is what happened yet no one would believe me. It should have been no goal. Not surprised though.[/quote]



You're welcome! I did it for the same reason. I estimate that you can see about a foot of the ice in the net from their down camera's angle. Given that the net is 4 feet high, I compute that angle to be around 14 degrees, and I tried to guesstimate my camera angle to be as true as possible. And again, as the other poster just said, they QUICKLY showed one angle from the side showing pretty definately that the call on the ice was probably correct--certainly NOT any evidence to overturn.



It was a crock, but then again so was 0 PP in game 1, and a 6-2 advantage for the Flygirls in game 2, and on and on...



GO HAWKS!!! OVERCOME IT!!!

 

[the canadian dream]

Took me a while to get it but I did!!! YES ME!!!



Nice work Espo. But moving on to game 4 now. Nothing we can do about it now. As we all know.



Nice demonstration though. Very nice.

 

[Ton]

Thanks Espo!



You inspired me to put this up on the main page... everyone should see those pictures.



I also argued that call while watching the game, and my friends told me there was "space between the red line and puck"... but they were fooled by the illusion as well.



Those pictures prove that the NHL did NOT have definitive proof to OVERTURN the on ice call!



Brilliant work Espo!

 

[Razzberry]

[quote name="jaxhawksfan"]Not something I want to dwell on either but we got fucked. There was one angle that clearly showed from the side that the puck never completely crossed the line and the network never showed that angle again. The very quick "one angle" review is bullshit also. They take more time to determine far easier plays.



Let's Go Hawks!![/quote]

I have no doubts that they had already begun the review while play was still continuing. That's likely why the response was so quick.

 

[Razzberry]

Eh, "definitive proof" is an overstatement. You'd need to prove that you had the measurements correct first. That is: a) the angle of the puck, b) how far the bottom edge of the puck had crossed the line and, most importantly, c) the angle of the overhead camera. Honestly, I don't think that the overhead camera is at nearly as steep an angle as that picture suggests. The demonstration is a good way to show that the puck may have potentially *not* crossed the line, but it's not a properly scaled reenactment of the exact play.

 

[the canadian dream]

[quote name="Razzberry"]

I have no doubts that they had already begun the review while play was still continuing. That's likely why the response was so quick.[/quote]



Probably right Razz. There was plenty of time to review that goal while the play was still going on. And listen to you and your argument!! I don't get it..draw me a picture.



Learned something new aswell I did that has completely nothing to do with the current conversation. Apparently if a penalty were called on either team during the time of the "goal" and before the whistle stopped play that penalty would have still been called. Despite the ruling on the ice being overturned and the clock going back to when the "goal" occurred. Keeps players from taking free liberties. Thanks John Garrett you actually told me something for once.

 

[Razzberry]

That's actually pretty cool. I wasn't aware of that.