Paul Stewart: The Calgary-Anaheim Video Review: A Matter of Perspective

Good blog.

I don't always 100% agree with you but you're always a good read. Great writer.

Great blog!

This has a relatively simple solution these days, though. Embed an RFID chip (or similar) at the middle of each puck, and readers underneath the ice in the goal. If the RFID is read 40mm behind the goal line, then it's a goal (by a margin of about 2mm), no matter what orientation the puck has.

No obscured camera angles, and you'd catch pucks under the goalie's glove/leg/whatever.

If I am not mistaken, if the puck is on its side this wouldn't work. Because then it would not be 40mm.

Tennis line calls are made correctly EVERY time by using technology.

Baseball's Pitch Trax, and other similar systems, get EVERY ball and strike call correct EVERY time.

It's not much of a leap that the NHL can use technology to get a goal/no goal call correct. How about a series of cameras embedded in the cross bar, looking down, and in both posts, looking across. That overhead camera is worthless, as the view can be easily blocked.

No one is suggesting robots to call penalties, but to refuse to use the technology that's available is silly.

Agreed on the technology either already existing or being close. 99% of the goal/no-goal calls are bang on, but the odd time when they aren't could cost a team the game, series, cup? It's a no-brainer

The use of technology is supposed to get the calls right. If it cannot, why are they still using it? It's frustrating when an official gets a call wrong, but it is just plain wrong when, after review, they still get the call wrong. When they use the phrase "no substantial evidence", then why is it used in the first place?

Just thinking, cameras in the ice on the goal line are the only way doubt will be removed, because the view cannot be blocked.

Great blog!

This has a relatively simple solution these days, though. Embed an RFID chip (or similar) at the middle of each puck, and readers underneath the ice in the goal. If the RFID is read 40mm behind the goal line, then it's a goal (by a margin of about 2mm), no matter what orientation the puck has.

No obscured camera angles, and you'd catch pucks under the goalie's glove/leg/whatever.
- lrt512

exactly.

there's absolutely no reason why this hasn't been done as of yet.. perhaps battery life of the RFID chip inside a frozen puck... but they should be able to get that right.

Paul Stewart: The Calgary-Anaheim Video Review: A Matter of Perspective
- Paul Stewart

great blog as always Mr Stewart (not Sr).

gotta love those smart old grandfathers.

quote button isnt working:
Regarding camera IN THE ICE at the goal line, what about snow build-up right on top of the camera(s)?

Question for you Stew, or any one else that might know:
Are refs mandated to make a call on the ice? I thought I've seen plays where a wash-out sign has been made (even emphatically) only to find that the ref was signaling that the play had stopped, not that a goal was not good. Then, there is nothing to overturn, only getting the right call made. Inconclusive wouldnt matter because nothing is being overturned. The ref would get on the mic and say after reviewing the play it is goal/no goal...