New puck visualization system?

[vbet*]

1) players wouldn't like it because of 1 timers
2) a goal is when it crosses the line, not when it crosses a predetermined area below the ice. Nets are not always in the same place.
3) changeover time, how much extra time does it take to install? Busy arenas don't have extra hours to do this.
4) It's a black puck on white ice. How difficult is that.

 

[Phousse]

"but it has been particularly designed to improve the visualization through television systems, which are mainly used by viewers"

heh, anyone else besides viewers using tv's these days?

Haha I caught that too.

I don't think there's another word to describe this other than stupid.

 

[SpokaneShark]

I say not. I have never had a problem tracking the puck the old fashioned way. If fans complain they can't track the puck, maybe they should move on to another sport that suits their needs, like curling.

I watched the whole demo, and when the future was portrayed I instantly found myself watching the trails and not the play. I like most hockey nuts don't constantly just 'watch' the puck, but also watch the positioning of the players. This trailing system discourages that, IMO.

I SAY NO!

 

[dbbourn]

Quit messing with the game. I don't mind some technology here and there for the fans to further enjoy the game, but this would affect the players and the actual game. Besides, that Fox tracking thing was terrible.

Pass....

 

[kracker1]

"but it has been particularly designed to improve the visualization through television systems, which are mainly used by viewers"

heh, anyone else besides viewers using tv's these days?

Yeah, I caught that, really lame, yes? Actually, the whole narration was really lame.

 

[DaBadGuy7]

I think art of th problem on why peole can't see the puck is that the camera view on most US TV telecast is too far out from ice level and color of telecast is poor(e.g MSG Network) unlike in Canada where the camera angle and colors are good.

 

[LimpDave]

how could expanding the game to a wider audience be a bad thing? i understand those who do not like the glowing puck, and or comet trail, but honestly the Adds and graphics on the ice after goals would be AWESOME....

i think this is the future of hockey IF, they can somehow make the light only visible to those who want to see it (via special glasses or something?)

you can't please everyone...but all those trails and lights on the ice would definately be hokey

 

[Titan124]

I like the advertisement and other ideas, but the primary one is too much like fox's, only now it distracts players as well.

 

[CanuckistanFlyerfan]

Quit messing with the game. I don't mind some technology here and there for the fans to further enjoy the game, but this would affect the players and the actual game. Besides, that Fox tracking thing was terrible.

Pass....

Why don't they work on a beeping baseball? Or a soccer ball that yawns until it goes in the net. Or a basketball that makes the sound of gunfire when it goes through the hoop, just so the gangsta's can feel at home.

Leave hockey alone.

 

[robert terwilliger]

awful idea.

not only for the reasons mentioned above, but just how expensive would this be? how many tiles are required?

let's just say that a rink is 200ft x 85ft, without the arcs in the corners (i don't know how to calculate with that). how many tiles would that require? and with individual light bulbs? how ofter would they need to be changed? what if one goes out during the game? how long would these special lights take to be installed? how well would yellow lights show up on a white background?

there are far too many questions for this even to be considered. but when one of the main questions is money, i don't think it has legs to ever come of anything.

people complain about not being able to see the puck, but don't complain about not being able to see a football or a baseball. they can follow the action in football and baseball and know what's going on. hockey is no different. follow the players and you'll find the puck.

 

[friction]

Brutal!!

1. She doesn't know how to talk.

2. If you're watching on tv, the camera is situated higher than the ice, so the trails aren't going to be following the puck, and you'll have two different things to watch. (glowpuck is better because you can actually SEE the puck, not it's relative position on the ice.

3. If you don't know where the puck is, watch the players, they are usually looking at it. It's not hard.

 

[capn89*]

Very very cool, and creative. I'd love to actually see it in action. And I really love the idea of when a goal is scored having some sort of nifty visualization. **** the purists, I love it!

 

[tinyzombies]

I think art of th problem on why peole can't see the puck is that the camera view on most US TV telecast is too far out from ice level and color of telecast is poor(e.g MSG Network) unlike in Canada where the camera angle and colors are good.

Maybe we should just make the puck pink. It might attract more female viewers.

 

[CGG]

Brutal!!

1. She doesn't know how to talk.

If you're too uneducated to notice, she was speaking with a French accent, meaning English isn't her first language. She knows how to talk just fine. How are you at French?

As for the idea, terrible. You could do the ads and goal-scoring stuff with lights in the arena, you don't need the ice lighting up. Would it even work once there's snow on the ice?

 

[jiggs 10]

Why don't they work on a beeping baseball? Or a soccer ball that yawns until it goes in the net. Or a basketball that makes the sound of gunfire when it goes through the hoop, just so the gangsta's can feel at home.

Leave hockey alone.

Exactly!