Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Sharks: "Light Schedule" Edition

[eco's bones]

One of the reasons I don't mind Ken Daneyko is that despite being a lifelong Devil and an obvious Devils' partisan he takes pains to be objective when remarking on the Rangers.

MacLean is a not so much. Of course--being a failed coach--it's not a surprise. He's still trying to figure out what he did wrong.

Anyway Hayes is a huge center on our third line and a really good player. Within a couple years he will IMO definitely be a top 6 level center on practically every team in the league. Miller on our 4th line also has very good size--a willingness to use it and a history of occasionally even dropping the gloves. So it's not like there's no size.

The Rangers bottom lines actually are intimidating at least a lot of the NHL with their speed and skill--especially the speed. All of these guys are not afraid to make contact. When the two top lines are not on the ice there is really no let up of the speed and pressure.

Having said all that--the physical area should at least be considered. Our last three playoff ousters came at the hands of the Devils, Bruins, Kings--all teams that were not as fast as us but all of them were more physical throughout their lineup than we are.

I'm pretty comfortable with the team as is if it remains healthy the rest of the way-don't think we need to tweak it very much or at all.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

The difference was Fox didn't need to accurately know the exact position of each point of the puck. They just needed to know the center and then could have the shadow come out from there. To accurately determine the location of the puck and make sure the entirety crosses the goal line is much more difficult because the puck can enter in all different angles and you need to ensure that all locations are across.

Why couldn't proximity sensors be placed in the nets as well?

 

[NCRanger]

There should be a dozen mini cameras inside every net. The technology is there, it's relatively inexpensive, and pretty easy to do.

The call last night is inexcusable in this day and age. Imagine if SJ tied it or wins it 3-2? The whole point of replay is to get it RIGHT. Bunch of sack less idiots in Toronto.

This.

I can buy the fact that the on ice officials didn't see it go in. That's fair.

I'm not even a big proponent of replay, as I think it's destroying the credibility of college football. but if it exists to get calls right, and it obviously shows that the on-ice call should be reversed, and it doesn't, why do we have replay in the first place?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Technology is advanced enough to be able to put a sensor inside the puck without throwing anything off about its texture, weight, size (etc) and a sensor on the goal line, that allows a definitive, 100% conclusion if a puck has crossed the goal line.

 

[Mac n Gs]

So ugh, Remember that one other team that swept west canada and california in history (of east teams)?

Montreal.
Who was their coach? AV

Mind = Blown.

Illuminati.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

Technology is advanced enough to be able to put a sensor inside the puck without throwing anything off about its texture, weight, size (etc) and a sensor on the goal line, that allows a definitive, 100% conclusion if a puck has crossed the goal line.

I don't think it's that easy. A puck can cross the line in different ways depending on how it's oriented. You would need some type of sensor inside to tell exactly how it's oriented, and then be able to calculate in real time if, given how the puck is laying, the entire thing has crossed the line. That's much harder to do than many of you think, and even harder to do without changing the weight, balance, and durability of the puck.

Even if you could do all that, you still need some type of directional antennas embedded in the ice and goal posts that radiate at the perfect power level without bleeding even an inch outside the net, but still have enough juice to make it to the center of the net.

In short, it's nearly impossible. And would cost a ton of money to even try.

The easiest way to improve goal line technology is to use a ton of cameras, both inside and outside the net, and get a 3D composite image to see if it crossed. It's what soccer does, but soccer is much easier due to the slower speed and larger size of the ball and net.

Cheaper and much easier to implement than a "sensor in the puck"-style system.

(I'm an engineer with a little background in electronics and radio frequency crap.)

 

[Loff]

Bring back the FoxTrax technology.

Umm...both of those are words.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I don't think it's that easy. A puck can cross the line in different ways depending on how it's oriented. You would need some type of sensor inside to tell exactly how it's oriented, and then be able to calculate in real time if, given how the puck is laying, the entire thing has crossed the line. That's much harder to do than many of you think, and even harder to do without changing the weight, balance, and durability of the puck.

Even if you could do all that, you still need some type of directional antennas embedded in the ice and goal posts that radiate at the perfect power level without bleeding even an inch outside the net, but still have enough juice to make it to the center of the net.

In short, it's nearly impossible. And would cost a ton of money to even try.

The easiest way to improve goal line technology is to use a ton of cameras, both inside and outside the net, and get a 3D composite image to see if it crossed. It's what soccer does, but soccer is much easier due to the slower speed and larger size of the ball and net.

Cheaper and much easier to implement than a "sensor in the puck"-style system.

(I'm an engineer with a little background in electronics and radio frequency crap.)

You put a sensor that lines the outside of the puck, along the entire circumference.

When two exact opposite points register being across the line, it's a goal.

Two factors - 1, having the sensor wrap around the outside of the puck.
2, the system registering a goal when two opposite points of the puck are across the line.
It completely erases the need for camera's in the net. Soccer has goal line technology. NHL should too.

 

[Beer League Sniper]

A sensor can't sense anything if it doesn't have a reliable and precise signal being radiated. That's nearly impossible to confine completely along the goal line of a net, but not one inch outside it. There's just no way with current technology.

 

[fredrikstad]

I am unappreciated

Yours where the best, with Rangers Logo and all

 

[Kovalev27]

U want to make this very easy?

Make the goal line like football. Any part of the puck breaks the line its a goal.

Scoring goes up a bit for sure and no gray area.

Not as crazy an idea as U may think

 

[LieutenantLackluster]

Yes, it was a goal. Problem is the call was no goal and it has to be 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusive to overturn it, and it just wasnt. The puck needs to be seen crossing the line and the glove obstructed most of the view. They make that call 10 out of 10 times.

 

[bobbop]

Meh I thought Jumbo Joe had a good game.

Joe never has a good game in a big game.

 

[Doctyl]

Yours where the best, with Rangers Logo and all

Haha nah openmind had one with the broom sweeping over the logos

 

[TheTakedown]

U want to make this very easy?

Make the goal line like football. Any part of the puck breaks the line its a goal.

Scoring goes up a bit for sure and no gray area.

Not as crazy an idea as U may think

Then they need to make a second line in the net to gauge this.

I like they idea though

 

[Miamipuck]

Yes, it was a goal. Problem is the call was no goal and it has to be 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt conclusive to overturn it, and it just wasnt. The puck needs to be seen crossing the line and the glove obstructed most of the view. They make that call 10 out of 10 times.

Pretty much yeah, I was fine with the no goal.

 

[Tawnos]

Toronto made the right call.

And while Hank has been playing great for the last 25 games or so, this is the first one that I feel like he stole. That's no denigration on the Rangers play. It was a good game from both teams.

 

[Synergy27]

U want to make this very easy?

Make the goal line like football. Any part of the puck breaks the line its a goal.

Scoring goes up a bit for sure and no gray area.

Not as crazy an idea as U may think

Yeah, this is a good point. If you think about it, "breaking the plane" and "completely across" are both arbitrary criteria. The former is certainly easier to enforce in a hockey net.

You could also move the line back so that the new "break the plane" point equals the current "completely over" point. You're still subject to equipment/players blocking visibility though.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Interesting stat. Since allowing 9 goals in that blowout to the Sharks last season, we allowed 2 in 3 games.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't think it's that easy. A puck can cross the line in different ways depending on how it's oriented. You would need some type of sensor inside to tell exactly how it's oriented, and then be able to calculate in real time if, given how the puck is laying, the entire thing has crossed the line. That's much harder to do than many of you think, and even harder to do without changing the weight, balance, and durability of the puck.

Even if you could do all that, you still need some type of directional antennas embedded in the ice and goal posts that radiate at the perfect power level without bleeding even an inch outside the net, but still have enough juice to make it to the center of the net.

In short, it's nearly impossible. And would cost a ton of money to even try.

The easiest way to improve goal line technology is to use a ton of cameras, both inside and outside the net, and get a 3D composite image to see if it crossed. It's what soccer does, but soccer is much easier due to the slower speed and larger size of the ball and net.

Cheaper and much easier to implement than a "sensor in the puck"-style system.

(I'm an engineer with a little background in electronics and radio frequency crap.)

The ice, lines, and net have specific dimensions, so couldn't they place a device at the center of mass, and then measure this distance of the center of mass from the back of the net? (let's say the bottom bar)

I know the rotation of the puck could be issue, but i'm sure they could account for that margin of error and only call events that are within those minimal limits inconclusive.

I assume the power source would effect the momentum of the puck, but I assume the NHL could afford better than the low voltage ones I found: http://www.futureelectronics.com/en/technologies/semiconductors/analog/sensors/proximity/Pages/3020909-STMPE16M31QTR.aspx?IM=0

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Yeah, this is a good point. If you think about it, "breaking the plane" and "completely across" are both arbitrary criteria. The former is certainly easier to enforce in a hockey net.

You could also move the line back so that the new "break the plane" point equals the current "completely over" point. You're still subject to equipment/players blocking visibility though.

All the lines in hockey involve completely passing the line.

 

[fredrikstad]

Haha nah openmind had one with the broom sweeping over the logos

Yeah, but it came later. The copy right is yours sir

 

[aufheben]

Soft-ass game dragging our GoalsPerGame down.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Soft-ass game dragging our GoalsPerGame down.

That's good news!

When our competition checks our advanced stats on amateur blogs, they will underestimate us!

 

[Doctyl]

Soft-ass game dragging our GoalsPerGame down.

I mean we did score 4 goals...