Video Replays

[Purple Phart]

This past season has shown that the video replay function can use some fine tuning, and there have been instances where incorrect calls have been made when the on-ice officials call for a video review of certain plays. If I recall correctly, the Rangers fans have asserted that their team has been victimized twice, and been once the beneficiary of video calls gone wrong. This past week, another apparent snafu occurred in a playoff game involving the Spitfires and the Knights.

I can appreciate that the league has made the attempt to use technology in a positive way to make the proper calls, when those on-ice officials encounter some difficulty, and that's commendable. However, they've now had a couple of seasons to perfect this system, and should be well versed in it's application.

During playoffs, this shouldn't be happening, and there should be experienced off-ice personnel who are assigned to this court of last appeal. Perhaps the misshaps are due to inconsistancy in how many camera angles are available to the video judges, or simply a lack of training.

I'm curious as to how the fans view this issue, and if there are any ideas out there that would improve this feature.

Click to read more...

 

[Ward Cornell]

Yes, you're 100% correct on two blown calls on the Rangers and one equally bad call in favour of the Rangers.
IMHO, have monitors at the timers bench and let the on ice officials do the review and make the call. But do away on winding back the "tape" to see if there was an offiside or whatever and a short time frame for the reviews. Just use the review on disputed goals!
Also enforce the rule on camera placement position and number in all arenas!!!!!!

 

[Fudgeo]

Replays have always been a joke here in Guelph. Anything actually worthy of a replay gets the ol' infinite spinning storm logo, I guess to protect players and refs?
It's obvious the cameras being used in some (most?) arenas aren't up to snuff either. When you have to count a single pixel as the puck there's going to be problems.

 

[EON]

I don't think this is just an OHL problem. While the OHL is probably a bit behind in technology, the NHL still has constant mistakes and mishaps with reviews. I'm really not sure what the answer is.

 

[ohloutsider]

Standard for camera placements and quality for sure - video review is the direct result of fans not having faith in the calls by the on-ice officials - over time it has been proven that the majority of calls by the on ice officials are correct but we now have a dependence on video review so it is not going away.
This year in the OHL anyway seems like we have had more than a normal amount of video calls that overturn the on ice call that are then called out by the league - Before this year I can't recall any of these.
For me video review is in place to ensure the fan has confidence in the end the right call is made.
Solution - for all on ice calls that involve an OVERTURN of a call by video review ( there are actually very few overturned calls) then the league should post a video and an explanation on their website on why the on ice call was overturned, again at least the fan has something they can look at and understand why.
They do this for all major penalties that involve suspensions so it is not out of the realm to think they could not do this for overturned calls by video review.
As these are all goal/no goal reviews it really should warrant an explanation considering the impact on a game. You are never going to make all fans happy but most just want to see the evidence.

 

[MisterDB]

The OHL has not used the video evidence and explanation in a suspension for the past 2 years, they seemed to have suspended this action with the new web design.

Mr cynical here says "they used to but they had so many that it became a full time job which affected the bottom line" (sarcasm here)


For me if the same technology cannot be applied to all arenas then the review system should be dropped. A prime example is the offside call review on a goal. These are some of the most lengthy meaningless reviews out there.

Overhead cameras for goal review have to be in place for all arenas.

There is no excuse what so ever for not having HD equipment in place especially if the OHL insists on video review for every goal.

 

[AttackSound]

This past season has shown that the video replay function can use some fine tuning, and there have been instances where incorrect calls have been made when the on-ice officials call for a video review of certain plays. If I recall correctly, the Rangers fans have asserted that their team has been victimized twice, and been once the beneficiary of video calls gone wrong. This past week, another apparent snafu occurred in a playoff game involving the Spitfires and the Knights.

I can appreciate that the league has made the attempt to use technology in a positive way to make the proper calls, when those on-ice officials encounter some difficulty, and that's commendable. However, they've now had a couple of seasons to perfect this system, and should be well versed in it's application.

During playoffs, this shouldn't be happening, and there should be experienced off-ice personnel who are assigned to this court of last appeal. Perhaps the misshaps are due to inconsistancy in how many camera angles are available to the video judges, or simply a lack of training.

I'm curious as to how the fans view this issue, and if there are any ideas out there that would improve this feature.

As a long time fan of this league when the league introduced video review and then in recent years coaching challenges on certain plays. It seemed like a good idea to be able to get second looks on plays where officials had an obstructed views on plays. As MisterDB pointed out video review on every goal was brought in to takeaway any questioning on plays.

As I have said in the past 2 years the CHL has added cam-helmets for the specters excitement but that view for TV broadcasted games should and hopefully used would be used for goal reviews, off-sides, etc. especially when every goals have to be reviewed anyways. On a regular game-by-game basis. Instead of the slow down and stop to review for 15 minutes before goals are deemed good goals or no goals

 

[LeftShot]

I was watching the OS-KIT game last night and the Attack scored a goal where the puck appeared to slide under the goalie and across the line. The ref was right there and called it a goal.

They go to review and the TV broadcast shows two angles that don't show the puck clearly in the net. The TV commentator explained that their production doesn't have access to the overhead camera, but that the video goal judge does.

I'm not doubting that the puck was in because the ref was right there..but if the league wants to clear up people doubting calls, should they not mandate that each home team's TV production has access to all the same angles the video goal judge does?

 

[AttackSound]

I was watching the OS-KIT game last night and the Attack scored a goal where the puck appeared to slide under the goalie and across the line. The ref was right there and called it a goal.

They go to review and the TV broadcast shows two angles that don't show the puck clearly in the net. The TV commentator explained that their production doesn't have access to the overhead camera, but that the video goal judge does.

I'm not doubting that the puck was in because the ref was right there..but if the league wants to clear up people doubting calls, should they not mandate that each home team's TV production has access to all the same angles the video goal judge does?

Agreed unfortunately Goal Judges aren't mandatory in the league anymore due to the fact of overhead cameras above the net these days, as well as home team camera angles for TV aren't really used for goal review but TV value. The only flaw with what is in place now is that beyond the fact of overhead cams above each net which can be spotty due to the fact that when you have 5-6 players along with net-minders crowding the crease on scramble goals its hard to find where the puck lays, not to also discount that officials have a hard time determining whether or not the puck actually did or didn't cross the goal line

 

[Purple Phart]

Thanks folks, for all of your replies. There are some interesting ideas worthy of further examination. I had a thought that perhaps the goalposts and upper crossbar could have some mini-cameras imbedded right into them, to give a more definative view of the actual goal area, and the position of the puck. The technology is such that it would be possible, given the size of those spy-tech cameras. That way, the actual view wouldn't be partially obstructed by the net, as is the case with the current overhead cameras. A battery pack could be placed at the rear of each net, where the goalie's water bottle is presently positioned, that could power those cameras. The recorder would be at the timekeeper's area, with a playback feature available to the on-ice referee(s). There would then be 3 separate views available...one from directly overhead, and one from each of the left side and right side posts. Maybe this isn't feasable at the OHL level, but might be worthy of a cost assessment ?

 

[barclayplager]

..ask Battalion about Kitchener video review..phantom goal only goal judge saw cost Batt 2 points...guess how many points they finished out of playoffs?.......2 points.

 

[Medway Bear]

..ask Battalion about Kitchener video review..phantom goal only goal judge saw cost Batt 2 points...guess how many points they finished out of playoffs?.......2 points.

While I agree a Kitchener video review cost the Battalion a win, it only actually cost them one point as they lost in a shoot out to Kitchener.

 

[barclayplager]

..was it a shootout due to the gift??

 

[Medway Bear]

..was it a shootout due to the gift??

It was a short out due to the gift, but even in North Bay had won in regulation they would only have one point more and the Rangers 2 points less. North Bay would still have finished 9th and Kitchener 6th.