"Watch" goal line technology for refs?

[wetcamelfood]

Watched an EPL game yesterday where a ball went over the goal line in the air and was quickly cleared out but right afterwards the ref whistled it a goal and the announcer mentioned how the refs have a watch they can look at which tells them if the ball went all the way across the line (in the air or not) on a fast play like that and after seeing the replay it was the right call. I know many here might see it as too many cooks in the kitchen but I wonder if this could be used in the NHL as "extra evidence" the ref can add to the mix when talking to Toronto on video review to try to come to the right decision and it may even help with plays where video review is inconclusive if the puck is on the ice and bodies are on top of it and this watch thing is able to see through arms and legs etc.? The idea struck me because the call was so fast so no one could claim it would take too much time since that was faster than checking the replay and Toronto doesn't have the advantage of seeing it as it happens either (which has seemed topical lately on some of the B's controversial calls). Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[barstool]

First time poster.I have heard once the Refs and Linesman sign their collective

bargaining agreement, helmet cams will soon follow.Sorry no link

 

[ODAAT]

First time poster.I have heard once the Refs and Linesman sign their collective

bargaining agreement, helmet cams will soon follow.Sorry no link

welcome to the boards, jeez I hope not, half of those refs can`t keep up to the play, we`d be seeing a ton of video of them with their heads down, camera faced squarely on the ice as they attempt to catch up to the play

 

[talkinaway]

Tech like this couldn't hurt, but it doesn't solve all the problems, either.

For example, at the Pens game last Monday, there were two disallowed goals against the Bruins, but neither call had to do with the actual goal line. Even Sidney would have agreed that the puck cleared the line. The first call was that the puck hit Bergeron's stick at a height above the goal's crossbar before entering the net. I personally agreed with that call, and found it laughable when I came home to watch our homer announcers claim that the puck was under.

That said, we're all viewing 3D space on a flat 2D object. Optical illusions happen, and different angles can show different things. Even taking that out of the picture, it's tough even for a ref who's near the action to make the call - you have to judge the relative height of two objects (puck and goal crossbar) that may be several feet apart, and you might not be at exactly the right spot at exactly the right time. Plus, there's no big sign saying "you need to watch the puck height at this time" - there are times when it might be irrelevant, or when you need to watch for something else.

The second disallowed goal was supposedly a puck that was batted in off of Soderberg's glove. The goal line wasn't the controversy; again, it was the action of the player who "scored" the goal that was in question. IMO, this was actually a good goal - I saw it more as a deflection than a batting, and I think 47 on the Pens might have touched it, IIRC.

I'm not sure how often the controversy revolves around whether the puck crosses the line. It seems to me that most of the reviews tend to revolve around the potential goal scorer - things like distinct kicking motion, high sticking, batting in, and interference. Plus, the goal cam usually provides decent coverage of the goal line.

 

[JOKER 192]

Last night during The Habs and Buffalo game the weirdest thing happened. Gallagher took a shot that went of the post and was making it's way into the net but as it crossed the line by the smallest of margins it hit the knob of the goalie's stick and went back out. Play continued until a siren went off stoping play. The play was then reviewed and the goal was awarded. It was a legit goal what surprised me was that they were able to pick that up. I Wonder if the technology the OP speaks of was what triggered the review or just someone caught with the naked eye.It was odd watching that play, it did kind of have you asking yourself ,"What just happened here?"

 

[Replicator]

I'm curious what the technology is on the EPL goals. A sensor inside the ball would be very accurate, but prone to damage (though a puck would be tougher even in spite of the much harder forces at work). A camera image processing system would be easily obstructed, but would be very reliable.

A system like that might be pretty useful for those cases where the puck hits the goal line but a defender sweeps it out. I think the majority of needed reviews don't question whether the puck crossed the goal, but whether the goalie was interfered with or whether the puck was kicked in or played with a high stick. We might get a few more reviews that are needed for other reasons if this technology was in use.

 

[wetcamelfood]

I'm curious what the technology is on the EPL goals. A sensor inside the ball would be very accurate, but prone to damage (though a puck would be tougher even in spite of the much harder forces at work). A camera image processing system would be easily obstructed, but would be very reliable.

A system like that might be pretty useful for those cases where the puck hits the goal line but a defender sweeps it out. I think the majority of needed reviews don't question whether the puck crossed the goal, but whether the goalie was interfered with or whether the puck was kicked in or played with a high stick. We might get a few more reviews that are needed for other reasons if this technology was in use.

Yeah a sensor put inside the pucks when they are manufactured would be ideal for cases needing and not having a camera under the ice.

I agree with the others though that it wouldn't solve everything but it's something.

 

[talkinaway]

Last night during The Habs and Buffalo game the weirdest thing happened. Gallagher took a shot that went of the post and was making it's way into the net but as it crossed the line by the smallest of margins it hit the knob of the goalie's stick and went back out. Play continued until a siren went off stoping play. The play was then reviewed and the goal was awarded. It was a legit goal what surprised me was that they were able to pick that up. I Wonder if the technology the OP speaks of was what triggered the review or just someone caught with the naked eye.It was odd watching that play, it did kind of have you asking yourself ,"What just happened here?"

I just found the HNIC feed of this goal - was this really an instance of the new "War Room siren" that can go off if a good goal is missed? To me, it looked like the goal was made at 12:07, and play was stopped by naturally by a whistle for offsides at 11:48. At least that's how HNIC called it. Maybe it was a combo of the two - I heard the siren go off while they had the play stopped.

For the record, the "war room siren" is the other rule that's been changed mid-season, along with the removal of the dry scrape. Seems reasonable, especially when 2-3 minutes of play can go until a whistle.

Amazing to think that the war room has to not only watch the game action, but the goal lines of all those simultaneous games. Pretty quick reaction time to stop the play in 19 seconds, if that's how it was done.

 

[JOKER 192]

I just found the HNIC feed of this goal - was this really an instance of the new "War Room siren" that can go off if a good goal is missed? To me, it looked like the goal was made at 12:07, and play was stopped by naturally by a whistle for offsides at 11:48. At least that's how HNIC called it. Maybe it was a combo of the two - I heard the siren go off while they had the play stopped.

For the record, the "war room siren" is the other rule that's been changed mid-season, along with the removal of the dry scrape. Seems reasonable, especially when 2-3 minutes of play can go until a whistle.

Amazing to think that the war room has to not only watch the game action, but the goal lines of all those simultaneous games. Pretty quick reaction time to stop the play in 19 seconds, if that's how it was done.

Yes your right play was stopped when the siren went off ,I just described it wrong.

 

[HumBucker]

Having some some kind of sensor tech that indicates that a puck is 100% over the goal line would help, imo. I don't know if we're there yet. Wouldn't be the solution to all scenarios, no, but it would probably help in quite a few cases.

The thing I wonder about video reviews of goals like Bergeron's from the Pitt game, is if the height of the stick relative to the crossbar needs to be determined by cameras, why don't they have the cameras positioned on either side of the rink along the goal line and at the same height as the crossbar so as to see it from the best perspective? Maybe one behind the net too?

Seems to me that would make it easier for the war room guys in Toronto to make the proper call, rather than trying to judge angles from cameras that are a little below or above the level of the crossbar.

 

[wetcamelfood]

have the cameras positioned on either side of the rink along the goal line and at the same height as the crossbar so as to see it from the best perspective? Maybe one behind the net too? Seems to me that would make it easier for the war room guys in Toronto to make the proper call, rather than trying to judge angles from cameras that are a little below or above the level of the crossbar.

Yes. This is a no brainer and still don't know why they won't do this. (money, I know...)

 

[KuralySnipes]

It's obviously going to be coming sometime in the near future, its only a matter of time.

 

[JOKER 192]

It's obviously going to be coming sometime in the near future, its only a matter of time.

What? The powers that be are still rubbing sticks together.

 

[5Minutes4Fighting]

The first call was that the puck hit Bergeron's stick at a height above the goal's crossbar before entering the net. I personally agreed with that call, and found it laughable when I came home to watch our homer announcers claim that the puck was under.

On the first goal, the replay was ultimately inconclusive. Most likely too high where it was tapped, but not clearly. The problem I had was that the official on the ice ruled a goal. Then when he had powwow with the other officials, he reversed his on-ice ruling. If he let it stand as a goal on ice, it would not have been reversed by replay since the replay was not clear. Since he flip flopped, the inconclusiveness worked against the B's.

The second goal really didn't look like an intentional bat to the goal, and actually hit Looch before it went in the net. IMO, it should have stood. But what can you do?