I was under the impression that the intent of the video review process was to "accurately" assess controversial or unclear goal rulings on the ice... It seems the NHL has blown yet another noble venture... The incorrect outcomes of the reviews in Games 3 and 4 of the Ranger-Sabre series has been utterly embarrassing... Clearly, there was no kicking motion by the NY player on Sunday, and last night, there is no other place that puck could have been, but in the net... In fact, local NY radio talk show host, Steve Sommers (a HUGE Ranger fan), admitted that his beloved team "got a break" - I have also heard from several sources (WFAN radio in NYC) that there were "other" replay angles available to those in Toronto that Versus was shut out from... If the replay judges have to SEE the disk in the net, then what happens in a scenario in which the puck is in the goalie's glove that has obviously broken the plane? It appears to be all guesswork on the part of the NHL...
My solution to this controversy is more cameras in the arena (consistent in ALL arenas) and within the confines of the goal... Try a small camera behind each goal post that gives a clear, unobstructed view of the goal line... This should be no problem for 21st century technology... This would be a nationwide scandal if reviews in the NFL playoffs were being handled as they are in Gary Bettman's league... Getting the calls right is blatantly NOT the aim of video goal replay... It's laughable...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Damn - I screwed up the title... Let's try, "Success of the Video REPLAY"
No problem antz - I didn't even notice the faux pas. (hope I beat you to that one faux).
I see even more of a problem here. It's one that opens the league to justified allegations of favoritism and fixing.
Evidence...
This picture is the one used to overturn the no-goal on-ice call of Vanek's shot against the Isles in Buffalo's game 3 victory. Evidence ruled conclusive in spite of the front view camera angle. No argument here.
http://members.cox.net/pschulwitz/pics/goal.jpg
This picture was ignored in the failure to overturn the March 8th on-ice no-goal call of Ryan Smyth's last minute shot in the Rangers 2-1 win over the Isles. The explanation from the league was that the front view camera angle could produce an "optical illusion" and should thereforee not be relied upon.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/bcrt2000/nogoal1.jpg
Rumors (not faux) persist of collusion on the part of the league to favor certain teams to advance in the playoffs. Recently Buffalo was rumored to be favored to help promote the recently announced retail/entertainment project to be built adjacent to their arena. The league is quickly taking on WWF perception. The sport is already dying a slow death. This stuff might just hasten the pace.
1)Nice job Antz. We have been saying many of the same things as you wrote in your post. It seems the NHL gets it wrong almost every time with these reviews!
2) As we wrote this morning on another blog: This, and the several other close call goal reviews so far this playoff season makes it clear that the NHL's goal review policy/process is not working.
There needs to be a standardization of camera angles so one arena's camera angles are like any/every other. Also after watching Versus last evening it seemed that only one view was being shown repeatedly.
3) You'd think in the playoffs, in the biggest market, in a game televised by 2 outlets that there would be more available. The technology has to be there to use 'nano' cameras in the net or near by to get angles not currently available.
Wow, this place is full of conspiracy theorists! I think you all give NHL hierarchy far too much credit. The failure of video replay is not a conspiracy by NHL bigwigs to get certain teams into the playoffs or further in the playoffs. The failure of video replay is clearly due to incompetence.
Nice article tho!
There must be a better way to determine if the puck crosses the line.
1) Perhaps we read different posts because we don't recall Antz writing that the recent spate of bad calls were favouring any one team
2) In fact he cites bad calls in successive games that hurt each team, and he gave a few opinions on how this flawed system can be fixed. By doing so inviting others to offer their opinions on this matter.
3) It was a responder 'Sauce' who postulates what you are asserting; that there is a conspiracy by the NHL where by they are using the goal reviews to get the teams it wants to win an advantage. Neither Antz nor anyone else in the FAUXRUMORS Group, LLC have made a similar assertion here
Indeed, point taken Fauxrumors, but my comment was just a general comment towards the writers and commenters regarding previous posts/comments etc.
1) You may in the future be a bit more specific/clear so fellow posters/contributors can understand what you are trying to convey.
2) No way would a new visitor understand that you were probably alluding back to an article we wrote last month (About 15 posts ago) concerning the league and its bias against the Islanders for their verbal abuse of some league officials
Faux: While I can appreciate why you feel comments need to be... "specific/clear so fellow posters/contributors can understand" what is trying to be conveyed, it's also the responsibility of readers to avoid incorrect inferences from posted comments.
You posted about my prior comment... "It was a responder 'Sauce' who postulates what you are asserting; that there is a conspiracy by the NHL where by they are using the goal reviews to get the teams it wants to win an advantage."
This is inaccurate. The import of my comment was that the inconsistent application of video review... "opens the league to justified allegations of favoritism and fixing." Indeed, after citing allegations that had already surfaced in the past number of days, I stated... "The league is quickly taking on a WWF perception."
As I ultimately addressed the future (or lack) of the sport, it's the perception of the league that's most important at this stage of the sport, rather than the existence of any type of collusion. It seems you missed my point.
Faux, thank you for the support and Shuck, I understood your point... No harm, no foul here...
1) Our response about posting clarity was meant for Shuck not you Sauce
2) You(sauce) originally wrote:...Rumors persist of collusion on the part of the league to favor certain teams.... How does that differ from an allegation of league conspiracy? Sounds like a semantical difference.
3) However we agree that whether one believes in these allegations or not: "Perception is reality"
Faux: one difference, and it's not just 'semantics'. You said that I was the one postulating an NHL conspiracy. I was merely pointing out that the allegations exist and their connection to mishandling video replays. BIG difference.
Wow this place is becoming difficult to comment on without getting things twisted, accused of being inaccurate and such.
I was hoping for a more friendly environment for hockey discussion. Lets hope it is just this topic that brings this confusion and side of people!
1) Hey Shuck this is a blog/message board for the exchange of views.
2) If you or anyone has a differing opinion about any discussed subject here feel free/comfortable to discuss that.
3) Very few of the posters who have come here over the past 9+ months have felt intimidated, and neither should you. We have re-read all posts and could NOT find any that seemed 'unfriendly'.
4) That said, this aint Romper Room. Its a hockey board and we all have our opinions that may not agree with each other. If one has trouble being disagreed with then a blog/discussion board is not a good place to visit
Post a Comment