A better way of determining if the puck crossed the goal line

[Ho_Brah]

remember Fox Trax back in the mid-nineties? They cut the puck in half, installed some electronics and epoxied it back together. Computer chips cost less these days and are a lot smaller, I think it wouldn't be that expensive as one would think.

 

[IPostedWhat]

remember Fox Trax back in the mid-nineties? They cut the puck in half, installed some electronics and epoxied it back together. Computer chips cost less these days and are a lot smaller, I think it wouldn't be that expensive as one would think.

Say hello to US Patent #5748073 from back in 1998:

A new electronic goal detector for accurately detects and signals when a hockey puck passes through the goal line between the goal posts of a hockey goal. The inventive device includes a set of goal sensors for mounting on the goal posts and cross bar of a hockey goal to act as a goal sensing means for detecting a puck passing through the goal line. A goal sensor is also embedded within the hockey playing surface along the goal line. At the bottom end of one of the goal posts is a two-part connector that separates when the hockey goal is moved off of the goal line to deactivate the goal sensors. A sound generating device and a light source provide an indicating means for indicating when a puck passes into the hockey goal.

End Of The Line for the Goal Judge? -- NHL FanHouse

 

[IPostedWhat]

I would have to think that if that Patent was back in the late 90's, and the League hasn't even looked at implementing a system like this yet, then I don't think it's likely anytime soon.

I imagine they are trying to keep the human element part of the game, the same as it always has been, and they don't consider this to be a problem that needs to be addressed to the point of turning it over to technology.

I'm sure there would also be a group pf people who would always question the validity of whether the sensors are always 100% accurate and if it's any improvement over the way it's always been done?

Something similar occurred in soccer, but it wasn't embraced at all.

 

[Automattic]

Put Jonathan Ericsson on D, then you will know for sure that the puck is in your own net.

 

[davnlaguna]

I think the reason the same as why they don't do it is because like baseball: they like the human making a ruling. It gives the fans something to talk about. It is why penalties can not be reviewed. In baseball they could set up a strike zone computer using cameras and make every call correct with the correct strike zone adjusted for every player. But MLB likes that different umps have different strike zones. It is part of the game. In hockey we have the video review, but it is still a person (if you can call the people in the War Room people) that makes the call.

 

[Comeds]

My wife helped our my county library switch from a traditional check out system to a new RFID system. The RFID system allows you to carry a stack of books, pile them on the checkout table, and check them all out at once. When they were doing that a few years ago each sticker cost about 50 cents. Its gotten so cheap that some grocery stores are using that for check out now too.

I would certainly think if they placed a sticker on the middle of one side of the puck that they could mathematically figure out a system to tell whether the puck goes completely over the line.

Then again the honor system is the gentlemanly way to decide. Sorry my good teammates, that puck did cross the line.

 

[Comeds]

I think the reason the same as why they don't do it is because like baseball: they like the human making a ruling. It gives the fans something to talk about. It is why penalties can not be reviewed. In baseball they could set up a strike zone computer using cameras and make every call correct with the correct strike zone adjusted for every player. But MLB likes that different umps have different strike zones. It is part of the game. In hockey we have the video review, but it is still a person (if you can call the people in the War Room people) that makes the call.

I agree, I do not think they want to automate it.

 

[IPostedWhat]

I think the reason the same as why they don't do it is because like baseball: they like the human making a ruling. It gives the fans something to talk about. It is why penalties can not be reviewed. In baseball they could set up a strike zone computer using cameras and make every call correct with the correct strike zone adjusted for every player. But MLB likes that different umps have different strike zones. It is part of the game. In hockey we have the video review, but it is still a person (if you can call the people in the War Room people) that makes the call.

I agree, I do not think they want to automate it.

I agree as well. I wish I would have said something along those lines in post #43.

 

[buffhockey]

My wife helped our my county library switch from a traditional check out system to a new RFID system. The RFID system allows you to carry a stack of books, pile them on the checkout table, and check them all out at once. When they were doing that a few years ago each sticker cost about 50 cents. Its gotten so cheap that some grocery stores are using that for check out now too.

I would certainly think if they placed a sticker on the middle of one side of the puck that they could mathematically figure out a system to tell whether the puck goes completely over the line.

Then again the honor system is the gentlemanly way to decide. Sorry my good teammates, that puck did cross the line.

RFID is the way to go. Soon retailers will be using that to replace conventional checkout systems. Just go past the scanning point and you will see how many items & dollar amount just like the old fashion way. Also, shoplifters will be in for a surprise.

And for the geeks (like me) Read This..

 

[Comeds]

I agree as well. I wish I would have said something along those lines in post #43.

I was working on my post when you posted yours 8 hours ago.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

The biggest issue with this is would be having sensors that have a resolution greater than the human eye. That would be very expensive. It would probably be possible, but let's remember that those nets are taken out every period. You're going to have an engineer come in to configure and calibrate the setup every 20 minutes of game play? Not only would this be practically impossible in terms of time, but it would mean you're paying the guy who moves the nets at each arena 6 figures a year.


Me thinks the owners would not go for that.

 

[IPostedWhat]

I was working on my post when you posted yours 8 hours ago.

Fence post?

 

[Ho_Brah]

Fence post?

Meat post

 

[IPostedWhat]

Meat post

Whatever you do, don't enter that in Google Images.

 

[Ho_Brah]

Whatever you do, don't enter that in Google Images.

fucking jedi mind tricks!!! I looked...didn't see anything that odd....until I scrolled down a bit.

I need help.

 

[IPostedWhat]

fucking jedi mind tricks!!! I looked...didn't see anything that odd....until I scrolled down a bit.

I need help.

I wasn't aware that's where Spam comes from.

 

[Ho_Brah]

I wasn't aware that's where Spam comes from.

lmao fucking sick

 

[Darkstone42]

The biggest issue with this is would be having sensors that have a resolution greater than the human eye. That would be very expensive. It would probably be possible, but let's remember that those nets are taken out every period. You're going to have an engineer come in to configure and calibrate the setup every 20 minutes of game play? Not only would this be practically impossible in terms of time, but it would mean you're paying the guy who moves the nets at each arena 6 figures a year.


Me thinks the owners would not go for that.

I don't know that it would be necessary to hire an engineer to recalibrate it every period. The programming's what requires an engineer, but calibrating instruments that have already been programmed can be pretty simple.

I also think the technology has advanced enough since 1998 that sensors along the goalposts and crossbar would be unnecessary. Vertically oriented sensors in the ice along the goal line should suffice, so the sensor wouldn't have to deactivate every time the net was off its moorings. Now we're just talking about adding a third dimension to a well-known model of an object with radius r intersecting a line. That's very doable.

At this point, the only things holding up this project are the durability of the in-puck electronics, the expense of the sensors, and whether or not the human element should remain in the game.

Personally, I think that getting it right is more important than the human element, and the human element will still exist in cases like judgement calls on penalties and other things.

 

[puckhead]

Then you have to look at what happens if the puck is on it's side or how do you get a system that registers a goal when the whole puck crosses the line, not just some of it.

Then what happens if you have a glitch in the system, or the chip malfunctions, or is damaged by a slapshot?

Too many variables to spend the money on testing it for a League that is already trying to make money in the US the best they can.

Besides, how many times is this really an issue during the regular season that will have the NHL willing to take the chance on it?

presumably these new chip doodads (to use the technical term) would be used as a back-up, like video review is now. Primary indication of a goal or not is the referee (and then the useless guy taking up a $200 first row seat).

 

[mooger_35]

What if we made the puck glow and then if it crossed the line a bunch of spot lights would shine down on the net or maybe some flames would shoot off from the posts!

Ya, that would rock. Get Fox on the phone!