espn+ and cameras

its pretty clear that most of these arenas dont have the proper site lines for filming a game. last nights was crazy low.. I dont get why they dont spend just a little money and put a decent remote camera in thats higher so you can see the ice better. RIT when they built theirs has 2 and used a ton to supplement the live side cameras especially on replays.

I would think it would help the team as well since you could do what RIT does and have them at the blue line and you then get much better film for team spacing to review after the game.. put one in the rafters above the press box or on the other side high and it would create a better picture for the game,

we are not talking big money either

you could really crazy and mount one high on a zip that followed the play that would be pretty cool but thats a pipe dream

still lets do it right instead of on the cheap.

Princeton is one of the worst for this. Most of the arenas are fine. I think Colgate and maybe St Lawrence it almost feels like you’re looking straight down on the ice

upprdeck
its pretty clear that most of these arenas dont have the proper site lines for filming a game. last nights was crazy low.. I dont get why they dont spend just a little money and put a decent remote camera in thats higher so you can see the ice better....
still lets do it right instead of on the cheap.

Fitting that this is posted on Groundhog Day. We've often had this discussion with regard to Lynah. Let's get our own barn in order and then dump on Hobey Baker.

no doubt, had this discussion at Cornell with people.. they just dont care.. same reason we ended up with a scoreboard in the spot its in and ribbon boards tucked out of site and huge video screens showing dead space most games..

I know I am in the minority but I liked the low cameras at Baker. It was different. There was no impeded view from fans so it was fine by me.

The problem with the cast was the stuttering video and the occasional audio drop outs. OTOH I liked the Tiger announcers. The PBP guy was fair minded (although he blew Regush's name) and the color guy said some really interesting things.

Trotsky
I know I am in the minority but I liked the low cameras at Baker. It was different. There was no impeded view from fans so it was fine by me.

The problem with the cast was the stuttering video and the occasional audio drop outs. OTOH I liked the Tiger announcers. The PBP guy was fair minded (although he blew Regush's name) and the color guy said some really interesting things.

I felt differently, for a few reasons. First of all, when Princeton's Holding the Stick penalty got called late in the first, one of them commented that Cornell was, at that point, 1-for-3 on the power play prior to that call. Am I crazy to believe that a delayed penalty call doesn't count as a PP opportunity, and that two overlapping penalties that cause a 5-on-3 only counts as one PP opportunity? By my reckoning, Cornell was therefore 1-for-1 on the PP prior to that call - or at most, 1-for-2 assuming that scoring on a 5-on-3 and thus creating a 5-on-4 counts as two opportunities.

Also, they made a ridiculous comment about how Cornell has a reputation for playing dirty and therefore will get more of a pass from the refs on physical play that goes over the line, while Princeton's squeaky-clean choir boys will get called for the teeniest of infractions because they're thought to be so clean. I seriously almost threw a beer at my TV at that point.

Beeeej
Am I crazy to believe that a delayed penalty call doesn't count as a PP opportunity

You are correct.

Beeeej
and that two overlapping penalties that cause a 5-on-3 only counts as one PP opportunity?

Huh. I'm not sure. Let's try an example:

P1: Princeton takes a minor at 10:00. pp #1. We are up 5x4.

P2: Princeton takes a minor at 11:00. We are now up 5x3. I have always thought this was pp #2 but let's posit pp #2 doesn't actually "count" until P1 expires. Now...

C1: Cornell takes a minor at 11:30. Down to 4x3 but the penalty that "caused the initial advantage" is still P1 so this appears to still be pp #1.

C2: Cornell takes a minor at 11:45. Now we're at 3x3. pp #1 is dead. When P1 ends we're at 3x4. Princeton pp #1. P2 ends, 3x5. C1 ends. 4x5 but now the advantage has been caused by C2 so that ought to be Princeton pp #2. And then C2 ends and it has all unwound.

Given that the result would be 2 PU pps and 1 CU pp for matching phased minors, I cannot believe that is the rule. Therefore, when Cornell goes from 5x4 to 5x3 that is pp #2 running concurrently.

QED

Also, Jason blows the pp count all the time and has demonstrated he's not clear on the rule. So, careful what you criticize.

Trotsky

Beeeej
Am I crazy to believe that a delayed penalty call doesn't count as a PP opportunity

You are correct.

Beeeej
and that two overlapping penalties that cause a 5-on-3 only counts as one PP opportunity?

Huh. I'm not sure. Let's try an example:

P1: Princeton takes a minor at 10:00. pp #1. We are up 5x4.

P2: Princeton takes a minor at 11:00. We are now up 5x3. I have always thought this was pp #2 but let's posit pp #2 doesn't actually "count" until P1 expires. Now...

C1: Cornell takes a minor at 11:30. Down to 4x3 but the penalty that "caused the initial advantage" is still P1 so this appears to still be pp #1.

C2: Cornell takes a minor at 11:45. Now we're at 3x3. pp #1 is dead. When P1 ends we're at 3x4. Princeton pp #1. P2 ends, 3x5. C1 ends. 4x5 but now the advantage has been caused by C2 so that ought to be Princeton pp #2. And then C2 ends and it has all unwound.

Given that the result would be 2 PU pps and 1 CU pp for matching phased minors, I cannot believe that is the rule. Therefore, when Cornell goes from 5x4 to 5x3 that is pp #2 running concurrently.

QED

We and P had 2 PP ops. It doesn't matter that ours ended because we took penalties. If we scored right after C1 (before C2), we'd be 1/2 and P1 would be over. There would still be P2 and C1 at even strength. P would have a PP op when C2 happens and another when P2 is finished.

Cameras at Lynah could be mounted on a taller tripod. Or mounted to the rafters and remotely controlled. Or maybe put something like a B-17 belly turret up there - smallish student, video camera. And / or a reverse angle camera so we could have another view of what's happening in the two corners on the home team / press box side at Lynah.

Cornell should care because good video is also a PR gesture for players' families and a recruiting tool for would-be players.

billhoward
Cameras at Lynah could be mounted on a taller tripod. Or mounted to the rafters and remotely controlled. Or maybe put something like a B-17 belly turret up there - smallish student, video camera.

Drones.

look at the replay system and you understand why the camera placement is so bad

Trotsky

billhoward
Cameras at Lynah could be mounted on a taller tripod. Or mounted to the rafters and remotely controlled. Or maybe put something like a B-17 belly turret up there - smallish student, video camera.

Drones.

We could try to get the drone from Brown to transfer.

Nah.