NC$$ games Saturday 3/28/09

[schoaff]

[quote andyw2100]Imagine if after the Vermont shot, before the next stoppage, Air Force had scored what would have appeared to be the game winning goal, only to have the win taken away and given to Vermont after the video review. That would have been something.[/quote]

I suspect that had that happen they would have decided there wasn't enough evidence to give Vermont a goal and Air Force would have won. I know it shouldn't matter but the officials are human and I bet that's what would have happened.

In general I like instant replay, but I don't think people in general realize how much the TV picture can distort reality. I've actually worked the corner camera at TV broadcasts of hockey games. When we had that call go against us against UNH during the NCAA semis a few years back, the one where they used replay to determine how high the guys stick was when it deflected the puck, I remember thinking that I could make it look almost whatever height I wanted by raising and lowering my camera. Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.

[Rosey]

[quote schoaff]Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.[/quote]
I'd also like to know something about the source of their replay.  Do they use actual video or an uncompressed digital stream?  I certainly hope they don't look at an MPEG-encoded replay: the motion estimation algorithms in digital video compression can for example make it look like one object has passed in front of another when in fact it went behind.

[Beeeej]

[quote Kyle Rose][quote schoaff]Unless the knew exactly how the camera was set and were willing to do some trigonometry it was a meaningless image. When it comes to hockey I think pretty much the only use of replay should be a camera directly over the goal line determining if the puck crossed the line. For pretty much everything else the relation of the TV picture to reality is purely coincidental.[/quote]
I'd also like to know something about the source of their replay.  Do they use actual video or an uncompressed digital stream?  I certainly hope they don't look at an MPEG-encoded replay: the motion estimation algorithms in digital video compression can for example make it look like one object has passed in front of another when in fact it went behind.[/quote]

They managed to show us briefly what the refs were looking at last night before someone started holding hands up in front of the camera - and from the time-elapsed graphic that appeared on the bottom of the screen when they were going forward and backward, it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.

[Rosey]

[quote Beeeej]it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.[/quote]
That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed.  Yikes.

[DeltaOne81]

[quote Kyle Rose][quote Beeeej]it seemed to me that it was a TiVo.[/quote]
That is scary, because the TiVo video is compressed.  Yikes.[/quote]

Unless its an HD TiVo, in which case its not compressed, beyond whatever the broadcast video signal is - i.e. doesn't do any compression on its own.

However, I don't think you necessarily need raw perfect video in this case. The YouTube quality video is fairly conclusive.

[David Harding]

[quote Tom Lento][quote Trotsky][quote CKinsland]Yeah.  I'm watching on TV, so I'm pretty sure it's 4-1.  I guess they just got used to Bemidji being the only scoring team (or, the whole thing fried the innards of their computers).[/quote]

TV here has the heartpounding action of a US soccer game against Slovakia.  Or Slovenia, I'm not sure.[/quote]

Bemidji - ND is on ESPN Classic, not ESPN 2. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me, either.[/quote]ANY game is which Notre Dame plays is classic.  ::yark::

[Rosey]

[quote DeltaOne81]Unless its an HD TiVo, in which case its not compressed,[/quote]
As you say, beyond what it already does.  It's still compressed, which means it is still subject to motion compensation artifacts.

However, I don't think you necessarily need raw perfect video in this case. The YouTube quality video is fairly conclusive.

My point is that something that looks conclusive may only look that way because the compression artifacts are making it look that way.

[CowbellGuy]

Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.

[Rosey]

[quote CowbellGuy]
Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.[/quote]
I think it was a bad call simply because the video was not conclusive: you can't reverse an on-ice judgment based on an inconclusive replay video.

[peterg]

[quote CowbellGuy]Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.[/quote]

"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."

NY Times

[lynah80]

[quote CowbellGuy]Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.[/quote]

I think it was tunneling.  The puck is both particle and wave.

[Rosey]

[quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling.[/quote]
Sadly, I thought the same thing.  The difference is that I didn't post it. ;-)

[ugarte]

[quote peterg][quote CowbellGuy]Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.[/quote]

"I don't know how it happpens, but it happens..."

NY Times[/quote]
I was going to mention the Joe Kocur goal - but based on the photo credit, that's obviously what prompted the article. It happens. The puck hits the netting at exactly the right angle and it stretches just enough to pass through.

[Trotsky]

[quote lynah80]I think it was tunneling.  The puck is both particle and wave.[/quote]

Only until you observe it.

[ugarte]

[quote CowbellGuy]Seriously, can we get back to the issue of the puck magically passing through the net, at an angle without any significant loss in energy? It didn't slow down at all after, as you all claim, it passed through the net. I still maintain that there's no way a puck at any speed could deform the netting (or the puck) enough to pass through without putting a hole in it, or dissipating enough energy to rewrite the laws of physics. Until someone can show how this could possibly happen, it's simply not a goal and you all are just seeing what you want to see.[/quote]
I'll explain that right after you explain how a puck shot from the goalie's right can hit the outside of an inward-sagging net on the goalie's left and continue to travel right to left at the same angle as it came off of the stick.