I think 5.6 million pixels in a 2732x2048 resolution is more than enough.
It must be more than good enough if they could see that Forsberg's skate was off the ice. That's another stupid rule...
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
PITTSBURGH PENGUINS – 2017 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS
- Thread starter Marns
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I think 5.6 million pixels in a 2732x2048 resolution is more than enough.
It must be more than good enough if they could see that Forsberg's skate was off the ice. That's another stupid rule...
melbournemartin
Brownlow Medallist
... all of which counts for little if it's 10" wide.
Now, having said that, I have a 46" tv in HD and I couldn't definitely say his skate was off the ice so I'd have probably let the call stand. But that doesn't negate the referees not having adequate equipment to make decisions, let alone quickly.
Pinch and zoom!
No one is making that call quickly hence the 10 second idea. Too close to change the call.
They should also change it to the plane of the blue line, skate up or down, doesn't matter.
HomokHarcos
Senior List
Since the call on the ice was a good goal, it needed to be 100% clear it was offside, which it wasn't.
melbournemartin
Brownlow Medallist
I agree. We got lucky there.
My point is rather than complain that referees take too long to make decisions, give them the proper equipment.
This bloke is a classic
makrus
Senior List
- Jul 20, 2015
- 162
- 157
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Might become a chore with me haha. My fat fingers are always missing ir adding letters. That plus im to lazy to proof read/fix it before pressing send.
I agree the review was ridiculous but i dont mind if it takes over 10 seconds as long as they get the call 100% right. And doubt go with the original which is what should have happened.
Another point on the offside reviews.
a) it was 15 seconds before the goal
b) Hainsey had possession of the puck after the "offside" occurred, then gave it away.
I'm thinking at minimum (b) should nullify the option to review the offside.
It's now on par with cricket reviews where they are changing decisions based on assumed projections and millimetres for what was initially introduced to eliminate the howler (Damien Martyn LBWs, Ashes 2005).
The offside review was introduced to avoid scenarios where a player was miles offside and it was somehow missed, see Duchene a few years ago.
It wasn't brought in for what happened yesterday. It is a mess.
catters078
Norm Smith Medallist
Can someone actually clarify the offside rule, my understanding is once you take posession of the puck you are fine.
ALLLLL the replays we saw of the last frame of his foot is when the puck is past the blue line and in the zone, and from memory olczyk was talking about the key moment is if his skate starts to go in the air while the puck is not 100% over the blue line. But forsberg had the puck in his posession before that moment
I thought the rule was once you take posession of the puck you are fine, forsberg actually took posession before it starts to cross the blue line (with his foot clearly on the ground)..from that moment isnt the play onside?
As an example, if a skater has the puck in his posession and on his stick could he theoretically skate in backwards? as long as the puck stays with him?
or am i wrong about that
ALLLLL the replays we saw of the last frame of his foot is when the puck is past the blue line and in the zone, and from memory olczyk was talking about the key moment is if his skate starts to go in the air while the puck is not 100% over the blue line. But forsberg had the puck in his posession before that moment
I thought the rule was once you take posession of the puck you are fine, forsberg actually took posession before it starts to cross the blue line (with his foot clearly on the ground)..from that moment isnt the play onside?
As an example, if a skater has the puck in his posession and on his stick could he theoretically skate in backwards? as long as the puck stays with him?
or am i wrong about that
That all sounds about right with the rule.
I believe the issue with the Forsberg offside was that they determined he took possession of the puck after the puck had crossed the blueline. Hence having possession moving into the zone can't be applied to that decision. That's an assumption as it's the only way they could overrule the original decision and it isn't clear where he took possession of the puck. The view along the blueline looks like he may have taken possession after the puck had crossed the line.
I believe the issue with the Forsberg offside was that they determined he took possession of the puck after the puck had crossed the blueline. Hence having possession moving into the zone can't be applied to that decision. That's an assumption as it's the only way they could overrule the original decision and it isn't clear where he took possession of the puck. The view along the blueline looks like he may have taken possession after the puck had crossed the line.
melbournemartin
Brownlow Medallist
Point b) is probably a fair adjustment that could be made.
All of the "its intention was to remove the howler" is fairly abstract though. In a given hockey game how many goals is a review even considered? 1 in 20 maybe? No coach in their right mind is going to not risk a challenge on a 50/50 call like the other night just in case there might be a "howler" later on.
What they could just do is employ an additional referee to look at every attacking zone entry and determine if it's offside to save time. I would suggest they do the same with no balls in cricket.
The Duchene howler seemed to initiate the NHL into introducing the review system.
Nobody noticed these millimetre offside decisions until it became an option to nullify a goal. Too bad they will never go back to how it was.
They should take it out of the players/coaches hands in both sports.
Very annoying when a batsman has no idea whether he is out or not and takes a punt on an LBW decision, hoping for a miracle. They should fine a player and his team $10,000 each if they are wrong, let's see how often they "hope for the best" when cash is on the line.
TheStinger
Brownlow Medallist
- Apr 23, 2009
- 12,748
- 1,352
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
After that first period, the Predators have lost all rights to complain about reffing. So many missed calls, especially the boarding on Cullen.
catters078
Norm Smith Medallist
Im not prepared to say series over just yet, because Nashville have been so amazing at home they could easily win both home games at make it 2-2 leading to a best of 3.
...but, gee whiz it will be tough for them from now, hard to see Pittsburgh dropping 4 from 5.
...but, gee whiz it will be tough for them from now, hard to see Pittsburgh dropping 4 from 5.
- Jul 13, 2016
- 610
- 1,348
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Pittsburgh Penguins
Matt Murray is on fire! Another great game from him
makrus
Senior List
- Jul 20, 2015
- 162
- 157
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Surely no smoke without fire there? Had to have been the other way around. I mean i wasnt there when the decision was made but surely there were some missed calls that showed up on a replay and people complained so the next logical decsion would be to use a video review system. I dont mind that the coaches get the call. You lose a timeout if its incorrect so its not like you get off woth nothing for making stupid calls, some care is needed. I dont know why people complain about video reviews seriously a minute out of your day to get a call right isnt that big a deal imo. Its not like its happening ever 5 minutes either.
Duchene was offside by more than ten feet and it was somehow missed, caused a bit of a commotion with the serial complainers.
A lot of fans dislike the review because goals and great plays are nullified/forgotten for differences of millimetres and actions that have no advantage on the play. Forsberg wasn't advantaged because his blade may have been a millimetre off the ice. Play on.
A lot of fans dislike the review because goals and great plays are nullified/forgotten for differences of millimetres and actions that have no advantage on the play. Forsberg wasn't advantaged because his blade may have been a millimetre off the ice. Play on.
makrus
Senior List
- Jul 20, 2015
- 162
- 157
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Rightly so.
But it isnt play on. The line is there and it shouldnt be crossed. Thats the rules and we have technology to use so use it so prove all doubt. Now from the replays i saw it wasnt 100% conclusive so it should have gone with the original call or in this case non call. So i agree that that particular call was bullshit. My previous post was more about your (no offence, just my view) over blown reaction to video reviews in general. I mean fining people for asking for a review? Really? The coach saw something and asked the question. He didnt override the goal some other chump did. Theres always a limit to how many you can have and repercussions on not getting them right so i think that part of the system is fine.
But it isnt play on. The line is there and it shouldnt be crossed. Thats the rules and we have technology to use so use it so prove all doubt. Now from the replays i saw it wasnt 100% conclusive so it should have gone with the original call or in this case non call. So i agree that that particular call was bullshit. My previous post was more about your (no offence, just my view) over blown reaction to video reviews in general. I mean fining people for asking for a review? Really? The coach saw something and asked the question. He didnt override the goal some other chump did. Theres always a limit to how many you can have and repercussions on not getting them right so i think that part of the system is fine.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
Rules are rules. The offside rule doesnt say "if he was advantaged". If they want they can make it like offside in Football, then people will have a right to bitch and moan.
That sounds like golf.
The basis of hockey is bending the rules.
If "rules were rules" in hockey the penalty box would be filled up all night long.
No one would have batted an eyelid if the Forsberg offside wasn't reviewed and they dropped the puck at centre ice. The league is crying out for goals and they're pulling goals off the scoreboard for fractions of millimetres. It's ridiculous.
Bradesmaen
TheBrownDog
So basically, why bother having rules in the first place. Hell lets shove an extra man on the ice when we're losing.
