Skip to content

Report: NHL considering cameras in posts?

Nov 20, 2013, 3:15 PM EDT

Scott Clemmensen AP

From TSN’s Darren Dreger:

NHL Hockey Operations is expected to meet with a group in the near future that has designed a camera system that can be installed in the posts of the nets. This system may provide a more clear view of the goal line and by design may assist the league in determining – conclusively – whether or not the puck crosses the line.

This meeting was planned well before Tuesday night’s game between the Philadelphia Flyers and Ottawa Senators where midway through the third period, it appeared Ottawa’s Kyle Turris had given his team a 3-2 edge. Turris’ shot ricocheted off both of Nicklas Grossmann‘s skates and from the camera angles provided, it seemingly crossed the goal line.

Veteran referee Paul Devorski immediately waved off the goal and a lengthy video review was unable to warrant overturning the call on the ice.

Here’s the play in question:

Dreger reports that the NHL has considered, or experimented with, all sorts of goal-line technology, but for a variety of reasons, including cost, nothing new has been adopted.

Would a camera system in the posts help? It might, occasionally. Though we can’t imagine it would be cheap to install. And we’re sure there would still be controversial plays that lack conclusive video evidence. But hey, the fewer of those the better.

  1. jernster21 - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    Maybe ADT can install sensors in the ice between the goal posts and when it fully crosses the line it will trigger the goal horn…..and call the authorities.

    • xdj511 - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:31 PM

      The problems with sensors like that is that there is no way to differentiate between a puck crossing the goal line and anything crossing the goal line, except to install expensive microchips inside every puck, making the cost of the technology prohibitively expensive, so that every time a puck would be flipped over the boards and out of play, it would cost $1,000 or so…

      • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM

        ya but as long as the beam isn’t broken, it works. what would a camera even do? only thing it’d work for is pucks on the ice, so you can accurately compare the location to the red line (which I believe is why that goal last night stood, it was off the ice). otherwise, it’s just another camera angle like the overhead.

      • xdj511 - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:51 PM

        So we’re talking about frikken laser beams on the frikken goal posts? Do you think laser beams are smart enough to know when that object crossing its beams is a puck… or say… the knob of the goalie’s stick? Or two or three players crashing into the net?

        I read a book once about trying something like this in baseball one spring training in the late 70’s. A sensor system that would create a grid around the strike zone and would supposedly go off if a ball went through the strike zone… except it went off whenever the catcher’s glove entered the zone… or the hitter’s bat… the solution of course was to install special chips in the baseballs that would be the only thing the sensors would recognize… except the chips were so expensive they kindly asked the players not to hit the baseballs… thereby ending the experiment.

      • joey4id - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:59 PM

        Making any type of change to the puck is unlikely unless the change will not alter the weight, circumference, and thickness of the puck. Otherwise the trajectory and bounces of pucks will be out of whack. These pucks were standardized for consistent play and ease of manufacture by Art Ross in 1940.

      • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        that’s what i just said. as long as the beam isn’t broken by anything else on that particular puck-sized horizontal (or vertical, although, i’m not sure if it’s quite as easy to install lasers/sensors in the ice), it works. in this specific case, no, they wouldn’t work. his leg was breaking both the horizontal and vertical beam paths, BUT, that could be alleviated with some diagonals as well. A camera is the same exact way, but far less precise. if there’s something blocking the path of the shot, the camera does no good.

      • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:01 PM

        that was @ xdj

      • xdj511 - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:10 PM


        I appreciate that but you know that any of the types of plays where video reviews are inconclusive are the types of plays where the puck is hidden under the goalie and maybe several other bodies. Unless there is a special sensor system that will only know when a puck is passing through it, any kind of laser system won’t tell us anything we can’t already see with video review. And like I said, the cost of installing a special microchip into every puck is cost-prohibitive so we’re back to square one.

      • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:23 PM

        well this would solve all of those calls that can’t be made because the puck is off the ice. some puck height throws off the whole perspective. the overhead cameras are at a slight angle, and if they’re looking in from the front of the net even the slightest bit (which they normally are so the net isn’t blocking the view), a puck that’s off the ice can appear to completely cross the line, but not. a laser doesn’t have a perspective problem as we’re dealing with a plane, not a cone of sight line, like a camera produces.

        my point was that any goal that a laser array can’t pick up, a camera likely can’t either. but an array could probably pick up more than a camera can for about the same amount of money. the real solution here is hawk-eye.

      • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:48 PM

        This talk is too geometric for muckleflugga to not show up at some point, talkin bout coefficients and hypotenuses and derivatives and whatnot. I have a feeling he’s got a solution though. hit us with it muckle.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Nov 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM

        Actually, I think RFID chips are less than 50 cents apiece. My local library uses them and their budget would not be able to handle anywhere near even $100 each.

      • dueman - Nov 21, 2013 at 1:41 AM

        Shoplifting sensors in the goal posts, and a tiny magnetic strip built into the outer edge of the pucks would do the trick. The sensors would pick it up whether you can see the puck or not, and the magnetic strip would be pretty much weightless.

  2. ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM

    Alright, league. We know how much you’re making. Just install Hawk-Eye in all the arenas already. Limit it to goals and show the 3D model on the jumbotron, problem solved. Also doesn’t affect the glorious sound of puck pinging on post.

    If that’s too expensive for you, a laser array would be efficient as well and could be concealed just as well as a camera.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:17 PM

      Oh, I just read the TSN article. He addressed Hawk-Eye, and apparently this cheap-ass league nixed it because of cost. it’s 6 f***ing HD cameras and some software, you’d think they might spring for it, seeing as how their revenues are at all time highs. $5mil altogether, every arena is covered and there’s no more questions.

  3. allday420ap - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:32 PM

    Would be really nice to watch shatter.

  4. allday420ap - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:34 PM

    I think the nhl needs more over head cameras that follow play all over the ice, like the nfl.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:37 PM

      know what bugs me out? how do they not have goal line-designated cameras in the NFL? 4 cameras, one at each corner before the end zones would solve a LOT of issues. it’s unbelievable they haven’t done that yet.

      • allday420ap - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:50 PM

        Absolutely, I’ve always wondered why they cant think of that as well.

  5. thailer35 - Nov 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM

    Just karma getting Turris back for throwing his hissy fit and refusing to play.

  6. dadawg77 - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    Why not start simple and cheap and paint a bright yellow green line one puck length behind the goal line. If a puck touches the line its a goal. If that isn’t sufficient than try other ideas.

    • ibieiniid - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      I like that. Of course, it only solves some of the cases, but that’s a good ass idea.

    • mikeyhigs - Nov 21, 2013 at 6:16 AM

      No. So what happens when a puck is on edge but crosses the goal line without hitting your yellow line?

      • ibieiniid - Nov 21, 2013 at 8:18 AM

        it’s more about narrowing down (more cheaply than a camera) what we can rule out (rule in?) as good goals. as I thought about it more, I think you still run into the same problems with perspective and viewing angle, but I think there’s a way to make that work.

  7. muckleflugga - Nov 20, 2013 at 4:57 PM

    use the hall effect…

    a grid of magnetic poles constituting the plane of the goal arranged across goal posts

    hall probes in three planes embedded in pucks

    puck completely through goal plane in any dimension varying from one inch to three inches triggers hall effect

    voltage drop detected and flash indicating goal triggered

  8. ndrick731 - Nov 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

    Ok so instead of making 3 billion this year they would only make 2.9999999999 billion. Aren’t we taking peanuts here in comparison to what they are making

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kessel (1787)
  2. P. Kane (1424)
  3. M. Richards (1291)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1280)
  5. N. Backstrom (1137)