Good, Small Idea

You watch the traffic light countdown as you cross the street, letting you know just how many seconds you have before you're into a danger area, and you think, "Boy, that's such a good idea and such an obvious one, why did it take so long?"

No explanation, really. Just one of the quirky things about life, that the most obvious answers, the ones staring you in face, seem the most elusive.

The proposed "verification line" the NHL is toying with this week at the Mastercard Centre in Etobicoke would seem to fall into that category. An easily detectable green line just over three inches inside the net would allow NHL hockey ops to more easily determine whether a puck has legally crossed all the way over the goal line, which is one of those age-old debates you get into in hockey.

Was it in? Was the puck all the way over the line, or just mostly, or on its edge? Is there a little white ice visible between the goal line and the puck, or isn't there? With the verification line, the concept is dead simple, that if the puck is touching that line it has to be in because the distance between the goal line and the new line is the width of the puck.

Basically, it's easier to determine if a line is being touched as opposed to if a line isn't being touched. Makes sense, and this seems an idea which would be both sensible and very easy to implement.

And there's the value of this R and D camp. It doesn't have to come up with ideas that change the game, just ones that help to make the current version of the sport a little better, a little clearer and a little easier for fans to digest.

 

 

Comments

[Dave]

Please explain how this works with a goaltender's glove or defenceman's body between the the puck and the sensors.

[Jay]

There is still a serious flaw. If the puck is any higher than on the ice surface (ie. in the air), nobody can determine if the puck is in. Think a bit about it. If the puck is close to the camera it may cover both lines because the puck will cover a larger area of the lens than when it is at ice surface.

Still good for situations where the puck is on the ice though

[Darren]

Should be a no-brainer, but you never know.

[Zack Gallinger]

"Basically, it's easier to determine if a line is being touched as opposed to if a line isn't being touched."

What evidence is there to suggest that this is true?

[dsfdfs]

@dave: there are no sensors.... its a line on the ground. If the puck is touching the line, it's in. Eyes are used, not sensors.

[Rob]

No Damien,

What would work is a system where a puck would have a chip in it and the minute it crosses the line it's a goal. Even if only a small part crosses, it's a goal. Why not paint thre or four more lines behind the original - the "verification" line, the "ok, we're sure it's in line" and the "no doubt about it" line.

[red5]

Given the technology available today (and almost 20 years ago), we should be able to have RF sensors in the posts and an RF chip in the puck (like back in the Fox days). The sensors could then detect if the puck fully crossed the line, regardless of visual obstructions. Really, that makes the most sense to me - eliminates the human error factor.

[Chad]

how is determining if the puck is touching this new green line any different then determining if there is white ice between the puck and the goal line? it's the same concept! if the puck touch's the green line, then by definition there will also be white ice between the puck and the goal line.
sorry Damo, but this suggestion isn't a step forward at all.

[o'boy]

is it completely over a line or is it touching a line - what's the difference in making those decisions?

[Phil]

Bad idea. Is the puck touching the green line or isn't it? Same old same old.Too many lines and advertising logos on ice as it is cluttering up everything.

[Luis]

Dave, it's clear that if any part of the puck, if visible, is touching the verification line, it must have passed the goal line entirely. If the puck's view is obstructed by any equipment then the approach is how it has always been - the result is ruled inconclusive and the call on the ice stands. This is more an issue of dealing with, as Cox notes, determining whether there is space between the goal line and puck, which is difficult to tell.

[Johnny]

That assumes the puck is lying flat which it almost never is. If it is on edge it could be over the goal line and not touching the green line. Nothing is as simple as it seems!!!!

[Jeff]

I agree, keep the changes small, unless going to olympic size ice.

Dont tinker with the number of faceoff dots, size of net, penalty kill etc. There are aspects of each that people love.

Have you heard how loud fans cheer when a team finally dumps the puck during a desperate penalty kill? Why take that away? If the league wants more scoring...make it at 5 on 5, not the pp or pk...the games are already decided on special teams.

[M.T.]

Thus making the ORIGINAL goal line obsolete--if the puck touches the new verification line, it's in. End of story.

[Jack]

How about positioning someone behind the guy who turns on the red light to turn on a new green light? Now that would be ingenuity!