Paul Stewart: The Camera's 'Eye' Can Deceive You

I'm very proud of the distinction he holds as the only person in the world to coach a Stanley Cup champion (the first American coach of a Stanley Cup champ), referee four Stanley Cup Final series, umpire four World Series and umpire four MLB All-Star Games, coach minor league baseball, scout for two different MLB teams, and serve as a general manager for the US national hockey team.

While he certainly had many feathers in his cap, I love when people are called "the only person in the world to ever" and then just throw a bunch of random yet related things into a bucket. Someone did one with Toews and Crosby a while back, and it's just silly. Again, props to him for what he did, but I could list a bunch of facts about myself to show that I'm the only person in the world to hold such a distinction.

Please explain what that video proved? How do we know that the position of the puck is when it was it's deepest in the net? Technology can prove anything it wants to.

The puck being in the air, allows your sight to perceive the white ice underneath it. You would truly need the overhead shot to confirm.

The puck being in the air, allows your sight to perceive the white ice underneath it. You would truly need the overhead shot to confirm.
- lastmanback

Pad is sliding on the ice, puck hits the bottom of the pad, therefore, puck is also along the ice

What does the video prove?

Looked like a good Flames goal to me

The Parallax angle that they recreated in the studio proves it's possible it wasn't a goal. We'll never know if that was goal, or if the Martin Gelina's 2004 Stanley cup final non goal was in or not.

If tennis can follow a ball's travel and pinpoint the exact location it lands, while going 100 plus mph, then why can't the NHL get the technology to determine if a puck crosses a goal line? I mean you're only talking about the area of a hockey net compared to an entire surface of a tennis court.

If tennis can follow a ball's travel and pinpoint the exact location it lands, while going 100 plus mph, then why can't the NHL get the technology to determine if a puck crosses a goal line? I mean you're only talking about the area of a hockey net compared to an entire surface of a tennis court.
- Up2nuthun

Because:

1) the ice surface has many obstructions (namely players and refs, not to mention the net itself) that would make VIS camera traingulation nearly impossible.
2) A hockey puck can be in any number of orientations while the ball, though it deforms on impact, is a sphere.
3) The "sensor" (you would need 5, at minimum, due to the shape of the puck) that goes inside of the puck would have to be able to stand the temperature extremes through the fabrication of the puck, the freezing of the puck, not to mention the stress that the frozen rubber would put on it when a player whacks it with his stick to shoot it at 100+ mph.

But sure, it's simple.

Pad is sliding on the ice, puck hits the bottom of the pad, therefore, puck is also along the ice

What does the video prove?

Looked like a good Flames goal to me
- RoloTahmasee

If the puck is along the ice, then no matter what view you use, you would not see a gap.

Try this on your own. Take your desk. Put a piece if paper on it. Take a pen or some object and lay it partially on and partially off the paper. No matter what angle you use, you cannot see the desk between the paper and the pen. Now lift the pen up and you can see a gap.

If the puck is along the ice, then no matter what view you use, you would not see a gap.

Try this on your own. Take your desk. Put a piece if paper on it. Take a pen or some object and lay it partially on and partially off the paper. No matter what angle you use, you cannot see the desk between the paper and the pen. Now lift the pen up and you can see a gap.
- jmatchett383

Sure, but there's not a gap between your desk and the paper, there IS a gap between the lines and the top of the ice, about 1/4", and that's more than enough to create an optical illusion.

Sure, but there's not a gap between your desk and the paper, there IS a gap between the lines and the top of the ice, about 1/4", and that's more than enough to create an optical illusion.
- Wetbandit1

Fair point.