New hockey rink invention

[yvan12 0]

Black puck, white ice...do we really need more contrast? Not being able to see the puck due to speed or screening puts the viewer into the game more than 'rocket-tails'. They (the viewer) can appreciate the speed of the game more because they can't always see the puck...just like the players. Also, watching the 'Fox' puck was very distracting because your eye is drawn to the 'tail' and away from the play(s) being made. The new rules are great for the game...but leave the TV broadcasts alone.

[tsanga 0]

What happens to a rising slapshot that leaves the ice surface? Do the yellow lights stop tracking?

[hockechamp14 0]

They can't use the lasers during game play and in any case the brighter TV lights would make it almost impossible to see the laser images. With this system you could change the ads on the ice at any time, like the LED ads on the boards in some rinks.

I think that ads changing while playing on the ice would be as bad as the yellow line behind the puck.

I can't imagine they would change the ads during play, that would be too distracting. During stoppages or between periods is much more likely.

But theres already those rotating ads on the boards that change, don't know if it happens during play though. Haven't seen them in any NHL rinks in a while though. I think we still got one in hartford. Anyhow, my point seems to be, that if it makes enough money, would they really care about the players? I don't know, maybe they would, but we don't know that.

[Vapor 0]

There is no way that this system could be implemented for ice hockey.

Between bulbs that produce heat under the ice and would not allow for the ice to freeze, to the fact that the paint in the ice would not allow the light to be seen. 0% chance of success.

The only thing that can work is something like Fox did. If they tried again with today's technology, they could probably do a better job.

ever hear of a little thing called a flourescent bulb?

That shit looks terrible I say we make the puck white, that will solve the problem.

[BK 0]

There is no way that this system could be implemented for ice hockey.

Between bulbs that produce heat under the ice and would not allow for the ice to freeze, to the fact that the paint in the ice would not allow the light to be seen.  0% chance of success.

The only thing that can work is something like Fox did.  If they tried again with today's technology, they could probably do a better job.

ever hear of a little thing called a flourescent bulb?

That shit looks terrible I say we make the puck white, that will solve the problem.

Yea, great idea.

We can also make the crossbars white so I can see the puck pass through it better. I think I speak for everybody who watches hockey that it is tough for that split second where the puck crosses the line of the crossbar and my point of view.. I lose the puck right before it goes in the goal...

I also sit when I pee and wish hockey were more "quiet".... the loud noises scare me.

[hockechamp14 0]

another thing i hadted about the foxpuck was when it was against the boards closest to the TV camera. that made it look like the puck was floating in the 3rd or 4th row.

anyone remember the robotic players that would destroy eachother after a goal? like the steem roller and such? haha oh fox...

that was the only cool part about the blue puck was you could see it behind the boards. I wish I could still see the puck when it went behind the boards, but not being blue all the time. Luckily now, they have more camera angles to change things.

[Grinder 2]

I think that this is a complex solution to a simple problem. The problem: Viewers can't see the puck. The simple solution: Get the cameras closer to the play.

I recently watched some Gretzky/Oilers era playoff game reruns, and was stunned to see how close to the ice the cameras were. The players looked twice as big as current day on the screen. It was night and day between watching that versus the current version, which in comparison seems like watching ants on a dry-erase board.

The amount of consideration given to camera angles seems pathetic. In both Toronto and Vancouver, some of the cameras get blocked when the fans stand up. Besides the cameras in and over the nets, there has been no real innovation with the camera placement since the games were being watched at home in black and white, and given the improvements in technology since that time, this is very, very wrong. It hurts the game.

During the outdoor alumni game between the Oilers and the Habs a few years ago, they had a camera on a track that ran along the top of the glass. The view was terrific. One shot followed Messier down the ice as he carried the puck. It was like watching from a car window as you kept pace with the play, and it gave a clear, close up view of the action on the ice. Helen Keller could have followed the flow of the game.

Further back, there was one year (mid 90's) where they had a series of cameras set into the boards at each end, with the ability to spin the view of the action like in the opening sequence of The Matrix. Very expensive and high maintenance I'm sure, but lots of potential.

Even without further technological innovation, existing systems from other sports could be used for good effect. Look at the camera used in the NFL suspended from guy wires that can follow the play from directly overtop. If they can use that in an outdoor stadium sized facility, it should be no problem to set up in an indoor rink.

No one of the systems I've referred to could be as expensive as the system mentioned at the start of this thread. Simple problems need simple solutions.

Just my $.02

[Chadd 916]

I think that this is a complex solution to a simple problem. The problem: Viewers can't see the puck. The simple solution: Get the cameras closer to the play.

I recently watched some Gretzky/Oilers era playoff game reruns, and was stunned to see how close to the ice the cameras were. The players looked twice as big as current day on the screen. It was night and day between watching that versus the current version, which in comparison seems like watching ants on a dry-erase board.

The amount of consideration given to camera angles seems pathetic. In both Toronto and Vancouver, some of the cameras get blocked when the fans stand up. Besides the cameras in and over the nets, there has been no real innovation with the camera placement since the games were being watched at home in black and white, and given the improvements in technology since that time, this is very, very wrong. It hurts the game.

During the outdoor alumni game between the Oilers and the Habs a few years ago, they had a camera on a track that ran along the top of the glass. The view was terrific. One shot followed Messier down the ice as he carried the puck. It was like watching from a car window as you kept pace with the play, and it gave a clear, close up view of the action on the ice. Helen Keller could have followed the flow of the game.

Further back, there was one year (mid 90's) where they had a series of cameras set into the boards at each end, with the ability to spin the view of the action like in the opening sequence of The Matrix. Very expensive and high maintenance I'm sure, but lots of potential.

Even without further technological innovation, existing systems from other sports could be used for good effect. Look at the camera used in the NFL suspended from guy wires that can follow the play from directly overtop. If they can use that in an outdoor stadium sized facility, it should be no problem to set up in an indoor rink.

No one of the systems I've referred to could be as expensive as the system mentioned at the start of this thread. Simple problems need simple solutions.

Just my $.02

The camera on the track blocks the view of people actually at the games. More often than not the number of people in the building outnumber the people watching on TV, at least in the US.

[Sticks of Fury 0]

I liked it when the players have the helmet cam on. You were part of the action.

[Grinder 2]

The camera on the track blocks the view of people actually at the games. More often than not the number of people in the building outnumber the people watching on TV, at least in the US.

True enough in that case, but as far as the point of my post for better camera placement, am I way off base?

[Chadd 916]

The camera on the track blocks the view of people actually at the games. More often than not the number of people in the building outnumber the people watching on TV, at least in the US.

True enough in that case, but as far as the point of my post for better camera placement, am I way off base?

I agree for the most part. I'd like to see those tracks mounted directly over the boards in the rafters. You should be able to get an interesting look down into the scrums. Maybe some automated cameras mounted in the boards. They need to do something to improve the game broadcasts.