Do you think it would be possible...?

Question

..to have a "over-head" camera in the NHL? I got suckered into watching a NFL game this weekend, and I really like that camera angle that is over the field.

Do you think that would be a good idea? Or do you think that would get in the way? Or do you think this is the worst idea ever, and you wish someone would poison my coffee?


BTW: I just wanted everyone to know that I am embarrassed & uncomfortable about this top contributor thing. I have only been on here a few months, and I know there are so many of you that are more deserving. I just wanted to clear the air, because I feel like I’m choking.

Joe: Unless you are 8 years old, with pig-tails, and also selling girl scout cookies, I will not drink your Kool-Aid. "It tastes like burning."

Joe: lol

Jeff: I guess what I mean is, in NHL, they have cameras that can practicality follow the QB. I just think it is cool.

Bob: Well, I am glad someone is testing my hair-brained ideas. I bought a big screen T.V. about 6 years ago, and I guess HD wasn’t really that big yet, so I am Full screened and HD-less. I just can’t justify buying a new T.V. when my old one works fine. So, in your opinion, I am watching the game the in good quality. Makes me feel a little better.

Tromb: You really think cameras falling would be a problem. You must be a risk manager. I think if the puck hit the camera, it would be the same as when the puck hits a ref that’s in the way….nothing. Now, the distraction to the crowd, I can see that. I was thinking the camera could follow players, not the puck. BTW, thanks for all of the great points.

Answer 1

It would be awesome but here's the problems with it:

-There may be the instance that the camera falls down onto the ice. That could take some time to clean up. It's happened more than once in the NFL. If someone didn't notice and the camera started falling, it could get pretty serious.

-How would you call it if the puck hit the camera? I'm thinking just a faceoff around the area the camera was hit but these are some of the things they would have to work out.

-Though it would be nice at home to have that camera, it would probably be a huge distraction for the people in the arena.

-Ask yourself this: Would the camera be fast enough to follow the puck with every twist and turn?

Add: One thing to add to the top point. The NFL puts the camera behind the offense far enough that it would be out of play unless there was an interception. So, if it falls, it's far enough away from the play that it wouldn't matter. In the NHL, play moves all over. So if you have a camera moving around over the ice (a type of camera that can fall to the ground), it really does add the possibility of injury from something as silly as a camera.

And I believe the over-head camera has fallen at least once this year. And they usually only use the camera in the top games for that week.

Answer 2

I think it has been tested- last years all star debacle I think. They did use one of these cameras last year on the hdnet channel. It was when someone was playing at Colorado. It was a camera hanging on a cable and would go from side to side on the ice. The coolest part was during the shootout at the end of the game. The camera started with the shooter and followed him down the ice to the goalie.
NFL can probably better afford such things.
I ahve always maintained that hockey is not as good in HD as some other sports anyway, especially ones played on grass.

Answer 3

It would be OK. I think a good idea also is what the Ducks did a few weeks ago. They televised a game with rink side cameras as opposed to the usual wide-angle view you normally get and the best part... no announcers(except during play stoppages and intermission). It was like watching the game from glass seats. Got to see mugs pressed up against the glass and hear all the grunts and groans. I liked it alot. Maybe that could be used more.

Answer 4

They do. the thing is they just don't use it on TV. If you think about it, the way the puck moves back and forth over the ice, If you have a camera right over the ice, the angle would have to flip upside down at some point when the team is skating down the ice. You see the angle on those chalk talk segments a lot of commentators do often enough.

they do need to mix it up with cameras on occasion though.

Answer 5

Thing is, there's too much going on and I don't think the balloon/blimp camera thing can't get a wide enough shot of the action. In football, the action is very localized and doesn't have to span half of the vertical field. Plus, football action generally lasts a few seconds and then there'll be a stoppage in play, while hockey action can last for minutes. Personally, I just wouldn't be too comfortable watching a game with an angle like that for very long.

Answer 6

They tried a few times the camera that ran down a rail along the top of the glass at one side of the ice. The shots themselves were quite good, but when it went to another camera this little R2D2 thing would always be in the shot, sliding up and down the arena.

I like the camera that sits up on the glass behind and above the net. It's a great view for powerplays.

Answer 7

They used to have the cameras in the Phanavisions at Mid-ice I can still see 99 scoring against Edmonton to overtake Howe from that angle.Hey they had glow pucks why not.

PS-Don't drink the coffee try this Kool-Aid instead.

Answer 8

I wouldn't mind seeing it that way, but it would be hard to see some stuff like the lifting the puck, and other things, Then again, you could see the moves best, you can see dekes, and even other stuff, So I would vote a 4/5 on it./

Answer 9

By itself, I don't have a problem with it at all. I think it would be a refreshing idea. But I know there will be some question as to how to deal with its proximity to the ice and whether the cable system would contact the scoreboards at center ice.

Answer 10

The white ice background is wasted on HD I'm told.