Analyzing the fallout from FSN Pittsburgh-NHL video replay incident
by Travis Hughes on Jan 13, 2010 6:40 PM EST
in Commentary
37 comments
The integrity of the game.
That's the issue at hand in this incident between FSN Pittsburgh, their producer Lowell MacDonald Jr., and the NHL's video replay system. The network deserves kudos for suspending MacDonald, showing that they won't accept the egregious violation that occurred when the FSN technical crew covering last Thursday's game decided not to broadcast replay that conclusively proved Simon Gagne scored a goal until after an irreversible decision was made on the play.
MacDonald's decision kept that replay from NHL officials in Toronto, leaving them only with video that couldn't prove Gagne scored.
The NHL also deserves praise for investigating the matter and promptly and swiftly seeing that action was taken. But while action was taken effectively in this one situation, there are still vast concerns about the state of video replay in the NHL and the violations that could potentially go unseen in the future, and those that may have happened in the past.
What we've learned in this case is that the NHL's 'War Room', where decisions are made each night on potential goals, is reliant upon video from networks covering games, and that they don't have cameras of their own located in every arena.
Would it be possible to outfit all 30 NHL arenas with five or six league cameras to cover the action? Once you start to think about the cost the league would have to incur to take on such an endeavor, you realize that it's not really possible at all. So, it's a necessary evil that the NHL must rely on the video from these networks, which is problematic for many reasons.
First and most importantly, most of this video is coming from local affiliates who have close relationships with the teams they cover. As we learned in this most recent incident, often times the people running the telecasts for these networks also have close relationships with the team and are even fans of the team, which really should come as no surprise when you consider the tight-knit nature of the hockey community.
There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with the fact that MacDonald is the son of a former Penguin player who shares his name. The elder Lowell MacDonald played for Pittsburgh from 1970 to 1978. It's when these people allow their inherent biases to affect the way they do their jobs, and consequently the integrity of an NHL game, that we get the problem.
CSN Philadelphia opted not to use their own video at the game, instead taking the video FSN Pittsburgh had. This is a common practice in covering road games for almost all local sports networks as it saves them the money of transporting equipment, wiring the arena for just one game, and paying the extra staff. With that, though, CSN couldn't send video to Toronto, meaning the video officials in the 'War Room' were at the behest of the Pittsburgh video crew and the video that crew opted to televise.
Let's be clear, though: this isn't just a Pittsburgh thing. This issue could happen in any city in the league, and that's where the concern is magnified even more. It's extremely disconcerting that local bias can apparently have so much of an impact on the outcome of the game. It may not have effected it too much in this one, as the Flyers won the game comfortably and it even allowed Gagne the chance to score his 500th career point in front of the home crowd on Saturday. Who says we'll be so lucky next time?
The NHL has to do something aside from a meager fine and making sure responsible parties are suspended.
They must demand all available video from all networks covering the game, local or national. Make it a rule. As of now, the league only has access to the video that's actually broadcast, not the raw video from each camera. The NHL should demand that they have access to the live feed coming from each camera into the control room to be sure they're getting every available look. Now, they're just guys in a room with Center Ice, a bunch of TV's, and a bunch of DVR's. Anybody can do that with the right amount of money.
They must create oversight in making sure networks follow this new rule, as well. Standardize where cameras are located in arenas and have a map of each arena that shows exactly where each camera is located. Make sure that each and every camera is accounted for, even if one of them was pointed at a fan picking his nose when a reviewable call is made.
News came out in this FSN Pittsburgh situation that the league cannot discipline that network because FSN works with the Penguins, not the league. In that case, the NHL should discipline the Penguins. If you discipline the team that contracts a network to cover their games by imposing a hefty fine or, even better, taking a draft pick, you will make that organization question their relationship with that network. If that network feels that their actions will jeopardize their contract with a team, and therefore a ton of money, they will make sure their actions are compliant.
Under the current system, there is way too much wiggle room for television crews to impact the outcome of the game. These crews cover just about every game for a single team and it's inevitable that they become fans of their teams. We can't stop that from happening -- nor should we have to -- but we must limit any chance these people have to be disingenuous in their coverage of the game.
After all, this is the integrity of the sport we're talking about here.
0 recs |
37 comments
| Add comment
|
Email
Print
Comments
hockey has enough problems right now
especially in light of the ongoing burrows incident.
first and foremost, gagne should be credited with the goal, and the final outcome of the game should reflect the score.
a nice penalty would be the pens losing home ice advantage in the playoffs this year. however, that is dependent on to many variables. but still…..maybe one home game in the playoffs? that might work.
Eat what the monkey eats, then eat the monkey. -U.S. Navy survival guidance
Sounds like the Burrows incident isn't ongoing anymore
The NHL fined Burrows and the ref “got off without discipline”. That was fast.
Draft picks
Are the lifeblood of any organization. It’s what they took away from the Pats when they were caught taping other teams. That should be the penalty for anything like this going forward.
The Pats taped the other teams. That’s something the team did and was directly responsible for. The Penguins had nothing to do with this, and guilt by association is not a stance the NHL can afford to take.
Think of it this way: teams already refuse to specify player injuries because they feel it would give them a disadvantage. If they’re already doing things that paranoid, I can guarantee you they would also stop allowing any broadcast of their games if they thought they could be punished for what happens on the broadcasts they can’t control.
Why would they stop broadcasting the games? They would just insist that the broadcasters send all the feeds for a video review…I see no reason why the Penguins wouldn’t support this…if this crap goes on, for all 41 road games you’d be at the whims of the home team trying to screw you by not sending the right feeds.
Every team needs to be behind this…there is no reason not to…
Philly Sports and Coyotes Hockey - and yes, I am tired of defending my teams...
by Jordan Ellel on Jan 13, 2010 8:04 PM EST up reply actions
I think it’s important to force the crew to send all available angles for review. I don’t think anyone could disagree with that.
What I’m saying is that I think that if teams could be punished for things beyond their control, odds are good that they’d simply remove the possibility by either a) ending televised games or b) going to self-controlled PPV, which the Penguins actually have done in the past with Pens with PenVision, so it can’t be dismissed as a possibility. In fact, I see that pensvision.com is still registered and owned by the Penguins, so they may even have contingencies in place for this sort of thing already.
That is crazy
Broadcasts are THE huge source of income for the NHL and for the Pens. There is no way they would ever sacrifice money for the off chance that a review is the difference between a win and a loss. There is simply no way.
But guilt by association is how you punish anyone who does business with bad business partners. It’s how it works in the corporate world, too.
I still think it shouldn’t be in teams hands to submit these feeds for review. No other major sport would leave it up to the teams to handle something like this. I know the NFL doesn’t have a war room and all their games are carried by national networks—and I know how it’s a necessary evil as Travis says—but can you imagine them leaving this up to the individual teams with regard to replay?
But guilt by association is how you punish anyone who does business with bad business partners. It’s how it works in the corporate world, too.
I still think it shouldn’t be in teams hands to submit these feeds for review. No other major sport would leave it up to the teams to handle something like this. I know the NFL doesn’t have a war room and all their games are carried by national networks—and I know how it’s a necessary evil as Travis says—but can you imagine them leaving this up to the individual teams with regard to replay?
The NFL does have a home-team bias in reviews, but it’s not for the same reasons. Often, the way a team decides to challenge a close play or bad call is by watching the replay on the jumbotron. Home teams will oftentimes refuse to replay close calls that could benefit the other team through challenge for this reason alone.
Baseball teams will also do this, but I have no clue why. If they can tell they were the recipient of a bad call that gave them an advantage, it won’t show up on the jumbotron.
That said, the best option for the league would be to control all the video themselves. I don’t see it happening.
The real logic being that if you can’t punish the network, you can punish the team enough to make the relationship with the network unprofitable. The league can then refuse or cut off dealings with the network and it’s affiliates.
The league just can’t allow any marks on it’s integrity. It’s not strong enough to withstand that kind of scrutiny.
"In fact, it is probably safe to say, the statement "I am a hockey fan" is the same as "I hate gary bettman."- bfrank27
I understand that line of thinking, but there are a couple/few problems with it.
1. FSN Pittsburgh is not a “real” Fox Sports station. It’s owned by Liberty Media and is an FSN affiliate in name only. I’m not sure if that matters, but I figured it was worth mentioning.
2. While the team may have profited (in some small, completely meaningless way) from the wrong call, they did nothing wrong.
3. It’s likely that the final score of the game wasn’t even affected, given that the 7th goal was an empty netter and the net wouldn’t have been empty if the Flyers were already up by three goals.
4. Fans in Pittsburgh really don’t have any other options to watch the Pens. Local broadcast affiliates would be loath to carry 70 games a year the way FSN Pittsburgh does. (We get all our games on TV either through FSN or NBC/Versus. I don’t know if that’s true in other cities or not.) Punishing the people involved is important, but I see no reason to let it have the side effect of punishing fans of the team, most of whom can’t see many games in person these days with the sellout streak and all.
Nobody wants to punish the fans…the idea here is to protect the fans, by protecting the game. What I’ve seen from most of the comments from folks in Pitt is similar to your arguments (particularly points 1 and 2). I think the key here is not that Gagne should get a goal or whatever, because here it didn’t have any effect.
But if we are in a situation where a goal will be disallowed because the home team’s broadcasters refuse to send conclusive video to Toronto for a replay, that is a real problem. Imagine if Pittsburgh were to lose an elimination playoff game to the Flyers in overtime because CSN simply doesn’t send the conclusive video feed to Toronto in time. That would be a completely ludicrous result and as a Flyers fan I couldn’t feel good about it. If you are going to have replay review, then the war room needs access to everything available like Travis recommends (even when it is a shot of a fan picking his nose).
And if there is a threat of a penalty to the team, then the affiliate will be damn sure that they don’t pull crap like this again. Remember, the reason that this video likely wasn’t sent was because MacDonald wanted to benefit the Penguins. If by not providing the video he’d hurt the team, then it’s likely he wouldn’t do it…
Philly Sports and Coyotes Hockey - and yes, I am tired of defending my teams...
by Jordan Ellel on Jan 13, 2010 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
As much as I hate the Pens, they aren’t at fault here and shouldn’t lose draft picks or home ice or anything else people are suggesting. Blaming the Pens, or any team for that matter, for something the broadcasters did is ridiculous. However, the league should make a rule that x number of cameras are to be used for each game and the same number of cameras MUST submit video when it’s warranted before any decision is made or none of the games should be televised, which we all know would never happen in this league. It’s an all or none deal and it’s the only way to make sure that every video is submitted and everything is kept fair. But punishing the Pens over this is nuts. It’s sort of like slapping a fine on the Eagles because that guy spit on the Dallas star.
The Penguins don’t own or run the FSN tv broadcast. The radio guys are team employees (Penguins Radio Network) but the television side is FSN. Obviously those guys are embedded with the team and are undoubtedly biased, but I don’t think you can fault the team either. It was an FSN person, not a Pittsburgh employee that made the mistake of with-holding.
You come at the king, you best not miss.
by Hooks Orpik on Jan 14, 2010 12:42 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with you here.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 14, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Well, I thought the Eagles most definitely should’ve been fined when Spadaro spit on the star. He’s an employee of the team (PR shill who acts like a reporter might be he actual job title) and what he did was down right embarrassing.
The Pens aren’t at fault directly, you’re right about that. But they are responsible for who they contract to cover their games and this is an extremely important issue. Like I said, it’s the integrity of the game. It’s as important as things get from a hockey perspective, and if the NHL can’t discipline the network directly, they need to do it indirectly but disciplining the team who hired that network.
Don’t confuse what I said as anti-Pittsburgh. If the CSN telecast did the same thing, the Flyers deserve to be stripped of a draft pick or levied a hefty fine, as I said.
the behest of the Pittsburgh video crew and the video that crew opted to televise.
Let’s be clear, though: this isn’t just a Pittsburgh thing. This issue could happen in any city in the league, and that’s where the concern is magnified even more. It’s extremely disconcerting that local bias can apparently have so much of an impact on the outcome of the game. It may not have effected it too much in this one, as the Flyers won the game comfortably and it even allowed Gagne the chance to score his 500th career point in front of the home crowd on Saturday. Who says we’ll be so lucky next time?
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 14, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
I would be more amenable to a fine than stripping draft picks, simply because the contract between a team and their broadcaster is monetary, so the Penguins could penalize their contractor for failing to live up to the terms of the contract. Since I don’t believe there was malicious intent on the part of the Penguins organization (I don’t see any likely way it could be), they should be able to attempt to recoup the penalty from the party that actually caused the problem. A loss of a draft pick is something they can’t recover from FSN, and it (potentially) harms the long-term viability of the franchise.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
That makes sense. I agree with that, especially in this particular situation.
But if this were to occur again with the provisions I outlined in the article all in place, I think a draft pick + a fine would be sufficient.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 14, 2010 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed. If it gets to the point where a team has a way to easily verify if their contractor is complying (if not direct control of the video feeds), then there should be more severe penalties, since it would require the team to be complicit, rather than simply negligent.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
One perspective I haven’t seen mentioned at all is that this may be as much a business issue as a hockey issue – FSN Pittsburgh is owned by Liberty Media, who owns DirecTV. As I’m sure quite a few of us recall, DirecTV and Versus had issues last year. Versus, like the Flyers, is owned by Comcast.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
Very interesting, but I certainly am of the opinion that MacDonald wasn’t receiving orders from someone at that level, either directly or passed down.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 14, 2010 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
I would be surprised by order like that too. To be honest, I was mostly surprised it hadn’t been mentioned because any good conspiracy theory tends to pop up at least once. Without a real investigation (as opposed to the “oh, it wasn’t the Pens” investigation we got), we can’t know whether it was incompetence or malice on FSN’s part, but that sort of situation would be too unlikely for there to be standing orders, and it happens too quickly for them to be able to direct it from above.
"When you make your final stand
I'll be right there
I'll never leave
And all I ask of you is
Believe"
No chance, even just logistically speaking. I’ve been in TV control rooms and it would be almost impossible for some higher up to issue that kind of directive that fast to a TV crew. It would literally have to come down immediately as that play happened, a call would have to be made to the producer, who would then have to relay to the director not to show that clip, and then the director would have to tell the technical director not to include the clip.
This would all have to occur within a matter of a few seconds, and the sheer reaction time of an executive to get to that phone and say “hey, if we have a clip that proves that’s a goal, you better not include it because I want to indirectly stick it to Versus if it is actually a goal” within a second of Gagne putting that puck in the net is rather farfetched.
It’s easy to draw that parallel but I don’t believe it’s even possible, let alone likely. It’s much more likely that MacDonald loves the Pittsburgh Penguins, was mad they were losing to their rival so badly, and wanted to try and help.
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 14, 2010 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
Did anyone actually read this article?
This article isn’t about punishing anyone, not the Penguins, not FSN, or Liberty Media, not the fans. It’s about setting up procedures so that something like this wouldn’t happen again.
That’s been my point all along; I don’t understand why it’s even an issue. It shouldn’t be in the hands of the regional sports networks or major networks to begin with…the NHL should have the maps of all the cameras in every bldg and request all angles be submitted every time.
But going forward, there should be something put in place that fines any team that doesn’t abide by the set rules.
Agreed. But the first step would be puts on lawyer hat establishing a duty upon the teams (which is now in the hands of third parties such as FSN) so that the punishment isn’t attenuated.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 14, 2010 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
So, let me try and translate to English… make sure the teams pay up front so that the networks don’t take the easy way out on the fine?
Broad Street Hockey - SB Nation's Philadelphia Flyers Blog. Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Travis Hughes on Jan 14, 2010 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
No. Basically, there has to be a contract between the teams and the NHL saying the teams are responsible for video feeds before you can fine a team for something done by the television crew.
Now, I’m not sure how this works in terms of professional leagues (anti-trust law is interesting in terms of what leagues can do, so long as it is spelled out in the establishment of the league) but unless there was something spelled out in the document that gave the NHL power over the teams (same one that established a commissioner, almost certainly) that said they can fine teams for actions taken by their broadcasts, the Penguins could fight it.
I’m saying this with one specific case we had to read for Sports Law in mind (Atlanta Baseball v. Kuhn) in which the commissioner fined and stripped a team of a draft pick for talking about acquiring a potential free agent. Because the act of stripping a team of a draft pick wasn’t a specifically enumerated power, the commissioner wasn’t able to impose that penalty. But he was able to fine them because that was an enumerated power for acts deemed “detrimental to baseball.”
Long-story short – unless the teams collectively agree to grant the NHL the power to do some of what is being proposed (stripping of a draft pick in particular), the NHL can’t do it. And that’s assuming Bettman has the power to impose penalties (fines included) for such a broad topic as “actions detrimental to the game of hockey.”
Sorry to go all legalistic on everyone.
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
by Geoff Detweiler on Jan 14, 2010 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
The one thing I love about this is that it was the 2 huge morons (easily worst and most annoying announcers in the league) that blew the whistle on their own network. Had they just shut up none of this would have happened. Of course, as a Flyers fan I’m really happy they got caught and hopefully it will stop it from happening around the league in general.
FSN needs to fire these idiots, who unfortunately I have to listen to regularly because I’m out of the area and watch on center ice… they could pull 2 random fans out of the crowd to do the broadcast and put out a better product than those mongoloids.
To this day I do not understand why they pulled Mike Lange off TV. Even though Pitt are our rivals, I think he is a very good announcer. Staggy sounds like a poor man’s John Goodman. I cringe every time he says the word “Penguins” because he makes it sound like “Peyngwunz.”
Do you see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?
Travis – the problem with DVRs is it doesn’t capture every 29.97 frame per second that is standard NTSC broadcast – skips a few frames here and there in it’s interpretation… so not totally reliable in slow motion… you need far better replay equipment then a simple dvr, a direct link to the broadcast station where they can get the raw footage makes sense…
in reference to frames being dropped, i can remember a goal called back this year because the only reliable reply was a frontal shot and a player gets in the way at the moment the puck goes over… they zoomed in and only showed the frame up to where it was touching the line and nothing after that… i swear i could see white from the far angle but was annoyed they never showed that frame in the close up, only evidence of it touching the line.
maybe a bad reference since i can’t remember the game… did anyone see the washington – Boston game? the puck was called in by the ref from 15 feet away and there was no way anyone could make an accurate call from that distance. what really happened was the goal judge hit the light prematurely… then the ref said it was in… but video reply showed the puck rolling on side with the tip on the line. they couldnt call it back because of the initial call which was totally bias and premature…
FSN pittsburgh has the worst broadcast, bob erray even said he hated the flyers on air. he’s an ass and so is his penis head counterpart Paul Steigerwald – those guys suck.
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
On Facebook? Use Connect to join SB Nation. Share insights with fans and friends.- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Atlantic Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
New Jersey
|
82 | 48 | 27 | 7 | 103 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
82 | 47 | 28 | 7 | 101 |
|
Philadelphia
|
82 | 41 | 35 | 6 | 88 |
|
New York Rangers
|
82 | 38 | 33 | 11 | 87 |
|
New York Islanders
|
82 | 34 | 37 | 11 | 79 |
(updated 4.12.2010 at 9:21 AM EDT)
Flyers Schedule
Next 5 Games
|
@
Pittsburgh
|
Thu 10/07 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
@
St. Louis
|
Sat 10/09 | 8:00 PM EDT |
|
Colorado
|
Mon 10/11 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Thu 10/14 | 7:00 PM EDT |
|
Pittsburgh
|
Sat 10/16 | 7:00 PM EDT |
Last 5 Games
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/09 | OT - L 3 - 4 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 06/06 | L 4 - 7 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 06/04 | W 5 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Wed 06/02 | OT - W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Mon 05/31 | L 1 - 2 |
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Trending Topics: Odd arbitration decisions; more NHLers Tweeting
- Ovechkin wins fifth Kharlamov Trophy, talks Talbot
- Puck Headlines: Witt hits waivers; Kovalchuk grievance details set
- Jersey Fouls: Sharks get creatively awful; hockey movie pass/fail
- White, Flames agree to one-year deal; Bruins sign Wheeler
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
