At 10:48 AM 4/8/05, Andy RPI 91 wrote:
>I totally agree with you about the video camera. There were a couple of
>times I swore it was a player. It was a little distracting. What is the
>point of it? Sometimes I think I'd just like a simple, stationary, wide shot
>of the action where I can follow the puck instead of the camera trying to
>follow the puck.

I agree the "dasher cam" as they called it, was at times distracting. Used
judiciously though I think it could be a solid addition to viewing a game
on TV. It certainly gave some sense of how quickly play sometimes moved
through the neutral zone. (Wasn't a similar effect used in Miracle?) It was
also good when there was a scrum right beneath it, a shot which a long,
wide shot cannot show because it is obscured by the boards. (That, to me,
was the biggest drawback, although not the only one, to the 'blue tail'
that was experimented with a few years ago, since it made the puck appear
to be outside the playing surface.) Where the dasher cam was not at all
effective was trying to show play inside the zone. It wasn't high enough
and when shooting from center ice it was like sitting down to low at the
rink, and not having any perspective on the play. ESPN didn't seem
consistent on where or how they used it, maybe because it's new. But I'll
give them credit for trying it.

If you want more info on it look at
http://espnsportsfigures.com/ESPNToday/2005/Mar_05/dashercam.htm
Because it's track is along the top of the glass it does seem to me to be
misnamed. Does anyone have a hockey dictionary to define precisely what
part/s of the boards are the dasher?

My favorite camera position, and IMHO the one not used enough, is the one
mounted atop the glass behind the net.  When the puck moves into the zone
you get an excellent wide view of the entire play developing.

>As for Barry and the suit, well, believe it or not, that kind of suit is
>fashionable in London. Dark blue with *big* pinstripes. I actually think he
>was worn that type of suit before. I remember laughing at it last year or
>the year before.

I've no idea what's fashionable in London, but I know I've seen Melrose in
similar suits before. Yes, I think he has more than one of the them. To me
it looks like something you'd find on "Queer Eye for the Mobster Guy."  I'm
wondering if those green toga's are equally fashionable in the land of the
Fighting Sioux?

>Andy
>RPI '91

- Bill