• Anonymous

    Please please please please please never broadcast a game with those cameras EVER AGAIN. Does anyone audit the systems they put in??!!

  • JD

    IMO, some things were good, some bad. It was ok once the were cycling in the zone, but transitions from the one end to the other was too close, you couldnt see all the players developing the play. My wife said it made her a little dizzy with the constant changing of the cameras. I think they need to have the regular view, and throw in those on ice views from time to time when the shot warrents it. one other thing, it was pretty cool when there was a fight or check. the camera was up and close so you could really see the action well. Really great for the fight, you could see all the little things.

  • Neva

    i didn’t like it, but the cam from behind the nets was great imho. the rinkside view will work if they only use it when the puck is being brought up ice and then switch to the cam behind the net when the puck is in the zone………they did that sometimes and it worked well

    in general though it sucked when it was used for too long.

  • Anonymous

    Not a fan of the rinkside view. It was very hard to follow the flow of the game. The jerky camera movement gave my wife motion sickness(Cloverfield the Movie Syndrome) They need to try something else

  • Cwag

    My wife commented to me that seeing the “east/west” of the game was interesting. It may be fun as a novelty, or maybe a both/and kinda thing, but not as a replacement of the former way of doing it.

  • Danny

    Agree with JD. It was good at times, but the old view was better for developing plays. Perhaps a hybrid would work.

  • Anonymous

    Sucked big time, You couldn’t see anything develop. Just horrible. I was getting sick trying to watch that, I cannot believe they thought it was a good idea. Brutal.

  • wavesinair

    I don’t know what you people are smoking, but that was the best hockey game I have ever viewed on tv.

    I felt like I was at the game. Of course, I’m watching it on a 52in lcd with hd, but still.

    Oh yeah, and my wife didn’t watch it, so I didn’t have her to influence my decision (aka, make it).

    Awesome broadcast, I hope everyone is like that!!!

  • afx114

    Behind the net, the cam was great – especially on the powerplay because you could really see how they move the puck around.

    But the low center-ice cams were horrible. You couldn’t perceive the flow of the players, and therefore could never see any plays develop. It reminded me of watching a soccer team of 6-year olds – like a bunch of bees buzzing around a hive.

  • afx114

    P.S., if FSN is going to be broadcasting in HD, they need to lobby cable companies to carry FSN HD!! Those of us down here in San Diego didn’t even get to see it in HD – which made the center-ice cams even worse.

  • Lososaurus

    It’s nice to see plays develop and fall apart, but most interesting to see what players are really looking and the number of bodies they have to shoot through when shooting from the blueline.

    The problem though is that sure, they showed however many cameras were available for different views and angles during the game, but they only ever used the center ice camera. If they had used the cameras in the corners, above the goalie, on the bench, it would have been much, much better.

    I was at a bar and they had on FSNKings, I don’t know if the other channel was playing the standard view.

  • James

    I liked the camera angles, but hated the production. There were just too many times when they should’ve switched to the overhead, behind-the-net cameras once the play was established in the offensive zone. Good idea with the camera angles, just poorly executed in my opinion.

  • Irish Pat

    I agree it was like sitting up close at the game, but a lot of the camera cuts threw my head for a spin. I think if they tried a mix of the old school view along with the rinkside view that might make it more fun to watch at home. I’m sure they’re still trying to work out the kinks. I give them credit for trying something new. It’s definitely worth bearing a few repeat performances if they can master it.

  • Tom K

    I absolutely hated the rinkside view. I was so much harder to follow the action. Figures the Kings play such a great game and its tainted by this poor gimmicky camera trick. Kinda like bringing back the lame glowing puck. Awful Awful Awful, let me repeat again in case you missed how much I hated this view it was AWFUL!!!

  • Yog S’loth

    I literally will never watch another game with that camera setup. It was impossible to see anything develop. The camera angles are so tight and narrow, that they miss most of the action, and the switching back and forth and rapid panning just creates a confusing mess. Just terrible beyond my ability to express.

  • Kings fan

    Totally unwatchable. I tuned over to Columbus/San Jose. You can’t see plays develop, your vision is blocked, and the angle switching was sickening. Watch the fans in the low seats at Staples; they’re always looking at the scoreboard to see what’s really happening.

  • Brian

    Please tell FSN that was the worst experience ever watching a hockey game with those cameras! How can they expect to new viewers when you can’t even see what’s going on?!?!

  • Matt R

    That was horrible. I’ve been watching the Kings for 20 years and last night I felt like I was watching my first game. It was ok for the neutral zone, but when the play was deep in either zone it was like trying to look through a forest. I couldn’t see anything. And the camera moved too much and too fast. I would be happy if I never saw a game from that perspective again. If it were used for replays, or just (very)occasionally, I wouldn’t mind. Never again for the entire game. I actually considered turning the game off for the first time in my life.

  • Anonymous

    This novelty should be tucked away with the glow puck, Dancing Boy, Kingston and “Lonnie Loach Night.”

    Okay, I made that last one up, but man, Rinkside was just an assault on the eyes and it was like having the worst seat in the house in most situations.

    Make it go away.

    Rinkside bad. Very bad.

  • Anonymous

    couldnt see saves on ends of the ice properly..far end plays very hard to see on the center ice cam…not e-nuff transitioning to other rink cams for better viewing…rather go back to the old views..get a better view of everything thats going on

  • Tompa

    Good in doses. I wouldn’t recommend using it more than one period in selected games. I liked the view on the power play though.

  • JamesMir11

    It would be better if they used the old camera view but in HD. There were certain things that were very decent, but overall, the old camera view was a whole lot better than rinkside view.

  • CiscoC

    I think JD said it all. They are great angles to use as a supplement when the situations calls for it. It would definitely improve the normal telecast if used that way.

  • simonsez

    I liked it at times, but they should always use the camera up top for the majority of the game. The rinkside view is fine to switch to at appropriate times, but not for the whole game.

    It doesn’t need to be presented as an either/or proposition.

  • petey

    It was fine when the play was at center ice, or when the puck was behind the nets. Other than that, they should just use the normal camera angles, and then go to the other camera angles when the puck is in those zones.

  • Anonymous

    Overall, I liked it. Much closer to the action. Major problems on power plays though. The camera angle was TOO far away, you couldn’t see the team’s setting up their attacks. It was almost like sitting at a football game in the end zone, watching your team score at the other end zone. I thought the center ice shots were better, as it seemed easier to watch the whole play develop.

  • stnlycupla

    I returned home from my own hockey game to watch this and absolutely loved it. It really highlights how good these guys are and how slow we are in my beer league. At times it felt as if I was playing the game and that is a pretty good outcome in my book. Unfortunately my feed wasn’t in HD as I watch via comcast center ice in San Francisco (even though it says it should be in HD. So frustratin!).

    I could see how many would dislike this, especially after being used to the same angles for many years (try switching up angles on a NHL video game you’ve played for years), but after a while I got used to it and really enjoyed it.

    Technology is here today to allow viewers to pick the angles they want to see but unfortunately there isn’t a business model around it yet (seems to barely be a business model around Kings broadcast anyway).

    I give FSN props for trying something new here. I say give them some time to develop this further.

  • Anonymous

    Not a fan of rinkside view for the following reasons:

    1. not able to see the play and positioning off the puck.

    2. Camera could not follow the puck causing quick, jerky camera movements trying frantically to follow the play.

    3. I don’t have to see the back of every defender behind the net.

    4. down ice views are distorted and deceiving. The goal that Simmonds scored appeared that O’D’s shot actually went in the net. The camera couldn’t even tell and the original shot/play moved away after O’D’s shot and didn’t show the rebound and Simmonds tap in the goal. When they showed a review and another camera angle you could tell, but not live.

    I really hated it and don’t want to see it again! How about more HD games and trash the rinkside crap!

  • Jerry Mitchell

    Been watching hockey for many years and thought that was the worst game ever broadcast. Utilize some of the angles when the time is right but not for the entire game. Allow the play to develop then move in for a closer view once we know how the play got there.

  • Captain Material

    I really hated it when the “rinkside view” was the overriding camera angle. Later int he game when they started doing more traditional angles and less of the close-ups, it was much better. The close-ups are nice, but they severly limit the amount of ice you can see and your ability to see the over play and how thing develop.

    Early in the game it was very frustrating. I’ve been watching hockey for 20+ years now, and I like sitting in the cheap seats and watching at home precisely so I can see more of the game then just who has the puck. I want to see action away from the puck.

    Honestly, I kind of was thinking maybe they were doing this so it would be hard to tell just how bad the Kings are. 🙂 Suppose the final score kind of negates that arguement somewhat, I really felt the new approach took a lot away from my being able to see the whole picture of how the team played.

  • Anonymous

    ditto jerry mitchell i too have watched hockey for over 40 years and it is only good ocassional not for play by play no perspective of the flow of the game nor established plays or break outs etc etc terrible

  • KingFan4ever

    During the telecast intro I really thought they where using it for replays and alternate views which is what it’s great for.

    My advice to FSN? Don’t fix what isn’t broken. Keep those rinkside cams there for replays and the occasional cut away.

    It’s great to see those kids win. They deserve it because I know they are working hard. The quacks really thought they’d just show up and win the game. They had no respect for the Kings and they paid the price. POS is showing why he is worth the money. DB is showing why he is captain. AK is showing why he is the franchise.

  • Geoff

    They should keep the cameras for one of many camera views, mainly for use in replays, or when the puck is being broken out. Watching a whole game with those cameras made me queasy and made my eyes bleed.

  • KingsFan78

    It’s another situation where the “can we?” questions beat the “should we?” questions. It would be like watching a full game from the net camera. That angle might come in handy, so I’m sure they’ll keep it(like the net camera, or the behind the net camera, or the corner camera), but you can’t do that for the whole game.

  • nykingfan

    sorry posted this in the wrong section earlier

    Memo to Kings management:
    Please do away with the low angle camera. I thought I was going to puukk a few times. Also, I missed the 1st goal by Anaheim because of the angle and I didn’t even realize that the Simmonds goal wasn’t scored by OD. I like the rgular camera angle that the Staples Center gives. It’s not too close or too far away (like the San Jose feed)

    I guess if you’re watching on a 52″ HDTV it might have been better, but on my 36″ non HD TV..it absolutely sucked.
    I noticed that later in the game they went away from that angle and were using the normal camera angles.
    Their are times when the different angles can be effective, but certainly not constantly.
    From the poll it seems most people didn’t like the view either.

  • TeamHasHoles

    That was NO WAY TO WATCH A HOCKEY GAME. The second half of the second period, they went almost exclusively to the usual camera angle and between that and the way the Kings played, it was enjoyable. Then when the 3rd period started, this poor excuse for a video gimmick came back.

    The Simmonds goal was horrible camera work which was a function of the cameraman’s margin for error when he stands that low and close to the action. Also, watching a hockey game for me isn’t always about watching the puck, it’s a lot about watching what goes on AWAY from the puck, which is a virtual impossibility on a telecast like that and it’s funny, because even when I did wanna watch the puck, half the time I couldn’t find it from such a low angle.

    This is not something we just need to get used to. It’s a bad idea for practical reasons.

    The team itself is going to struggle this year and our collective patience is going to be tested this season, my eyes and my brain shouldn’t struggle disseminating what I’m watching on top of everything else.

    I certainly won’t be watching games using these types of broadcasts ever again, so my hope is that their advertisers will have them stop and that they won’t use it again.

  • wavesinair

    In the future, maybe we’ll be able to choose which angle we can see with our remote control. How awesome would that be! That way, every single person would see the game exactly the way they like it.

  • Anonymous

    Well, regardless of the camera angle, they should always be using HD cameras. Like most everyone else, there were a couple of angles that I liked (cycling and occasionally being positioned above/behind the player who is blasting the puck), but most of them were too constrictive to see enough of the action. Transitions were particularly difficult. However, on the plus side, my fiance who is a hockey newbie was able to follow the puck a little better with the closer in angles. Perhaps they should consider bringing in the standard angle, overhead camera (above center ice and back) a little bit closer.

  • Nick

    It’s a good idea that was executed extremely poorly. Didn’t like it.

  • -J

    To me, it was more like how the game looks from ice level, like when you’re sitting on the bench. I can totally see how most people hated it because it’s faster and harder to get a read on everyhting that is happening, but i liked a lot about it for those very reasons. The action felt more immersive, but maybee that’s only because as a player I’m pretty familiar with the more ice level view and that is how i visualize the game (not from the rafters). I think it needs some major work, particularly with camera selection, but could make for a better broadcast view with refinement.

    They did this a last year too with Ducks-Kings games and i don’t recall so much negative feedback about it then, but that was when they did dual broadcasts- normal on one channel, ice level on the other.

  • ian

    Liked it a lot! Allowed more perspective of what the players are seeing/doing, sure you miss some of the action but I liked the change…

    Didn’t they do the same thing last year and offer regular viewing angles on a different channel? Having the choice would be ideal.

  • Model 62

    Great for an up close look at puck handling skills in traffic. The rinkside cameras pick up lots of detail otherwise overlooked.

    Terrible for watching plays develop.

    I would like to see rinkside view, used judiciously, as accompaniment to traditional camera views

  • Anonymous

    Awful.Was the worst game ever brodcast .

  • JGSmall

    I appreciate FSW for trying something new. Like the glow puck, I don’t think this will pan out. However, I do want them to continue trying to be innovative because that means they want to make hockey work.

  • Jpuck

    When they showed the view from center ice and the puck was in the zone/around the net you couldnt see anything.

  • J-MF-EFF

    I think the angle was loved by all who had 42″ or better, and that poll is a direct reflection of that. It gave me a much better idea of the pace and intricacies of the game, something you would normally only see while actually being there. that angle did blow the simmonds goal though….

  • Anonymous

    I hated it with the white heat of a thousand suns.

    Those cameras should be used for replays only. Otherwise, just show the game.

  • cristobal

    It was hardly seamless, but I liked the use of different angles. I think ESPN or VS has done similar experimenting and the different angles work really well at times, like power plays. The editing and direction will only get better if they keep using it and experiementing. In my opinion, it is worth developing. Much better than those fixed camera games you see in some buildings around the NHL where the players look like ants and your nose starts bleeding at home.

    If we are free to make suggestions that Rich could pass along, I think Fox Fan Zone is a great way to watch a game. Fox Soccer Channel does this weekly with EPL games. They take a fan from each team and put them in a broadcast booth to argue and cheer for their team. Its maybe not how one would choose to watch every broadcast, but its a fun option if you’re tired of the deep voiced national broadcast voices and opinions. Really a lot of fun.


  • stepa

    Awful.Was the worst game ever brodcast .

  • Joe

    I never could follow the game, the cameras must have been
    across the street. The camera men, I thought maybe this was
    there first time bringing the game. Rate it F-

  • Anonymous

    Unwatchable. I watched maybe 10 minutes before I became too dizzy or become frustrated with the camera not being able to keep up with the puck.

    I remember one shot of the king bench and the camera was not steady. It was like watching a game on the ocean.

    I did like a couple of shots when the camera was on the other side of the rink and behind the play when the defensemen took a shot. Seeing the gaps around the goalie was interesting.

  • Decker

    I submitted feedback to FSN last night during the game in regards to my “distaste” for the rinkside camera view. I just now got an email reply…

    “Thank you very much for your feedback as it relates to the Rinkside View telecast last night. Your opinion is extremely important to us. This is certainly a new approach to televising NHL hockey and we can assure you that your feedback will be properly relayed and considered in our future discussions with our partners at Fox Sports West.”

  • Stormy2213

    My boys and I tried to watch the game and none of us could stand it. It was like watching a bad music video with too may cuts edited in. There was no ability to watch the entire flow of the game at all. You couldn’t see plays develop, you couldn’t see passing lanes, you couldn’t see behind the play action. I hope this idea is quickly flushed down the drain like all the other hair-brained ideas that the TV yokels have come up with in recent years. I was reminded of the glowing puck experiment a couple of years ago. Bloody awful.

  • Decker

    Ooops – didn’t pay attention to the domain that sent the reply. That was actually a reply I got from aegworldwide.com after I submitted feedback to them as well. I figured they had input into how FSN broadcasts their games so I felt they should hear the feedback.

  • Dave

    They need to widen the lens get a better view and be quicker at changing the camera. I would rather see a camera change rather than the camera trying to keep up with the puck/players, which they cant do. If it went from side view to the end zone view

  • muddy

    I voted that I hated it, but used in certain situations it could be a great tool. Just watching the game at only those angles was tough to deal with. I do think it was a good first showing and if they mixed it up with the normal over head shot it would bring closer to the desired result. I admire the fact that they tried something new and take all this feedback as constructive and move toward creating a better viewing experience for all. 🙂

  • Anonymous

    GREAT view of the action–I wish this was permanent–hate watching any team play in Duck’s rink–like miles up!
    Pls go with this more often–definitely an upgrade with Hi-Def!!

  • PSP

    It really comes down to how large and fast the pan sweep is. The center ice cameras had to pan through 150 degrees or so which sometimes made the background blurry. The cameras behind the goal were fine because they rarely had to pan for one extreme to the other – and if they did, it was still only 60-70 degrees.

    The real benefit of HD for hockey is to be able to clearly see much more of the rink and to be able to see the play set up, not to experience the speed.

  • Anonymous

    I will write every person imaginable if any other games are broadcast this way. Might as well strap a camera on my pitbulls back and have her shoot the game!

    Pathetic and amateurish!

  • Eric K

    behind-the-net cam was pretty solid; i think it’ll work very well for power plays and shootouts.

    otherwise: no thanks, FSN.

  • Anonymous

    HORRIBLE. Please never broadcast in that view again.

  • Fed Up

    Worst game I saw in my 61 years, and I DID try to watch on a 42″, HD set. It was so bad, I turned to another team on Center Ice. For all you casual fans who thought it was cool, I ask you this: would you lobby Fox to televise a USC football game this way?

  • Anonymous

    I stopped watching the game, it was HORRIBLE. 2nd period I got a call from a friend saying it went to normal. I watched and of course they went back to that crappy view and I stopped again. I chose to listen on the radio instead of watching the game for the first time EVER, THANKS FOX for F’ing up the game last night. Do they want us going to the games instead of watching it on tv this bad??? Whatever retard in a suit came up with this idea, fire the moron please.

  • Dallas

    First off great game by the Kings. I was not a fan of the rink side view. I had the game in HD and normal. In HD it was not as bad as normal. Unfortunately the sound disappeared for the HD feed so I watched it normally. It was not even close to being a decent view of the game. I have purchased NHL open ice in Canada, to watch Kings games, I will be very disappointed if they are mostly shown in this format.

  • al

    i thought it was great. i have a 60″ HD tv and it really looked like you were at the game.

  • KingsFanInRI

    In the words of “Men on Hockey…”

    HATED IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jim Norton

    It stinks.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, here’s a Fox can settle this. On the next HD game, let’s have Bob Miller and Jim Foxx sit in the basement of Staples and call the game off of an HD monitor…any size you want, the bigger the better. My money says it will be a disaster.

  • byron

    Decker said:

    I submitted feedback to FSN last night during the game in regards to my “distaste” for the rinkside camera view. I just now got an email reply…

    How were you able to submit feedback? I never seem to be able to find a working contact link. Maybe we all should let them know we want more games in HD.

  • Anonymous

    It’s great that the game is in high def, but that is all for nought if you use this crappy view! Keep it with a normal angle that normal hockey broadcasts have used for 40+ years. It doesn’t seem to be a stretch of the imagination that if ice hockey is going to be experiencing a revolution in broadcast modalities southern california WILL NOT be blazing the trail, leave it to the Canadian media or at least national US media to do that.

    While you are at it, get rid of the color guy, his speech cadence (read: sentence intonation) is appropriate for talking to preschoolers but not an adult hockey audience.

  • Anonymous

    I had to turn off the Fox Sports West HD broadcast 5 minutes into the game because I found the Rinkside Vision to be very unfavorable to the game. THANK GOD that Yahoo Sports was broadcasting the game on the internet and Fox Sports Detroit isn’t experimenting with Rinkside Vision. I would have had to watch the World Series otherwise (maybe that was Fox Sports intention??).

  • tmarco

    Absolutely ruined a game that I’ve been looking forward to watching. It’s astounding to me that Fox Sports continues this coverage when almost EVERYONE watching hates it! It’s unwatchable, dizzying, and disjointed. You cannot see plays developing, and constantly watching from behind the net is maddening. Probably an example of network suits making really cutting edge and clever decisions (in their minds) and insist that they know better than the real hockey fans watching the games. Unbelievable! Knock it off!

  • Phil W

    I pay for NHL Center Ice every year so that I can see my Red Wings, and this Rinkside View that was used in LA is the WORST view ever!!! You cannot follow the plays because of the limited views. Even with the regular view, we wish they would STOP zooming in on a single player for this same reason. The cameras cant keep up with the puck. They are switching views every 5 seconds, which makes it even harder to follow the action. And with the behind the net camera, you get dizzy watching the camera pan back and forth. This crap SUCKS! This terrible viewpoint is why we always purchase seats that are row 10 or higher specifically to AVOID this view. The decision makers have been improving the game, but this is the worst idea in a long time and should be abandoned immediately.

    Please Google Rinkside View and read the reviews and you will find that most fans HATE this and would be willing to petition NHL Center Ice to boycott FSN if this broadcast method is continued.

    Please voice your disgust to: http://msn.foxsports.com/feedback

  • SD

    Absolutely horrible! I agree with most of the comments here. This was probably the idea of some network executive (with no knowledge of hockey) to try and improve ratings. I honestly have a hard time watching an entire game with this rinkside view. It significantly degrades my enjoyment of the game. Impossible to follow the flow of the plays. At times you can’t even see who’s carrying the puck as the cameras have trouble following the action and are constantly panning back and forth trying to adjust. Fortunately, I can’t see this gimmick lasting very long as the negative feedback seems pretty clear.

  • Philadelphia SEO

    There is obviously a lot to know about this, I think you made some good points in Features also.

  • yo excellent blog yea nice job our blog review newspaper will soon be adding reviews on websites and add them to our as the top best 100 blogs to visit we also do reviews on Product Reviews all types of product reviews visit us

  • Thank you for this great article, I really enjoy your blog layout.

  • Ive been looking through the web for my research on this content. I read something about this at the Friendly news mashup Glad i stumbled across this site. Thanks for the share.

  • Hey great site wondered if anyone on here has used Controlled Labs White Blood and could maybe post a review for me or just let me know what they thought of it. Thanks!

  • Ie had both an Android based device, and I have an iPhone 3GS 16GB sitting on my desk now. The Present device that I am using, however is a 9630 that has been unlocked and is running on the AT&T network. Ie noticed that since I got my first BlackBerry, I keep returning to the platform, mainly because out of all of the smart phones that Ie had, it seems to manage to run longer on it battery than the others. My iPhone will die about half way through the day and I am not always in a position where I can charge it. Ie seen where others have said that the main reason for using the iPhone (or the Android based phones) is the full HTML web browser, not the mixed breed WAP/HTML browser on the BlackBerry; Ie only had a few sites that Ie tried to go to that didn work, but if I doing any eal?browsing, it being done on a computer?While I also feel that Apple has the virtual keyboard right, I am both faster and more accurate with the thumb board on my 9630 than I am on the iPhone?

  • I had a Bberry Curve on AT&T. It didn have Wifi or 3G, so it kidna sucked in the internet department. But it e-mail capability still rape Iphone. Sold it, got an Iphone 3G (not s). Out comes the Bold. Bought it. Loved it. Dropped it. Broke it. Now I back on Iphone. Waiting for Supersonic.This article conveniently leaves out the fact that most Bberry owners have one, strictly for business, not for casual use like the Iphone is garnered to. They don need extra apps which is why they don dl or buy em.

  • Good post, thanks

  • wow guys! check the latest free casino games like roulette and slots !check out the all new free online casino games at the all new http://www.casinolasvegass.com, the most trusted online casinos on the web! enjoy our free casino software download and win money.
    you can also check other online casinos bonus .

  • Great post!

  • Very helpful blog. Hope it will continually be alive!

  • Lucas Holston

  • Lily Delima

  • Great post!