Ottawa 67s 2024-25 Season Thread, Part I

[OMG67]

Oh absolutely would be nice to access that but they’re not going to go out and spend a bunch of money at every rink just so fans can get an extra look or two at reviews. I’m sure the OHL had an angle of it or they wouldn’t have called it no goal

It is the Rogers feed. It is rare there are other cameras, other than the league mandated one above the nets, that are League feeds not accessed by the TV crew. That is the first one that there was ‘apparently” another angle that was used to overturn the call. We are ASSUMING there was another angle because the angles they had were clearly not conclusive. It is VERY possible the angles we had were the angles they had. Who knows?

 

[frontsfan67]

It is the Rogers feed. It is rare there are other cameras, other than the league mandated one above the nets, that are League feeds not accessed by the TV crew. That is the first one that there was ‘apparently” another angle that was used to overturn the call. We are ASSUMING there was another angle because the angles they had were clearly not conclusive. It is VERY possible the angles we had were the angles they had. Who knows?

Maybe. Who knows. His stick was well above the crossbar though. Maybe he tipped it when it was above it. It was a lengthy review so they wanted to get it right I’m sure

 

[Hinterland]

Oh absolutely would be nice to access that but they’re not going to go out and spend a bunch of money at every rink just so fans can get an extra look or two at reviews. I’m sure the OHL had an angle of it or they wouldn’t have called it no goal

They didn't. Otherwise they'd have told the refs. The refs made that call after watching it on their mini tablet. Given the fact that they needed conclusive evidence to overturn this I'm calling bs here. Sure looked like a scam. Based on the TV feed I don't see how this could be a conclusive no goal.

 

[analyser]

Anything that has to do with Reid will always be a no goal for the 67s. The same thing happened in Ottawa not long ago with the same refs.

Reid needs to retire for the good of the OHL.

 

[ScoutLife4]

when its loaded into instat or sports contract i will see if i can check it out in slow motion and post it to see if it shows anything definitive.

 

[Hinterland]

Maybe. Who knows. His stick was well above the crossbar though. Maybe he tipped it when it was above it. It was a lengthy review so they wanted to get it right I’m sure

That was when the puck was already in the net. He took a swing at it but based on the TV feed it was pretty clear.

 

[OMG67]

when its loaded into instat or sports contract i will see if i can check it out in slow motion and post it to see if it shows anything definitive.

My assumption is there is an ice level camera in the corner. Ottawa broadcasts like having that camera angle. This was at SBP and not TD Centre so I am not sure if that camera was set up for this game. TD Place is set up better because there is the concourse around the glass. SBP has the seating around the glass so I am unsure what sort of camera angle they had set up today down low.

I’d be curious to see Amidovski’s ice time today. I missed the 2nd period and the last five or so minutes of the 1st because of work. I’m pretty sure he got a regular shift in the 1st and much of the 3rd today. I know he had a shift in the 3rd where he was very effective.

 

[beastintheeast]

My sense is that certain players chafe under DC's system/coaching style, but overall IMO he is a very good coach and generally has his teams well-prepared to play hard and play to their strengths. I'd say where he falls a little short is having his players consistently play disciplined hockey (he doesn't do a good job at reining-in the after the whistle stuff which is coachable imo), nor does he seem to adapt quickly when things move against his teams. We've seen that in recent playoffs.

He is a good coach for the national junior teams because generally speaking those teams are loaded with talent and experience and he just needs to steer the ship in the right direction. Not sure if he's going to be as successful coaching younger teams in the midst of a re-build/re-tool.

DC could not develop young talent if it slapped him on the face. I am not surprised that Amidovski's parents and agent screaming. What surprised me is that Whitehead's weren't that we know of.

Remember that first round draft picks think that they have a shot at the NHL. Most of them are playing for that. Then they come here and get told that they are going to be an important part of the rebuild of this team and even when the teamhas major injurines like they did int ehplayofffs he still sits them on the bench.

The fact that the team is short benched should mean that a rookie will get a ton of icetime that he would not normally get.

Any coach other DC would be doing that.

DC would rather play 2 lines for a full 60 minutes

Then you have a rted plaeyr like Ekberg who they draft and is in his draft year he was leading thelague for rookies and one of the top scorers onteh team and he get put ont he 4th line.

I have said it before and will repeat it even though some will disagree. IF DC stays and Boyd drafts midgets you are going to see players agents before the draft tell Boyd don't draft us we will not report.

Parents are going to steer away from talking to Ottawa scouts or boyd if they think he is lying to them.

If you trade Amidovski it will be interesting to see what they get. Let's face it if he stays home after xmas he has a lower value and will probably be picks becauwse no one will want to come here.

 

[ScoutLife4]

Stonehouse stick was WAY above the crossbar before the puck goes into the net at the time its tipped as Mews follows through with his shot.
Problem is on the camera you can't see the puck because the camera frames are so slow in Ottawa.
Definitely looked like both Mews and Stonehouse knew right away it was a high stick.

 

[OMG67]

Stonehouse stick was WAY above the crossbar before the puck goes into the net at the time its tipped as Mews follows through with his shot.
Problem is on the camera you can't see the puck because the camera frames are so slow in Ottawa.
Definitely looked like both Mews and Stonehouse knew right away it was a high stick.

That’s not the point. It was called a goal on the ice. Therefore, there needs to be conclusive video evidence to reverse the call. If there is no conclusive camera evidence then the call on the ice is upheld.

I went back to the replay. I freeze framed it from the main centre ice live feed. At the point Mews is fully extended on the follow through of the shot, Stonehouse’s stick “looks” to be below the crossbar. His hands are below Lalonde’s head and Lalonde at that point is almost down in the butterfly. Then in a split second, Stonehouse flicks his stick up. The problem is, we cannot see when the puck hit the stick, nor what part of the stick hit the puck. It could have been at the hands or it could have been at the blade. We cannot see that. We also cannot see when it hit the stick so we cannot determine at what point in him raising his stick it hit the puck.

Personally, “I think” it was a high stick but what we think happened is not relevant. It is about whether there is conclusive video evidence that shows the puck hit the stick. None was presented on multiple angles on the TV coverage. This is why either they made a call based on what they think happened or they had a different angle that was not presented on the game feed.

 

[beastintheeast]

How much time did ekberg get on the ice?

Is he allowed to be traded?

If players are not happy this could be a rough xmas for Boyd.

The problem is not just moving players out but getting players that want to be here if they hear horror stories.

 

[ScoutLife4]

That’s not the point. It was called a goal on the ice. Therefore, there needs to be conclusive video evidence to reverse the call. If there is no conclusive camera evidence then the call on the ice is upheld.

I went back to the replay. I freeze framed it from the main centre ice live feed. At the point Mews is fully extended on the follow through of the shot, Stonehouse’s stick “looks” to be below the crossbar. His hands are below Lalonde’s head and Lalonde at that point is almost down in the butterfly. Then in a split second, Stonehouse flicks his stick up. The problem is, we cannot see when the puck hit the stick, nor what part of the stick hit the puck. It could have been at the hands or it could have been at the blade. We cannot see that. We also cannot see when it hit the stick so we cannot determine at what point in him raising his stick it hit the puck.

Personally, “I think” it was a high stick but what we think happened is not relevant. It is about whether there is conclusive video evidence that shows the puck hit the stick. None was presented on multiple angles on the TV coverage. This is why either they made a call based on what they think happened or they had a different angle that was not presented on the game feed.

The Rogers broadcast is just shit.
Luckily for Kingston they were in an NHL barn full of way better camera's and feeds for video replay guy to access.

 

[FrontalLobe]

That’s not the point. It was called a goal on the ice. Therefore, there needs to be conclusive video evidence to reverse the call. If there is no conclusive camera evidence then the call on the ice is upheld.

I went back to the replay. I freeze framed it from the main centre ice live feed. At the point Mews is fully extended on the follow through of the shot, Stonehouse’s stick “looks” to be below the crossbar. His hands are below Lalonde’s head and Lalonde at that point is almost down in the butterfly. Then in a split second, Stonehouse flicks his stick up. The problem is, we cannot see when the puck hit the stick, nor what part of the stick hit the puck. It could have been at the hands or it could have been at the blade. We cannot see that. We also cannot see when it hit the stick so we cannot determine at what point in him raising his stick it hit the puck.

Personally, “I think” it was a high stick but what we think happened is not relevant. It is about whether there is conclusive video evidence that shows the puck hit the stick. None was presented on multiple angles on the TV coverage. This is why either they made a call based on what they think happened or they had a different angle that was not presented on the game feed.

I mentioned this in the Kingston thread. To me there was definitely conclusive evidence. If you watch the replay the puck almost hits Uens in the face before it hits Stonehouse's stick. He turns his head to avoid being hit in the face with the puck and the puck was rising as it went past him. And as I mentioned on the other thread as well, yes he is one of the shorter players but his head is well above the crossbar. the puck didn't miraculously take a nose dive after it went by his head. All that being said, I just assumed it would stand bc we are used to blowing leads in the last minutes of games so it seemed somewhat inevitable that it would stand.

 

[OMG67]

I mentioned this in the Kingston thread. To me there was definitely conclusive evidence. If you watch the replay the puck almost hits Uens in the face before it hits Stonehouse's stick. He turns his head to avoid being hit in the face with the puck and the puck was rising as it went past him. And as I mentioned on the other thread as well, yes he is one of the shorter players but his head is well above the crossbar. the puck didn't miraculously take a nose dive after it went by his head. All that being said, I just assumed it would stand bc we are used to blowing leads in the last minutes of games so it seemed somewhat inevitable that it would stand.

You cannot see the puck at any point in the feed. You can only assume where the puck is. I’ve frozen the feed on different angles right after the puck was shot and not once could we see an actual puck. We don’t know if it hit the blade of the stick, the shaft of the stick, nothing. We don’t know if it hit Uens and then went off Stonehouse’s body (based on the video). All we have is stuff like you are saying where it looks like Uens moved his head out of the way and Stonehouse slashed at the puck etc. From a rulebook perspective, that is meaningless. You have to actually have sight of the puck at the point it came into contact with the stick. IF you don’t have that, the call on the ice stands.

There was no video on the Live Broadcast that shows the puck coming into contact with the stick. At best this was a “best guess.” That is not how these are supposed to be ruled on. This is why I suggested the officials must have had a different camera feed to draw their conclusion from.

How much time did ekberg get on the ice?

Is he allowed to be traded?

If players are not happy this could be a rough xmas for Boyd.

The problem is not just moving players out but getting players that want to be here if they hear horror stories.

You really need to stop. He’s a 17 year old rookie caught in the shuffle. I hoped for better from him but his play has been inconsistent. The team will go through a cycle between now and the deadline. We will see a lineup in the second half after the deadline that will be more indicative of the true pecking order. Right now, with a lot of the shuffling going on, they are going through a process of determining that pecking order.

That does not mean that a player that moves from the 3rd line to the 4th line for a week or two will demand a trade.

 

[44 95 plus tax]

You cannot see the puck at any point in the feed. You can only assume where the puck is. I’ve frozen the feed on different angles right after the puck was shot and not once could we see an actual puck. We don’t know if it hit the blade of the stick, the shaft of the stick, nothing. We don’t know if it hit Uens and then went off Stonehouse’s body (based on the video). All we have is stuff like you are saying where it looks like Uens moved his head out of the way and Stonehouse slashed at the puck etc. From a rulebook perspective, that is meaningless. You have to actually have sight of the puck at the point it came into contact with the stick. IF you don’t have that, the call on the ice stands.

There was no video on the Live Broadcast that shows the puck coming into contact with the stick. At best this was a “best guess.” That is not how these are supposed to be ruled on. This is why I suggested the officials must have had a different camera feed to draw their conclusion from.



You really need to stop. He’s a 17 year old rookie caught in the shuffle. I hoped for better from him but his play has been inconsistent. The team will go through a cycle between now and the deadline. We will see a lineup in the second half after the deadline that will be more indicative of the true pecking order. Right now, with a lot of the shuffling going on, they are going through a process of determining that pecking order.

That does not mean that a player that moves from the 3rd line to the 4th line for a week or two will demand a trade.

Was Ekberg not injured or sick last week? Could be why he was on the fourth line.

As well. If it takes ten minutes or more to get conclusive evidence to overturn a play on the ice, that makes no sense at all. I thought the replays were for something obvious that the referees/linesmen missed. If they cant see something in two minutes, let the play stand.

 

[ScoutLife4]

Was Ekberg not injured or sick last week? Could be why he was on the fourth line.

As well. If it takes ten minutes or more to get conclusive evidence to overturn a play on the ice, that makes no sense at all. I thought the replays were for something obvious that the referees/linesmen missed. If they cant see something in two minutes, let the play stand.

So you don't think a coach should be able to challenge a play when it's looks like a high stick as it did in the Rogers feed?
Just let the Ref's get it wrong with no video replay or league intervention?
I personally think it's good they use the technology they have access to and not let human error be a factor anymore then it already is.
I bet you Cameron would have challenged that goal if he was on the other side of it.

 

[ScoutLife4]

You can even see the puck change direction when stonehouse tips with the high stick if you slow down the video rate to -0.2x
It completely changes directions Mews shot is going over the net and it hits stonehouse's stick about 8" from his gloves.
This review should have taken about 1 minute or less to decide it's as blatant of a high stick as it gets for anyone not wearing Ottawa gear.

 

[OMG67]

You can even see the puck change direction when stonehouse tips with the high stick if you slow down the video rate to -0.2x
It completely changes directions Mews shot is going over the net and it hits stonehouse's stick about 8" from his gloves.
This review should have taken about 1 minute or less to decide it's as blatant of a high stick as it gets for anyone not wearing Ottawa gear.
View attachment 930580

That angle doesn’t show the stick above the bar where it comes into contact with the puck. It looks like it could be and it maybe even looks very likely but there is nothing at the right level to show it. This camera angle is about 25 rows up. IMO, it falls under the category of, “I think it is a high stick.” If they are going to reverse calls on the ice based on what they think is a high stick, then change the rule and pull out the word “conclusive” and replace it with “best judgement.” Then the refs can use common sense and rationalize in the same manner they do on the ice in real time.

I’ve always thought the term conclusive was a poor way to review calls. Allow the officials to review the play and use their best judgement to determine wha the right call is. This is especially true when you consider things like frame rates etc. But, that is not how the rule is written. Either make the call based on how the rule is written or not. It cannot be different from game to game which is what we’ve seen consistently depending on who the official is.

We’ve had so many wonky reversals with Reid because he tends to not use the conclusive video to make a call. He makes judgement calls all the time.

 

[ScoutLife4]

That angle doesn’t show the stick above the bar where it comes into contact with the puck. It looks like it could be and it maybe even looks very likely but there is nothing at the right level to show it. This camera angle is about 25 rows up. IMO, it falls under the category of, “I think it is a high stick.” If they are going to reverse calls on the ice based on what they think is a high stick, then change the rule and pull out the word “conclusive” and replace it with “best judgement.” Then the refs can use common sense and rationalize in the same manner they do on the ice in real time.

I’ve always thought the term conclusive was a poor way to review calls. Allow the officials to review the play and use their best judgement to determine wha the right call is. This is especially true when you consider things like frame rates etc. But, that is not how the rule is written. Either make the call based on how the rule is written or not. It cannot be different from game to game which is what we’ve seen consistently depending on who the official is.

We’ve had so many wonky reversals with Reid because he tends to not use the conclusive video to make a call. He makes judgement calls all the time.

The stick is pointing directly straight up into the air almost Lol.
He bats the puck as his head level then smacks his stick back down to try and cover up the high stick.
The issue is the puck clearly changes directions after he hit is so it was pretty clear when slowing it down.
For some reason its not letting me cut video yet but i can post the super slow version that makes it blatantly obvious when allows me to cut the video.

 

[OMG67]

The stick is pointing directly straight up into the air almost Lol.
He bats the puck as his head level then smacks his stick back down to try and cover up the high stick.
The issue is the puck clearly changes directions after he hit is so it was pretty clear when slowing it down.
For some reason its not letting me cut video yet but i can post the super slow version that makes it blatantly obvious when allows me to cut the video.

Again, it doesn’t matter because there is no perspective on where the stick is. At that angle, you cannot “conclusively” tell where the stick is in related to the crossbar.

To overturn these calls, you typically need an ice level angle. Either that or it needs to be so blatantly obvious meaning the puck is clearly above the goalies head with an air gap and was batted downward. If you have that angle where we see the puck in contact with the stick or the puck in the air prior to the initial contact where the puck is clearly above the head of the goalie then I would agree. If we don’t have that, then I cannot see it being overturned using that camera angle.

From my perspective, this was reversed based on probable contact being high. And the rule shouldn’t be applied like that.

 

[ScoutLife4]

Amidovski is not a very well liked player in the dressing room or by the coaching staff, I’ve heard numerous times his attitude & work ethic is a huge problem. I don’t think you will see him around much longer. He thinks he should be a L1 player and his Sh** doesn’t stink. Watch out for either him being moved at the deadline or sent back to Jr

I got more to this story last night.
Family and agent expressed displeasure over ice time and lack of development plan.
DC played him one shift next game as a punishment.
Family and agent went offside and demanded out after that as its now a pissing match.

The info i got just makes it sound like he asked for more shifts and was told no and that there was no development plan or goals set for him to earn more.
Tough way to treat a 16 year old kid if that's the case.
It should be noted he was known for his work ethic in Barrie in his U16 season / draft year.

 

[FrontalLobe]

You can even see the puck change direction when stonehouse tips with the high stick if you slow down the video rate to -0.2x
It completely changes directions Mews shot is going over the net and it hits stonehouse's stick about 8" from his gloves.
This review should have taken about 1 minute or less to decide it's as blatant of a high stick as it gets for anyone not wearing Ottawa gear.
View attachment 930580

Great pic and again, the puck went over Uens shoulder beside his face. And there was prob better quality available for the decision makers given the game was at CTC. No goal. Mews and Stonehouse body language also suggested they knew.

 

[dirty12]

Was Ekberg not injured or sick last week? Could be why he was on the fourth line.

As well. If it takes ten minutes or more to get conclusive evidence to overturn a play on the ice, that makes no sense at all. I thought the replays were for something obvious that the referees/linesmen missed. If they cant see something in two minutes, let the play stand.

The review is a challenge to the refs call. Replays can last until refs have no views showing clear evidence they got the call in play correctly. No one likes being wrong, and called out for it.

 

[sirius67fan]

I got more to this story last night.
Family and agent expressed displeasure over ice time and lack of development plan.
DC played him one shift next game as a punishment.
Family and agent went offside and demanded out after that as its now a pissing match.

The info i got just makes it sound like he asked for more shifts and was told no and that there was no development plan or goals set for him to earn more.
Tough way to treat a 16 year old kid if that's the case.
It should be noted he was known for his work ethic in Barrie in his U16 season / draft year.

If that is indeed the case , I' m really wondering if Cameron needs to be replaced. Maybe he's a bit too dated for the kids. If it is one isolated case fine but there's been a lot of smoke the last few years. Perhaps a new voice/ philosophy/ viewpoint is needed? No doubt he knows his stuff but you need to relate to the kids/ parents and get them to buy in. Wonder if Boyd has the balls to do it?

 

[ottsabrefan]

That angle doesn’t show the stick above the bar where it comes into contact with the puck. It looks like it could be and it maybe even looks very likely but there is nothing at the right level to show it. This camera angle is about 25 rows up. IMO, it falls under the category of, “I think it is a high stick.” If they are going to reverse calls on the ice based on what they think is a high stick, then change the rule and pull out the word “conclusive” and replace it with “best judgement.” Then the refs can use common sense and rationalize in the same manner they do on the ice in real time.

I’ve always thought the term conclusive was a poor way to review calls. Allow the officials to review the play and use their best judgement to determine wha the right call is. This is especially true when you consider things like frame rates etc. But, that is not how the rule is written. Either make the call based on how the rule is written or not. It cannot be different from game to game which is what we’ve seen consistently depending on who the official is.

We’ve had so many wonky reversals with Reid because he tends to not use the conclusive video to make a call. He makes judgement calls all the time.

I know what you are saying but like many things in life there is theory (by the book) vs. reality (how they are actually applied) and in reality I feel like the call on the ice importance is only for when they can’t even make reasonable judgement. And in the NHL as well. If they can be reasonably confident in their call, they will reverse it, despite the definitive wording you cited.