Ottawa 67s 2024-25 Season Thread, Part I

[Hinterland]

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

I may be missing something but if anything your picture proves that it should have been a goal.

Again, nobody denies that the Stonehouse stick ended up being well above the crossbar after the huge swing he took at the puck. It doesn't matter though because it was only above the crossbar when the puck was already in the net. Which by the law doesn't make it an illegal goal.

Your picture does not provide conclusive evidence that the Stonehouse stick was above the crossbar when it redirected the puck. As I said already, if anything it looks as if the stick was well below the crossbar at that particular moment.

Because of the initial goal call it doesn't even matter though. By the law the refs are only allowed to overturn their initial call if there's conclusive evidence that it was wrong. That tablet they were looking at seemed really small and I don't see how they possibly could have watched something we haven't seen.

 

[OMG67]

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?

If Boyd doesn’t have the balls to do it then he goes with him.

 

[ScoutLife4]

I may be missing something but if anything your picture proves that it should have been a goal.

Again, nobody denies that the Stonehouse stick ended up being well above the crossbar after the huge swing he took at the puck. It doesn't matter though because it was only above the crossbar when the puck was already in the net. Which by the law doesn't make it an illegal goal.

Your picture does not provide conclusive evidence that the Stonehouse stick was above the crossbar when it redirected the puck. As I said already, if anything it looks as if the stick was well below the crossbar at that particular moment.

Because of the initial no goal call it doesn't even matter though. By the law the refs are only allowed to overturn their initial call if there's conclusive evidence that it was wrong. That tablet they were looking at seemed really small and I don't see how they possibly could have watched something we haven't seen.

THis is the position his stick is in from another view in my other picture lol.
His stick is straight up in the air LOL.
This is one of the most blatant high sticks there can be.
The issue is Rogers video quality is complete dog shit.

THis is the position his stick is in from another view in my other picture lol.
His stick is straight up in the air LOL.
This is one of the most blatant high sticks there can be.
The issue is Rogers video quality is complete dog shit.

Note how not one Ottawa player is cellying yet (the puck hasn't entered the net yet but Mews has taken his shot)

 

[OMG67]

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.

I agree with that but the rulebook doesn’t. That’s my point. IMO, the rulebook in all sports should be judgement call by the umpires, referee etc. They shouldn’t need conclusive evidence. They should be allowed to use judgement. The rules as stated now do not allow for judgement. It needs to be black and white.

My issue is Reid uses judgement and it always goes against Ottawa. All the time. Then when he isn’t the facial and they apply the rule as black and white, it goes against Ottawa often. It is hard as a fan to see certain officials apply the rule differently.

Even ruling based on the rulebook are tough. We had a call go agaisnt us against the Petes in the playoffs a couple years ago that was a pivotal call. It was a weird interpretation of the rules. Since then, I have seen at least three similar/same plays without that obscure rule applied to the official video call. It is so wonky in the OHL. The other leagues, like it or lump it, go dead pan by the book and require conclusive clear video evidence otherwise the play as called stands. The OHL doesn’t’ seem to do that with any sort of consistency.

 

[Hinterland]

THis is the position his stick is in from another view in my other picture lol.
His stick is straight up in the air LOL.
This is one of the most blatant high sticks there can be.
The issue is Rogers video quality is complete dog shit.
View attachment 930633


Note how not one Ottawa player is cellying yet (the puck hasn't entered the net yet but Mews has taken his shot)
View attachment 930634

I disagree. If anything it's a clear goal, especially because the initial call was a good goal. If the initial call is no goal then I'd get that there's no conclusive evidence that it's below the crossbar...at least not on that picuture. There's probably no picture that would prove anything 100% conclusive but it sure looks like the stick was below the crossbar when it made contact with the puck. Again, it was way above the crossbar in the end because Stonehouse took a huge swing at it. That doesn't matter one bit though.

 

[OMG67]

I may be missing something but if anything your picture proves that it should have been a goal.

Again, nobody denies that the Stonehouse stick ended up being well above the crossbar after the huge swing he took at the puck. It doesn't matter though because it was only above the crossbar when the puck was already in the net. Which by the law doesn't make it an illegal goal.

Your picture does not provide conclusive evidence that the Stonehouse stick was above the crossbar when it redirected the puck. As I said already, if anything it looks as if the stick was well below the crossbar at that particular moment.

Because of the initial no goal call it doesn't even matter though. By the law the refs are only allowed to overturn their initial call if there's conclusive evidence that it was wrong. That tablet they were looking at seemed really small and I don't see how they possibly could have watched something we haven't seen.

My understanding was the original call was GOAL. If the original call on the ice was no goal then there was no evidence to suggest it was a good goal. If that is the case then they got the call accurate.

 

[Hinterland]

My understanding was the original call was GOAL. If the original call on the ice was no goal then there was no evidence to suggest it was a good goal. If that is the case then they got the call accurate.

Yeah. That's what I meant. I'm not sure why I wrote no goal. I already corrected it.
Either way it looks like a good goal to me because the stick is only above the crossbar when the puck is already in the net. Which is completely irrelevant here. Sure looks like a good goal to me and I don't even think it's close. Still, I could understand a no goal call if the initial call was no goal as well because I'm pretty sure there's no conclusive evidence either way. Because the initial call was goal though I'm calling scam here.

 

[ScoutLife4]

a goalie net cross bar is 4 feet tall and stonehouse's hands are at his mouth and he's 5 foot 10 lol.
Does he have a 2 foot tall head?

 

[44 95 plus tax]

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.

That is not what I am saying. I just think that if it takes 10 minutes to try and find something to overturn the call, then just let it go. Two minutes tops, for a review.

 

[Hinterland]

a goalie net cross bar is 4 feet tall and stonehouse's hands are at his mouth and he's 5 foot 10 lol.
Does he have a 2 foot tall head?

Nobody is denying the fact that the Stonehouse stick was above the net. Nobody. The thing is, it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. The only relevant question is if it was above the crossbar when it deflected the puck. In my view that answer is no and it's not close. Even if the refs disagree with this it still should have been a goal because they initially called it a goal. I don't think there's conclusive evidence either way here. They don't appear to have NHL quality tape and angles and that sort of proof is tough to get when it comes to those kind of calls even with an NHL setup.

 

[dirty12]

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.

The wording protects the refs. The ref will not turn over his own call because he may have been wrong. The refs will overturn their calls if their is clear evidence that they were wrong.

 

[OMG67]

THis is the position his stick is in from another view in my other picture lol.
His stick is straight up in the air LOL.
This is one of the most blatant high sticks there can be.
The issue is Rogers video quality is complete dog shit.
View attachment 930633


Note how not one Ottawa player is cellying yet (the puck hasn't entered the net yet but Mews has taken his shot)
View attachment 930634

Quality of the video feed or lack thereof is no reason to deviate from the rulebook.

So, either there is a video shot of the puck being above the crossbar with the stick coming into contact with the puck or there wasn’t. I have not seen any video still image showing the puck above the crossbar at any point regardless of where the stick is.

The NHL Rulebook uses the Term “Conclusive and Irrefutable” as the language required to overturn a call on the ice. “If a review is not conclusive and/or there is any doubt whatsoever as to the call on the ice was correct, the original call on the ice stands.”

With respect to the call on the ice, I reviewed the CHL Replay. The net official pointed to the goal to suggest it was called a goal. The back official stayed with their arms down and did not make any motion in an effort to call off the goal. My assumption is the call on the ice was deemed a GOAL.

With respect to the cells, I see nothing about that cell that suggests otherwise. Mews didn’t react like a crazy man but the others reacted immediately and celebrated at the boards.

I highly doubt that was a good goal. I admit that freely. But that is not the standard. That is the only point. I cannot see the puck. No matter how many frames I push this, I simply cannot see the puck.

I am also not saying the officials didn’t have a better view. Theirs may have been cleaner with the ability to catch proper frame by frame. I don’t know.

All I am saying is that based on the video I have access to, there is nothing in THAT video that suggests it follows the NHL rulebook, Unfortunately, they do not publish the OHL rulebook related to video review but usually the two league follow the same basic standards.

I am reasonably confident the officials made the right “ethical” call. I jsut wish all officials made the same judgements and there were a consistent standard used for judgements.

a goalie net cross bar is 4 feet tall and stonehouse's hands are at his mouth and he's 5 foot 10 lol.
Does he have a 2 foot tall head?

Did the puck hit the stick? The elbow? The glove? We don’t see what it hits in the video. THAT’s the point. We don’t even know it hit the stick.

 

[leafs4life94]

In my mind the most explanation that makes the most sense is that they combine several views and sync them up to the same timestamp where the puck hits the stick. If one angle clearly shows the puck hitting the stick at 19:55 (just an example), then they should be able to sync up every other angle they have to that specific timestamp. If a different angle shows that at 19:55, the entirety of the stick is over a players head, we don't need to see a still frame of the puck hitting the stick over the cross bar, because we know that when the stick hit the puck, the stick was above the crossbar.

If that's not how it works, then it's how it should work because the video feeds across the league aren't near good enough quality to rely on one angle.

 

[ScoutLife4]

The refs can't go with the shitty Rogers feed to say oh its not conclusive for 67 fans.
They have a NHL video replay system at their disposal with multiple angles. -We just couldn't see what they saw.

Even the shit Rogers quality feed make's it look pretty blatant you can see the puck a few inch's from his stick and stonehouse holding his stick straight up in the air.
If he keeps his stick below the cross bar there is no issue and the puck goes right over the net into the glass.
You guys are assuming they didn't use the NHL video replay system they had at their disposal and went with the shitty Rogers feed for review.

 

[Hinterland]

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?

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. The team is playing very well in a season where expectations were really low. The results aren't matching the team's mostly dominant performances but that's due to rather subpar goaltending and a lack of finish on the team. I'd argue that neither is Cameron's fault. He has the team play the right way despite being short staffed many nights because of trades and lots of players injured/sick/absent. He hasn't lost the room and clearly, most players love playing for Cameron.

I think the problem is that he's too stubborn. I think it's too tough to fall out of favor or get out of his dog house. Cameron is too set in his ways. At least that's my interpretation of what I'm hearing and reading. But again, we're not in the room and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I agree Amidovski should have a bigger role because he's clearly a gifted player who showed some promise when given a chance but I'm not gonna judge the player or coach because I simply don't know how exactly it all went down.

I agree that there are too many players wanting out though in recent past and if the front office thinks that all of this is Cameron's fault then they have to consider their options. If they fire Cameron they better have a plan in the back pocket though because Cameron is a pretty good coach.

 

[ottsabrefan]

I agree with that but the rulebook doesn’t. That’s my point. IMO, the rulebook in all sports should be judgement call by the umpires, referee etc. They shouldn’t need conclusive evidence. They should be allowed to use judgement. The rules as stated now do not allow for judgement. It needs to be black and white.

My issue is Reid uses judgement and it always goes against Ottawa. All the time. Then when he isn’t the facial and they apply the rule as black and white, it goes against Ottawa often. It is hard as a fan to see certain officials apply the rule differently.

Even ruling based on the rulebook are tough. We had a call go agaisnt us against the Petes in the playoffs a couple years ago that was a pivotal call. It was a weird interpretation of the rules. Since then, I have seen at least three similar/same plays without that obscure rule applied to the official video call. It is so wonky in the OHL. The other leagues, like it or lump it, go dead pan by the book and require conclusive clear video evidence otherwise the play as called stands. The OHL doesn’t’ seem to do that with any sort of consistency.

I can appreciate you feeling wronged many times and by a certain specific ref, but in a very fast paced environment where the refs are watching for a plethora of things such as goalie interference, a good goal, penalities, dodging the puck and players, plus skating themselves into position, I feel like it is naive and archaic to rely solely on them to get it right. They often will be wrong.

And this gets into another debate that baseball is having with umpires and their strike zone where do you want the correct call or do you want to be nostalgic and have the wrong call a certain percentage of time? It seems you prefer the later, which is fine, but means you will have the wrong call a decent amount of time (with replay showing it - and eventually technology make it ever more obvious the call is incorrect).

 

[OMG67]

I can appreciate you feeling wronged many times and by a certain specific ref, but in a very fast paced environment where the refs are watching for a plethora of things such as goalie interference, a good goal, penalities, dodging the puck and players, plus skating themselves into position, I feel like it is naive and archaic to rely solely on them to get it right. They often will be wrong.

And this gets into another debate that baseball is having with umpires and their strike zone where do you want the correct call or do you want to be nostalgic and have the wrong call a certain percentage of time? It seems you prefer the later, which is fine, but means you will have the wrong call a decent amount of time (with replay showing it - and eventually technology make it ever more obvious the call is incorrect).

100%. But I m ONLY Referencing the video replay instances where Reid, in particular, makes calls not based on what we see on video. He seems to walk by the beat of his own drum in that regard. And, I am only referring to goal/no goal calls, not major penalties.

 

[OMG67]

I wouldn't jump to conclusions. The team is playing very well in a season where expectations were really low. The results aren't matching the team's mostly dominant performances but that's due to rather subpar goaltending and a lack of finish on the team. I'd argue that neither is Cameron's fault. He has the team play the right way despite playing short staffed many nights because of trades and lots of players injured/sick/absent. He hasn't lost the room and clearly, most players love playing for Cameron.

I think the problem is that he's too stubborn. I think it's too tough to fall out of favor or get out of his dog house. Cameron is too set in his ways. At least that's my interpretation of what I'm hearing and reading. But again, we're not in the room and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I agree Amidovski should have a bigger role because he's clearly a gifted player who showed some promise when given a chance but I'm not gonna judge the player or coach because I simply don't know how exactly it all went down.

I agree that there are too many players wanting out though in recent past and if the front office thinks that all of this is Cameron's fault then they have to consider their options. If they fire Cameron they better have a plan in the back pocket though because Cameron is a pretty good coach.

It it were one player, then I’d look at the player.

Rohrer
Beck
Gardiner
Mews (rumoured)
Amidovski (rumoured)

That is effectively over one season and a couple months.

I know Rohrer may be for other personal reasons but if he felt 100% comfortable in Ottawa and his career trajectory was on point and the 67’s were a reason for that then his decision may be different.

The quality coaches at this level have open communication with players. They are encouraging and approach each player as an individual. Every player is different with different needs and experiences. The best coaches are the ones that can juggle that. DC doesn’t look like he is that guy.

If this is all accurate and I think it is, then there will be a continual struggle with landing on players that fit to his style. We will have new players coming in every year that don’t fit his style that will need to be dealt with constantly.

Boyd should know based on how many issues they are facing that there is a problem there that other teams typically are not having.

Having an agent come to the team and express a concern and then the coach only gives that player ONE shift the very next game tells you exactly what type of person/coach Cameron is. That shit doesn’t work these days. That makes it a spiteful pissing contest between player and coach. That is what leads to players saying, “OK, get me out of here. Trade me by the deadline or I walk snd sign with a BCHL team in January and then commit to an NCAA school.”

Let’s see how this ends up getting resolved. It likely leads to a player being traded for something like two 2nds and two 3rds and the player becomes an elite 19 year old in a few years and we look dumb as F.

 

[Hinterland]

It it were one player, then I’d look at the player.

Rohrer
Beck
Gardiner
Mews (rumoured)
Amidovski (rumoured)

That is effectively over one season and a couple months.

I know Rohrer may be for other personal reasons but if he felt 1005 comfortable in Ottawa and his career trajectory was on point and the 67’s were a reason for that then his decision may be different.

The quality coaches at this level have open communication with players. They are encouraging and approach each player as an individual. Every player is different with different needs and experiences. The best coaches are the ones that can juggle that. DC doesn’t look like he is that guy.

If this is all accurate and I think it is, then there will be a continual struggle with landing on players that fit to his style. We will have new players coming in every year that don’t fit his style that will need to be dealt with constantly.

Boyd should know based on how many issues they are facing that there is a problem there that other teams typically are not having.

Having an agent come to the team and express a concern and then the coach only gives that player ONE shift the very next game tells you exactly what type of person/coach Cameron is. That shit doesn’t work these days.

Again, we don't know how exactly it went down. There's always two sides of a story.

I don't think communication is necessarily a strength of Cameron. That alone doesn't make him a bad coach though. Again, he has the team playing hard. There have been rumours about him having lost the room last season already but it clearly wasn't the case. Again, most players seem to love playing for Cameron.


Like I said, the list of players wanting out is too long though. If the front office deems that this is on Cameron alone then they have to consider their options. Cameron is a successful high profile coach though so this wouldn't be an easy decision to make.

Based on what I'm seeing, hearing and reading I think Cameron is an excellent coach. However, as I said many times he's way too stubborn. The Foster Center experiment is stupid and he should reward kids playing well and punish kids playing poorly way more often. I like that he doesn't change his line several times a period without a need to do so. I hate the line blender and I think chemistry is important. Cameron should be way more open minded though.

 

[Mild Italian]

The refs can't go with the shitty Rogers feed to say oh its not conclusive for 67 fans.
They have a NHL video replay system at their disposal with multiple angles. -We just couldn't see what they saw.

Even the shit Rogers quality feed make's it look pretty blatant you can see the puck a few inch's from his stick and stonehouse holding his stick straight up in the air.
If he keeps his stick below the cross bar there is no issue and the puck goes right over the net into the glass.
You guys are assuming they didn't use the NHL video replay system they had at their disposal and went with the shitty Rogers feed for review.

They didn‘t have the NHL replay system to their disposal. I asked.
What happened was, they called the linesman over and switched the call to no goal, to bad they forgot to inform the coaches…..( thats when I started to scratch my head). Does the OHL really want to sell it that way?

 

[Hinterland]

They didn‘t have the NHL replay system to their disposal. I asked.
What happened was, they called the linesman over and switched the call to no goal, to bad they forgot to inform the coaches…..( thats when I started to scratch my head). Does the OHL really want to sell it that way?

Why would a linesman decide on a high stick goal or no goal decision?
Why would well positioned refs change a decision they unanimously made based on the opinion of a linesman? That just sounds like the ultimate scam to me. Super fishy.

Without an NHL setup they have almost zero chance to prove something either way on that call. Which is why it should have been a goal. And again, to me it also clearly looks as if the stick is below the crossbar when making contact with the puck. It's way above it afterwards but that's completely irrelevant.

 

[OMG67]

They didn‘t have the NHL replay system to their disposal. I asked.
What happened was, they called the linesman over and switched the call to no goal, to bad they forgot to inform the coaches…..( thats when I started to scratch my head). Does the OHL really want to sell it that way?

If that is the case, then the call on the ice stands as no goal. I am fine with that. As you mentioned, the call on the ice being changed prior to the video replay wasn’t relayed to anyone so THAT is the confusion. I am cool with that.

EDIT:
I went back to the game replay. When the goal is the call on ice, the game clock is updated to include the goal. When the goal is disallowed after review, the goal comes off the clock. I didn’t see the in arena game clock but the Rogers Feed clock on screen never clicked to “3” for Ottawa. This should confirm the call on the ice was likely reversed prior to the video review.

I think this now all makes sense. Whether it should or should not have been reversed based on what the linesman saw is questionable but I don’t have an issue with it. The linesmen can help referees with these types of plays.

 

[Mild Italian]

Why would a linesman decide on a high stick goal or no goal decision?
Why would well positioned refs change a decision they unanimously made based on the opinion of a linesman? That just sounds like the ultimate scam to me. Super fishy.

Without an NHL setup they have almost zero chance to prove something either way on that call. Which is why it should have been a goal. And again, to me it also clearly looks as if the stick is below the crossbar when making contact with the puck. It's way above it afterwards but that's completely irrelevant.

I think, just one ref called it a good goal. Thats why they called the linesman over for a little chat. Don‘t ask me what the protocol would be in such cases.

 

[OMG67]

I think, just one ref called it a good goal. Thats why they called the linesman over for a little chat. Don‘t ask me what the protocol would be in such cases.

I believe Linsemen have a say in stick touches. They do for sure in deflections out of play and also for high sticking calls. It stands to reason they can also be consulted in puck touches for high sticks leading to goals.

I don’t have an issue with this. Thanks much for clarifying what happened with the officials on ice. This does make way more sense than simply using the video review to determine it wasn’t a goal. Good catch on your part.

Next time enter the conversation sooner dammit!

 

[Mild Italian]

I believe Linsemen have a say in stick touches. They do for sure in deflections out of play and also for high sticking calls. It stands to reason they can also be consulted in puck touches for high sticks leading to goals.

I don’t have an issue with this. Thanks much for clarifying what happened with the officials on ice. This does make way more sense than simply using the video review to determine it wasn’t a goal. Good catch on your part.

Next time enter the conversation sooner dammit!

Sorry, i was on the road…no celly while driving…