Ottawa 67s 2024-25 Season Thread, Part I

[Hinterland]

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.

One called it a good goal, the other one didn't object. Why would you have to signal a good goal if the other ref already did? At least one of those refs was very well positioned, certainly better than the linesman.

The job description of a linesman includes faceoffs and decisions re icings and offsides. Everything else is beyond their pay grade. They can step in and help if no ref is in a position to make a decision but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Give me only one example where well positioned refs changed their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I've never seen anything like this at any level in over two decades of watching mostly hundreds of hockey games every year. I don't think it's how it's supposed to work either. A ref is a ref and a linesman is a linesman.

Again, it just looks like a scam to me.

I think hockey refing has to become more transparent. In rugby, the ref, the linesmen and the TMO (television match official, a still active or former refs), are all mic'd up and communication between them is directly relayed to the TV feed. In most cases games don't have to be stopped for replays because the TMO and his/her team are looking at everything with the TMO and ref talking about it with play still ongoing. If for once they have to look at something they do it on the big stadium screen, not on small tablets.


I don't see why this shouldn't be possible in hockey as well. Situations like the one we're discussing could be solved much easier, faster and in a more transparent way.

 

[OMG67]

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

Ok. THIS TIME!

 

[OMG67]

One called it a good goal, the other one didn't object. Why would you have to signal a good goal if the other ref already did? At least one of those refs was very well positioned, certainly better than the linesman.

The job description of a linesman includes faceoffs and decisions re icings and offsides. Everything else is beyond their pay grade. They can step in and help if no ref is in a position to make a decision but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Give me only one example where well positioned refs changed their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I've never seen anything like this at any level in over two decades of watching mostly hundreds of hockey games every year. I don't think it's how it's supposed to work either. A ref is a ref and a linesman is a linesman.

Again, it just looks like a scam to me.

Loads of puck touches are confirmed by linesmen. Many of the high sticks and pucks clear over the glass for delay of game penalties etc.

The back referee could have questioned it. Asked the linesman. Then confirm with the net Referee whether he only saw the puck enter the net or whether he saw the redirection. It is very possible the close ref did not see any redirection but the back official did. They can huddle up and if the linesman says it was clearly a high stick, they can reverse the call.

I don’t have an issue with that. It really should be about getting the call right (within the rules). I think we agree that if the call was actually a good goal, the video review wouldn’t’ be conclusive enough to overturn it. But this explanation does make a lot of sense to me.

 

[leafs4life94]

One called it a good goal, the other one didn't object. Why would you have to signal a good goal if the other ref already did? At least one of those refs was very well positioned, certainly better than the linesman.

The job description of a linesman includes faceoffs and decisions re icings and offsides. Everything else is beyond their pay grade. They can step in and help if no ref is in a position to make a decision but that clearly wasn't the case here.

Give me only one example where well positioned refs changed their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I've never seen anything like this at any level in over two decades of watching hundreds of hockey games every year. I don't think it's how it's supposed to work either. A ref is a ref and a linesman is a linesman.

Again, it just looks like a scam to me.

Saying linesmen can't do anything but icing and offsides is a ridiculous statement. 4 pairs of eyes is better than 2 and if a ref misses something why would they not ask other officials what they saw?

It's much to better to communicate and get it right rather than have a ref not be confident in what they call because they shouldn't be allowed to talk to the icing/offsides drone.

 

[Hinterland]

Loads of puck touches are confirmed by linesmen. Many of the high sticks and pucks clear over the glass for delay of game penalties etc.

The back referee could have questioned it. Asked the linesman. Then confirm with the net Referee whether he only saw the puck enter the net or whether he saw the redirection. It is very possible the close ref did not see any redirection but the back official did. They can huddle up and if the linesman says it was clearly a high stick, they can reverse the call.

I don’t have an issue with that. It really should be about getting the call right (within the rules). I think we agree that if the call was actually a good goal, the video review wouldn’t’ be conclusive enough to overturn it. But this explanation does make a lot of sense to me.

We all agree there's no conclusive evidence either way. I don't like the way it went down one bit though. I think they made the wrong decision and the way they changed their call based on the opinion of a linesman is fishy as well. I think hockey refing has to become more transparent. They can't just so whatever the f*** they want and get away with it. They also have to stop ruining games with 10mins replays. Especially if the result is as underwhelming as the one yesterday where they were never gonna spot anything conclusive anyway.

 

[Hinterland]

Saying linesmen can't do anything but icing and offsides is a ridiculous statement. 4 pairs of eyes is better than 2 and if a ref misses something why would they not ask other officials what they saw?

It's much to better to communicate and get it right rather than have a ref not be confident in what they call because they shouldn't be allowed to talk to the icing/offsides drone.

I'm not saying they can't do anything. I said the way it's supposed to be is that linesmen can step in and help with decisions in case no ref is well enough positioned to do it. That clearly wasn't the case yesterday. I can't recall a similar situation in forever because that's not how it's supposed to work if one ref calls it a good goal with the other, well positioned one not objecting. Which is what makes what went down look like a scam...especially because there was zero transparency. We didn't hear their communication and they didn't even announce it when they changed their decision. In 2024 that's just unacceptable.

 

[ohloutsider]

Linesman can call too many men on ice penalties, delay of game and can call majors on hits but that has to be reviewed by the refs after the call. All 4 can weigh in on most all calls during a review. Refs look at off sides if a review is requested. It can and will always be dealt with as an officiating team. Be safe.

 

[Hinterland]

Linesman can call too many men on ice penalties, delay of game and can call majors on hits but that has to be reviewed by the refs after the call. All 4 can weigh in on most all calls during a review. Refs look at off sides if a review is requested. It can and will always be dealt with as an officiating team. Be safe.

I agree. Having said that, I've never seen refs, at least one very well positioned, change their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I don't think that's how it should work either, especially if they don't announce their changed call ahead of the review and if we can't hear communication between the officials.

 

[OMG67]

I agree. Having said that, I've never seen refs, at least one very well positioned, change their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I don't think that's how it should work either, especially if they don't announce their changed call ahead of the review and if we can't hear communication between the officials.

I agree but Stonehouse had his back to that official so I think ti is highly likely the official didn’t see the high stick. That is why there are two refs on the ice to catch what the other doesn’t see. Without actually being in that huddle after the play and before the video review, I cannot honestly say anything other than speculate. Based on what @Mild Italian said, it does make sense, even if it wasn’t handled with proper communication.

Normally the announcer would announce that the play is no goal and the play is under review for a high stick. Int his case, it doesn’t sound like they announced it and didn’t tell the coaches until after it was all done. But, it is what it is. I am jsut happy we actually got a clarification form someone.

Water under the bridge at this point.

Now back to shitting on DC!…..

 

[ScoutLife4]

I agree. Having said that, I've never seen refs, at least one very well positioned, change their unanimous decision based on the opinion of a linesman. I don't think that's how it should work either, especially if they don't announce their changed call ahead of the review and if we can't hear communication between the officials.

happens almost every game where they call the liney in for opinion on a goal or penalty.
Not uncommon at all.