I often feel alone in my opinion of our CFL Refereeing .... I just wonder hpw many of you share my feelings about the zebras and the review panel in Toronto

10 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

to be fair my proof reader is Chris Jones so you have to expect undisciplined posting that will draw infractions. 

Well, as long as you put in a pretty good effort...

The default position is to go with the call on the field if there isn't irrefutable evidence to overturn it. I'm guessing that's what they did for both calls last night. Personally, I thought it was a strip at the goal line and that Nik was down by contact, but my opinion isn't the one that matters. 

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

Just ditch reviews and deal with mistakes on the field seen in real time,

When you watch games from before the replay era, it's amazing how fast they move wihout those regular delays and appeals.

Back to that play in question if you slow it down frame by frame you can clearly see the ball is spun out of the definition of being secured that the player has the tip of the ball in grasp and controlled with arm/body....save for the carry it like a loaf of bread guys.

Look at the play and the ball is out above Hawkins knee which is clearly 6 inches outside the goal line regardless whether or not the camera angle was perpendicular to the goal line.

totally blown call

According to the rule book a touchdown is:

Quote

SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS Article 1 – Touchdown A touchdown is scored when the ball is in possession of a player in the opponent’s Goal Area, or when the ball in the possession of a player crosses or touches the plane of the opponent’s Goal Line. Should the ball subsequently be fumbled, or the player in possession forced back into the Field of Play, the touchdown shall score.

and possession is defined as:

Quote

SECTION 3 — POSSESSION

Possession means having the ball firmly held in hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under the body.

I don't believe there is an element of complete possession, either the player has possession or he doesn't. She can't be a little bit pregnant...

 

The ball turns sideways before it crosses the plane of the goal line. To me, that would indicate that the ball is not firmly held.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

That is great but the ball has not left his possession yet, it is still in his hand and arm, this GIF should include the next couple frames as it does not tell the whole story.

Just now, Engelwood said:

That is great but the ball has not left his possession yet, it is still in his hand and arm, this GIF should include the next couple frames as it does not tell the whole story.

yes, it has. as soon as its "loose" its not in possession anymore.  as you see, it spins out of his control right before the plane is broken...

 

I much prefer the rugby definition of a TD, were they touch the ground with the ball in the endzone, it's more definitive.  If the ball comes loose in the "air" it should be a free ball endzone or not.

I don't have a problem with the call.  Unless there is clear irrefutable proof that the call is blatantly wrong, the ruling on the field should always stand.  They said they would use that judgement this year and I am glad to see them follow through.  I think the ball was moving when it broke the plane, but we are talking about a matter of a few inches.  If it is that close then I am okay with then ruling it stands as called.  They just need to be consistent.

3 minutes ago, MC said:

I don't have a problem with the call.  Unless there is clear irrefutable proof that the call is blatantly wrong, the ruling on the field should always stand.  They said they would use that judgement this year and I am glad to see them follow through.  I think the ball was moving when it broke the plane, but we are talking about a matter of a few inches.  If it is that close then I am okay with then ruling it stands as called.  They just need to be consistent.

If that is the case, they need to state on the field immediately, that the replay was "inconclusive" and the original call stands.

The problem with this play is that once the ball touches the plane of the line, the play is dead which complicates the ruling.
I thought it should've been a fumble but I can see it both ways in this case:

 

1) According to the rule the receiver had already caught and controlled the ball and made his way toward the end zone. Yes the ball was moving in his arm, but it wasn't out of his arm until after he was over the goal line, but the play was already dead at that point.

 

2)  Common sense would state that a ball being ripped at, which then causes the ball to start coming out of the hand would clearly mean you don't have full control over the ball anymore.

 

They will really have to change the wording on this rule. Last time I remember a fumble this close going into the end zone was in '11 or so when Lobendahn hustled to force Chris Williams to fumble inches before the line.

1 minute ago, PegCityJets9 said:

Last time I remember a fumble this close going into the end zone was in '11 or so when Lobendahn hustled to force Chris Williams to fumble inches before the line.

Awesome play!!

 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The default position is to go with the call on the field if there isn't irrefutable evidence to overturn it. I'm guessing that's what they did for both calls last night. Personally, I thought it was a strip at the goal line and that Nik was down by contact, but my opinion isn't the one that matters. 

 

Thank you for making my day with that!

1 hour ago, Engelwood said:

That is great but the ball has not left his possession yet, it is still in his hand and arm, this GIF should include the next couple frames as it does not tell the whole story.

Sorry.  The ball is touching him, but he does not have possession.  Touching the ball and having possession is not the same thing.

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

it's only gotten worse with PI being something you can challenge. PI is basically a judgement call a lot of the time and there is no consistency on the field or with reviews. It's making the game worse not better because it's making referees afraid to do their jobs properly. 

Most abused challenge by far. If they are going to keep it, maybe adopt something like the NHL is pondering with offside challenges, i.e., failed challenge results in 2 minute minor. How about a failed PI challenge results in 15 yard penalty and loss of down. Oh and I still think they should institute you have thirty seconds once the play has been whistled dead to call a challenge. 30 seconds up, play can't be challenged. 

OH to have Joe Lo today...

1 minute ago, Booch said:

OH to have Joe Lo today...

I was thinking that too. Loved that guy.

46 minutes ago, Booch said:

OH to have Joe Lo today...

Rather have JLo myself, but to each their own.

after watching both games so far, I'd like to vote incompetent again...and again...

Atomic, you just made my day, I was hunting for a youtube of that play the other day after watching the Casey Creehan video in Training Camp Memories.

YOU AIN'T GONNA HURT LOBENDAHN, HE'LL BE ALRIGHT!

What a great backer.

8 hours ago, johnzo said:

Atomic, you just made my day, I was hunting for a youtube of that play the other day after watching the Casey Creehan video in Training Camp Memories.

YOU AIN'T GONNA HURT LOBENDAHN, HE'LL BE ALRIGHT!

What a great backer.

Yaaaa.....about that.......... #Prophetic

21 hours ago, MC said:

I don't have a problem with the call.  Unless there is clear irrefutable proof that the call is blatantly wrong, the ruling on the field should always stand.  They said they would use that judgement this year and I am glad to see them follow through.  I think the ball was moving when it broke the plane, but we are talking about a matter of a few inches.  If it is that close then I am okay with then ruling it stands as called.  They just need to be consistent.

One other thing. The call on the field was TD therefore the play was dead the second he crossed the goal line. There would have been no turnover anyway. The riders would have been first and goal on the one yard line. They would have scored anyway. Some people complaining here about nothing. No mass conspiracy, just a close call

10 minutes ago, Ripper said:

One other thing. The call on the field was TD therefore the play was dead the second he crossed the goal line. There would have been no turnover anyway. The riders would have been first and goal on the one yard line. They would have scored anyway. Some people complaining here about nothing. No mass conspiracy, just a close call

I know right - because teams always score on 1st and goal from the one - nothing else ever happens

44 minutes ago, Ripper said:

One other thing. The call on the field was TD therefore the play was dead the second he crossed the goal line. There would have been no turnover anyway. The riders would have been first and goal on the one yard line. They would have scored anyway. Some people complaining here about nothing. No mass conspiracy, just a close call

No there was a immediate recovery by ALS it would,of been there ball As it was a turnover. If it had rolled out the end zone untouched than yes the ball would of been at one.