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

49 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

That rule changed after 2010 when we got screwed vs Montreal and Higgins apologized to us for the loss.  So yes, you were correct 8 seasons ago.

22 hours 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.

The official (#51 Field Judge Bryan Taylor) is not in the best position to see whether the ball is in the ballcarriers possession when it travels across the invisible first contact point of the goal line. I am not blaming the official but it is one of those instances where you have to be exactly on the goal line to see if the player had possession at the point of the ball first traversing the line. So from the official's POV he was guessing a bit. And you can see where the Command Centre would not want to second guess the official who was there. Especially since the camera angle is not 100% on the line either. So, in this case you have to go with the official. Despite the fact he was probably wrong.

Edited June 24, 20178 yr by Doublezero

2 hours 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

The play would not automatically be dead.  It would if he scored, but he didn't.  You can't say with certainty that it would have been Sask ball on the one.  Either way, a loss is a loss, except for a Rider loss.  Those are the king of losses.

4 hours 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

yeah but if it was over turned to be a fumble then it's not a dead play and because Montreal jumped on the ball immediately it would have been their recovery in the endzone, that's the whole point of over turning a play. Only way it would have been Sask ball at the 1 on an over turn is if the Montreal players hadn't played it like it was a fumble and got on it right away. Try and keep up when the CFL changes their rules. 

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 10:48 AM, johnzo said:

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

I watched the Vanier Cup last November. No video replays & no coaches challenges. It was so nice to actually watch a football game again for a change &n just let things unfold on the field.

2 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

The play would not automatically be dead.  It would if he scored, but he didn't.  You can't say with certainty that it would have been Sask ball on the one.  Either way, a loss is a loss, except for a Rider loss.  Those are the king of losses.

It doesn't change anything because we lost anyway. I can't see how it would be live when the play stops the second the ref singles td on the field, which he did do. Anyway if I'm wrong I'm wrong, guess I didn't know the rule down to the fine print

6 hours 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

You don't understand what you're talking about here.

The turnover, had it been ruled a turnover, would've been BEFORE the goal line. There was no touchdown, there was an immediate recovery in the end zone, which means it would've been Alouettes ball on the 25 yard line. Obviously the play is dead the second the plane of the goal line is broken. The part you're missing is that the fumble in question occurred before that.

Oh, I see everyone else already explained to you that you're wrong before I did.

Missed that.

You're wrong though.

52 minutes ago, Mike said:

Oh, I see everyone else already explained to you that you're wrong before I did.

Missed that.

You're wrong though.

To be fair I only jumped on the band wagon cause making sure Rider fans know that they don't know what the **** they're talking about is just plain fun. 

I think the biggest issue is that video replay officials have a confirmation bias. Ideally it would be better that the video review official doesn't know the call on the field and they are asked to interpret or make their own call which will either confirm or disagree with the field refs call

Well, a ref will signal TD or throw a flag in the middle or just as the play is coming to an end  so I don't know how you can get around that?

2 hours ago, Tehedra said:

I think the biggest issue is that video replay officials have a confirmation bias. Ideally it would be better that the video review official doesn't know the call on the field and they are asked to interpret or make their own call which will either confirm or disagree with the field refs call

Yup, if it's a close call the Command Centre will uphold the call on the field. Meanwhile, if it's a close call the officials will rule in favour of the scoring play or turnover so it gets reviewed.  It's quite the paradox. 

Camera angle was not the best and not enough evidence (100%) to overturn the call.  Air between the receiver's arm and the ball would be irrefutable.

 

Edited June 25, 20178 yr by ALuCsRED

On 6/23/2017 at 1:53 PM, Booch said:

OH to have Joe Lo today...

He was a beauty. Just couldn't stay healthy.