It'd been ten years, a nice even number, SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE!!!!

The DB didn't go through the opponent to get to the ball.  He was in front of the opponent.  

 

The question, in real time, is:  Did the DB physically restrict or impede the receiver's opportunity to play the ball.  The refs both on the field and on review agreed on NO.  Most Bomber fans disagree.  Most, if not all Riders fans agree with the refs and I expect that most non-Bomber fans also agree.

 

If it was the other way around, would you want a Bomber INT taken away from that amount contact?

The DB didn't go through the opponent to get to the ball.  He was in front of the opponent.  

 

The question, in real time, is:  Did the DB physically restrict or impede the receiver's opportunity to play the ball.  The refs both on the field and on review agreed on NO.  Most Bomber fans disagree.  Most, if not all Riders fans agree with the refs and I expect that most non-Bomber fans also agree.

 

If it was the other way around, would you want a Bomber INT taken away from that amount contact?

 

You do know that he can be in front of the receiver and still impede his progress to the ball - right?

If you use your own eyes, you'll see early contact, preventing Kelly from using his hands to catch the ball.

That bump was enough to disrupt Kelly and should have been called.

 

If you can't see early contact, then perhaps you should talk to Jodie Foster for some tips.

Burgess, you're wrong. Accept it and move on.

The DB didn't go through the opponent to get to the ball.  He was in front of the opponent.  

 

The question, in real time, is:  Did the DB physically restrict or impede the receiver's opportunity to play the ball.  The refs both on the field and on review agreed on NO.  Most Bomber fans disagree.  Most, if not all Riders fans agree with the refs and I expect that most non-Bomber fans also agree.

 

If it was the other way around, would you want a Bomber INT taken away from that amount contact?

 

Uhh ... nope

 

Just to put into perspective your comment about the Rider fans, that play was right in front of our section and even the Rider fans in that section didn't bother cheering the INT because they were expecting the PI challenge to be overturned. Most of them were expecting a call in the first place.

 

Offsides on receivers is one thing ... EVERYBODY gets away with it. But that PI was absolute nonsense. It had no effect on the outcome of the game, but it was nonsense. 

 

As for your question if I'd want it called on the Bombers. Yeah, I would. I want it called properly and if that costs us a turnover, that's fine by me. You don't deserve a turnover you acquired illegally anyways.

Also, TBURGESS, I'm a bit confused.

 

This is now the second time this year you've come on here and been openly contrary about a certain play in a Bomber game. Both times, when you've actually describe the play, you describe it in a way that leads me to wonder if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing because quite frankly, the way you describe what happened is in no way close to actually what happened.

 

The DB was in front of the opponent? He pushed him from behind. He wasn't in front of him for even a moment.

The DB's hand was clearly in front of the receiver.  He hit the freaking ball with it.  That's completely legal.  He didn't stop the receiver from coming back to the ball, although he did stop the hands from coming up.  Nothing wrong with that either.  Just good DB work.  

 

The hand behind didn't turn the receiver.  Was he a slightly early?  In slowmo, I'd say yes.  In real time, I didn't think so.  If it had been called PI by the ref, there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the non-call either.

 

Folks around here see/saw it differently than I did.  Refs saw it the same way I did.  To say it was clearly PI and we got 'screwed' is so far from the truth that it reeks of homerism.

The DB's hand was clearly in front of the receiver. He hit the freaking ball with it. That's completely legal. He didn't stop the receiver from coming back to the ball, although he did stop the hands from coming up. Nothing wrong with that either. Just good DB work.

The hand behind didn't turn the receiver. Was he a slightly early? In slowmo, I'd say yes. In real time, I didn't think so. If it had been called PI by the ref, there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the non-call either.

Folks around here see/saw it differently than I did. Refs saw it the same way I did. To say it was clearly PI and we got 'screwed' is so far from the truth that it reeks of homerism.

He didn't stop the receiver from coming back to the ball? Okay you've officially convinced me you're just making it up now.

The receiver wasn't trying to come back to the ball.

The DB's hand was clearly in front of the receiver.  He hit the freaking ball with it.  That's completely legal.  He didn't stop the receiver from coming back to the ball, although he did stop the hands from coming up.  Nothing wrong with that either.  Just good DB work.  

 

The hand behind didn't turn the receiver.  Was he a slightly early?  In slowmo, I'd say yes.  In real time, I didn't think so.  If it had been called PI by the ref, there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn the non-call either.

 

Folks around here see/saw it differently than I did.  Refs saw it the same way I did.  To say it was clearly PI and we got 'screwed' is so far from the truth that it reeks of homerism.

 

In slo-mo he was early but not in real time?  ?   ?

So then, he should have thrown the flag in slo-mo.

 

As I said earlier, the defender could have been called for shielding as it is highly debatable whether he looked back at the ball when he threw his hands up.

That's what I said could not be overturned on replay because it was undeterminable IMO.

 

Your branding one way or another doesn't change it.

Just say they got away with one.

I didn't say the receiver was trying to come back to the ball.  I said the DB didn't stop him from coming back to the ball, which could be called PI.  

 

If the DB's head didn't turn it would be PI.  He turned his head, not all the way back to the QB, but far enough to see the ball. 

 

If the ref right on the play doesn't see the early contact in real time, then I don't think it should be overturned by slowmo.  If the contact is obvious in real time, but it was missed, then I don't have a problem with it being overturned, but I don't see it in this case.  In other words, if you can't see obvious PI at the time, then it shouldn't be overturned.  

 

I know most of you think this one was obvious PI, but you wrong according to the CFL and they are the only folks who matter.

Watch it again Tommy - it was interference - much more blatant than the Bucknor call. But face it boys - as I've said many times before, the CFL is a MINOR league, and they prove it practically every week. This week was no different. 

The rider db body checked kelly before the ball got there.. I dont know how they blew that call after reviewing it.. The only consistent thing about these stupid reviews is they are wildly inconsistent...

I know most of you think this one was obvious PI, but you wrong according to the CFL and they are the only folks who matter.

Actually according to the CFL we're right as I posted on the last page which illustrates direct quotes from the CFL rulebook - But that doesn't mean that replay will get the call right because of the joke that is CFL officiating. It's not the first time a play has been ruled incorrectly by replay, and sadly it won't be the last.

as I've said many times before, the CFL is a MINOR league, and they prove it practically every week. This week was no different. 

It's quite sad how true this statement is.

Look at it this way: we have the luxury of time and endless replays and we cannot agree on the call, so how can we expect the replay staff who are under pressure to make the call in a  couple of minutes to make an unquestionably correct call? I still hold to the opinion (and its just an opinion and not definitive) that we got scrooged on that call.

You can expect them to make the right call because the rules CLEARLY state when pass interference should be called.

Look at it this way: we have the luxury of time and endless replays and we cannot agree on the call, so how can we expect the replay staff who are under pressure to make the call in a  couple of minutes to make an unquestionably correct call? I still hold to the opinion (and its just an opinion and not definitive) that we got scrooged on that call.

Plays like this are why I despise challengeable PI.  This is, imo, a very borderline type play that could be called either way.  Under review it doesn't become any less or more of a penalty so they have to stick with the call on the field.  

The interference rule was instituted in an effort to improve the game. As with all rules perhaps it will again be changed. We are dealing with a judgement call that is judgementally reviewed. Why can't people except that fact and move on? They didn't introduce the rule to try and deliberately screw teams.

The interference rule was instituted in an effort to improve the game. As with all rules perhaps it will again be changed. We are dealing with a judgement call that is judgementally reviewed. Why can't people except that fact and move on? They didn't introduce the rule to try and deliberately screw teams.

The thing is challengeable PI is creating way more issues then it will ever solve.

The interference rule was instituted in an effort to improve the game. As with all rules perhaps it will again be changed. We are dealing with a judgement call that is judgementally reviewed. Why can't people except that fact and move on? They didn't introduce the rule to try and deliberately screw teams.

because the whole point of adding the review process for PI was to get some consistency in what is and isn't called. The fact that one review on a cheap play (Bucknor in Toronto, the one we actually got over turned in Montreal when Denmark had some weak contact on him and I am sure many others) can be over turned but ones like this one or the one the Bombers got away with in Montreal as an example can not be called just makes the whole thing ********. If it's a coin flip and a judgement call in the review process why even bother? Just let the refs on the field do their jobs and end this charade of "improving" pass interference calls. 

I didn't say the receiver was trying to come back to the ball.  I said the DB didn't stop him from coming back to the ball, which could be called PI.  

 

If the DB's head didn't turn it would be PI.  He turned his head, not all the way back to the QB, but far enough to see the ball. 

 

If the ref right on the play doesn't see the early contact in real time, then I don't think it should be overturned by slowmo.  If the contact is obvious in real time, but it was missed, then I don't have a problem with it being overturned, but I don't see it in this case.  In other words, if you can't see obvious PI at the time, then it shouldn't be overturned.  

 

I know most of you think this one was obvious PI, but you wrong according to the CFL and they are the only folks who matter.

Good gracious, this is exhausting. The DB did not turn his head in the direction it needed to be, not one bit. Not only did he use his arm to screen, he ran threw the player prior to the ball arriving as the replay clearly shows. 

This is not borderline PI as some are suggesting. This is not homerism as some are suggesting. This is not running counter to the rule book as some are suggesting. It's PI plain and simple, they should take a still photo, place it in the rule book to provide a visual. Seriously. And yes, if it had been say Randle doing this, Riders are at the one, Ist and Goal.  

Consistency yes, but the other intent was to challenge calls that may have been missed in real time by obstructed views of the play or plays missed by officials. As with all new rules it may be removed or tweaked as it is deemed necessary

Consistency yes, but the other intent was to challenge calls that may have been missed in real time by obstructed views of the play or plays missed by officials. As with all new rules it may be removed or tweaked as it is deemed necessary

But it's the exact same problem, if you go looking for it you can find pass interference on a majority of plays in the CFL. A lot of them don't get called because they're simply not that bad. The review process still opens it up to that judgement call and it is playing out exactly like many of us predicted it would, it's a joke and just makes things even less clear. 

 

Let the refs call it on the field and drop the review process because the review process is doing nothing to make things better. It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction to one bad miss in the playoffs. One mistake begat another mistake. 

I agree and understand......Based on that hopefully the rule is removed at the end of the season. An attempt to improve the game that has perhaps failed.

everyone knew it was going to fail before they implemented it. The CFL has a bad problem of making poor changes just for the sake of making changes. It's great to be progressive and willing to change but they need to be smarter about it. 

Don't worry. At the end of the year they will review this policy and it will be fixed.

 

On the other hand, with their record of reviews….