Yes it's nitpicky to start looking at things even after a W but was Sutton in on his first TD of the game after the long goal line standoff at the end of the second Q?

 

http://cfl.ca/video/index/id/112591/autostart/true

 

around the 3:13 mark shows Sutton only getting his foot over the line and not the ball.  I know they were talking about this on TSN 1290 this morning.  Was it a bad camera angle, did he actually get the ball over the line or not?  I know in the end it didn't matter but if the Bombers lost this game it sure as s*** would have been a huge topic of discussion this week. 

 

I think the Bombers did a great job holding them off for so long.  Would have been interesting to see if they could have held them off one more time on 3rd and 1. 

 

I know MOS wouldn't have challenged as it's an automatic review by CC but they didn't even say they were reviewing it and after a short delay went into the pt after.  Did they review this or not? And what evidence does anyone see that it crossed the line.

 

It's moot point; I don't think it crossed the line I'm sure if they are 3rd and millimetres they go for the touch down anyways and its in.  It would be different if it was already 3rd down but it wasn't.

How the hell this one went to the command centre and it came back as a td. I sure don't know....Yes it's after the fact BUT that was a big play that was allowed to stand....Credibility issue for the reffing of this one for sure..

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

That's where I was going with this if kbf didn't beat me to it.

That's where I was going with this if kbf didn't beat me to it.

That's exactly why I titled the thread this way

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

So much this.

 

It was ruled a TD, and there wasn't visible evidence to overturn

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked.  If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on  

 

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

So much this.

 

It was ruled a TD, and there wasn't visible evidence to overturn

 

But how is it not visible? Unless they are looking at a different camera angle.

I'm not sure which camera had the best angle but as Jacquie said there wasn't one that proved that it did not cross.

 

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked.  If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on 

 

Camera angles lie. The replay they showed wasn't straight on the goal line.

Seeing the replay on TSN it sure looked like he wasn't in.. but as someone already mentioned, it really is a moot point right now...

We talked about this out at the lake while watching. I believe the camera angle is what caused this to look like it was a non td from the tv viewers angle.

It's moot point; I don't think it crossed the line I'm sure if they are 3rd and millimetres they go for the touch down anyways and its in.  It would be different if it was already 3rd down but it wasn't.

The ball would be placed back at the 1 yard line, so there is certainly no guarantee they go for it and get in on 3rd down.

 

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked.  If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on 

 

 

How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

Hey everyone, long time reader first time actually posting

 

We sit in Sec 103 and the play happened right in front of us, everyone was going nuts as the ball did not cross the line.  His left arm appeared to but the ball never did so we were wondering why the refs never said it was being reviewed etc.

 

As mentioned though, it is a moot point and there probably wasn't a definitive angle to overturn it.

 

It was a close game though and the last couple of years a call like that would usually come back to bite us

Love your handle! 1990 Grey Cup fan I see!

 

 

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked.  If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on 

 

 

How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

 

 

So you're saying he just stuck the tip in?

Thanks!  I was 9 in 1984 and was already watching for a couple years when that Grey Cup sealed the deal forever.   I knew nothing but general success for my formative years and it was great, including that awesome pick 6 by Battle in the 90 Grey Cup!

 

I think my first real despair came in the playoff loss in Edm in 96 and then Cal Murphy getting fired...

They reviewed it. And they didn't have to prove it crossed the line - they needed to find conclusive proof it did not.

I wasn't sure if they did review or not which is why I asked.  If they did how is this not conclusive enough that it didn't cross? If this is the only angle they had and this is what they are basing their judgment on then it's pretty clear it DID NOT cross. I say they need to mount go pros to those little orange pylons used to mark the goal line from now on 

 

How can you be so sure? Based on the angles we saw, I'd say that there is a strong possibility that at least the tip of the ball broke the plane. As others have said, I don't think that there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call on the field.

 

So you're saying he just stuck the tip in?

http://happylalove.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Thats-what-she-said.jpg

I was at the game, all of the replays they showed on the jumbotron offered no conclusive proof to overturn the call. we figured they didn't have a good camera angle to show. Then watched the highlights later and the "watch him run into the camera man" shot right at the goalline was shown and that would have offered clear evidence that he was NOT in. Wondering if that angle was available to the review officials at the time?

It's a moot point and I think I'll mute you now ... 

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have.  I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong.  Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up.  Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after.  Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties  I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in.  Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up.  But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?

 

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have.  I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong.  Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up.  Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after.  Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties  I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in.  Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up.  But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?

 

In my opinion, it wasn't in.  In these type of situations it might be good for officials to huddle before coming to a conclusion.  The ref immediately signaled a TD.  If that was due to assuming he was in, or he saw something completely different, we won't know, but i"m glad it didn't ruin the outcome.