hanker66

This league and its officials are ruining the game. They miss balls that hit the turf and call them catches. The pass interference had nothing to do with the play what a terrible call. I turned it off and took the dog for a walk. I guess that is what this league wants. Ridiculous.  

Palmer

This league and its officials are ruining the game. They miss balls that hit the turf and call them catches. The pass interference had nothing to do with the play what a terrible call. I turned it off and took the dog for a walk. I guess that is what this league wants. Ridiculous.  
Yeah, I feel your pain, and the officials are standing right there, unobstructed views.  No excuse except incompetence.

TeddyFay

Contact on the receiver after 5 yards by #22

Crash

I still maintain that the Commish missed the boat on the challenge rule implemented mid season. All he had to do was remove the Illegal Contact portion of the challenge and put it back to the way it was a few years ago.

The "Eye in the sky" must take a more proactive approach, on the Banks PI they should buzz down and review on their own, that shouldn't have cost Coach Jones his only challenge. Remove Illegal Contact and let a coach challenge as many times as he wants until he gets it wrong. Its not their fault the officials are horrible.

Of course Ambrosie will say "we listened to the fans" - that's only partially true because we were sick of 5 challenges that were "fishing expeditions" as Mr Cuthbert would say looking all over the field for Illegal Contact, I don't think we wanted to continually miss calls because we were out of challenges but that's just me.

Caretaker

 ...we were sick of 5 challenges that were "fishing expeditions" as Mr Cuthbert would say looking all over the field for Illegal Contact.
While I don't think we have the challenge thing correct (yet), illegal contact, even away from the play, is a problem.

The CFL had been, and according to some is still, plagued by illegal contact.  It takes not take much "illegal contact" to slow a small fast receiver down by a stride or two.  So even a little little clutch-and-grab makes all the difference as to whether he is open when the QB has to make a split second decision to throw to him or not.

So if you like high-scoring games, say: 39-37, over those ending 9-7, then whether or not you like the flags you want to see the CFL officials police the illegal contact rule.

CatsFaninOttawa

Contact on the receiver after 5 yards by #22
They were showing it on the screen at the game, and it looked pretty obvious to me, and I couldn't figure out why it was taking so long. I'm thinking it was to determine whether the ball was in the air yet so they knew whether to call pass interference or illegal contact.

Palmer

If you think we are confused and updset by the official's calls, take a gander at Jason Maas and his reaction to a botched call and then the subsequent press scrum.  Methinks Jason will be spending a dollar or two after (or those) reactions.

So it's not just we whinny Hamilton fans that get upset with the officiating after all!

tabbiefanmcb

If you think we are confused and updset by the official's calls, take a gander at Jason Maas and his reaction to a botched call and then the subsequent press scrum.  Methinks Jason will be spending a dollar or two after (or those) reactions.

So it's not just we whinny Hamilton fans that get upset with the officiating after all!
Maas challenged a play that was (IMO) weak at best and then lost his cool - and people thought Austin had temper tantrums on the sidelines - I didn't EVER see anything like that!  Yes I suspect that Jason's wallet might be a bit lighter again this week after that display. 

tabbiefanmcb

I thought that Jones used his challenge wisely as it resulted in a TD for the team.  That being said, it's too bad he hadn't had a challenge remaining on the Ellingson catch (TD toss was the next play as it wasn't a catch AT ALL but the only shot of an official that I saw on TV on TV shoqed him on the sideline BEHIND the play so that he wouldn't have seen the ball bounce off the turf.  Don't know if there was  an official on the field side.  
I know that people don't like the challenges but I wouldn't be averse to coaches having a second challenge ONLY IF the first one is successful.  The other stipulation might be that they can only use one challenge during a half  i.e. a successful challenge in the first half would mean that Jones would have had another challenge to use in the second half if needed.

Crash

...we were sick of 5 challenges that were "fishing expeditions" as Mr Cuthbert would say looking all over the field for Illegal Contact.
While I don't think we have the challenge thing correct (yet), illegal contact, even away from the play, is a problem.

The CFL had been, and according to some is still, plagued by illegal contact.  It takes not take much "illegal contact" to slow a small fast receiver down by a stride or two.  So even a little little clutch-and-grab makes all the difference as to whether he is open when the QB has to make a split second decision to throw to him or not.

So if you like high-scoring games, say: 39-37, over those ending 9-7, then whether or not you like the flags you want to see the CFL officials police the illegal contact rule.
Then maybe the result is the removal of the tablets from the sidelines and booth. On a key play sending 3 people to go look at an IPad and try and find an illegal contact call undermines the spirit of instant replay.

The issue you are referring to Caretaker is an issue with officiating, not an issue with instant replay. If the eye in the sky wants to review an obvious Illegal Contact call that might have been missed then maybe consider it, or having a spotter at the game that can also ask the league to review.

My real point is that limiting instant replay to 1 per team doesn't help get more calls right, it just limits stoppage in the action. I think if you polled the fans they would say they want obvious misses reviewed and looking for something that might have been missed regardless of how many times it happens.

CatsFaninOttawa

Exactly. Remove the opportunity for the fishing calls, i.e. fix illegal contact, and go back to three challenges.

Krisiun

While it's true that the officials are responsible for many blown calls, they shouldn't be constantly criticized for incompetence. They have to assess a play with 24 men tearing around a field at high rates of speed. Something is bound to be missed in the ensuing commotion. Each ref can only see it from his limited viewing angle. How many times has TSN shown a challenge from multiple angles and the results are inconclusive. So how can a ref possibly get every call right?

What the league should do instead is invest in more "eye in the sky" technology and have a small team in the command centre quickly reviewing key plays. Then tell the official into his headpiece what was determined. There are many other technologies that can be implemented. For example in soccer, FIFA has implemented something called Goal Line Technology. The goal line has a series of cameras on it as well the balls have electronic chips installed to help determine if the ball crossed the line. This type of tech could be used to help the CFL refs determine 1st downs or if the ball crossed the goal line  for a TD.

There's nothing worse than a game being determined by an unfair play or incident. The CFL and all professional sports leagues need to fix this problem once and for all ASAP.

Palmer

Exactly. Remove the opportunity for the fishing calls, i.e. fix illegal contact, and go back to three challenges.
Good idea, but I prefer the suggestion of one per half. Or maybe  one per half with the opportunity to "bank" the first half challenge if it is not used?

I also think that some of the illegal contact we think we see is actually legal in that it occurs within the allowed five yards.  It also looks like that is occassionally called in error.  Maybe extending the  legal zone to 10 yards but calling "holding" as opposed to contact would help, as would tightening up the illegal downfield blocks on receivers.

Of course, the flaw in my argument is that the officials are having difficulty calling the infractions now, adding more would maybe be a backward step?

vjcos

I thought that Jones used his challenge wisely as it resulted in a TD for the team.  That being said, it's too bad he hadn't had a challenge remaining on the Ellingson catch (TD toss was the next play as it wasn't a catch AT ALL but the only shot of an official that I saw on TV on TV shoqed him on the sideline BEHIND the play so that he wouldn't have seen the ball bounce off the turf.  Don't know if there was  an official on the field side.  
I know that people don't like the challenges but I wouldn't be averse to coaches having a second challenge ONLY IF the first one is successful.  The other stipulation might be that they can only use one challenge during a half  i.e. a successful challenge in the first half would mean that Jones would have had another challenge to use in the second half if needed.
Maybe they need a couple of more Officials, that call or non call is unacceptable in any level of Football.
And the big thing was the Official was right there, the concentration level with these guys just isn't there.

safetyblitz

If you think we are confused and updset by the official's calls, take a gander at Jason Maas and his reaction to a botched call and then the subsequent press scrum.  Methinks Jason will be spending a dollar or two after (or those) reactions.
If it makes Jason Maas unhappy, then it can't be all bad. Every borderline call should go against him the rest of his career after the B.S. gamesmanship he pulled last year re: TSN's stupid "mic up the coach" experiment.
 


Users Online

134 Guests, 11 Users (7 Spiders, 2 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
ExPat, PTBO Dave, raymarkca, Iconic SR, EastVanMark, dcmoses, Grover, hawthy, yougottabekidding, Yahoo!, Google (6)

Most Online Today: 175. Most Online Ever: 484 (Aug 28 2017, 09:35 PM)