[sarcasm]Right, because the refs never make mistakes.[/sarcasm] :roll:
As for Bob Irving, he said it was offside as the play occurred live. He then had access to a replay that wasn’t shown on TV and confirmed that an Als receiver was offside.
and this Bob Irving never makes mistakes either?
And I am sure that the radio people have all kinds of access that the TV guys don't [sarcasm]
Did you bother to read my explanation or is it just easier to blame the loss on the refs because of hearsay
to me, almost every play looks like a reciever is at least a foot offside. How in the hell do the refs ever catch it unless it is way offside, like about 3 yrds. Players cover ground fast and by the time they hit the line of scrimmage, they can be travelling faster than the just hupped ball. I think they should disallow movement toward the line of scrimmage once they take position, until the ball is hupped.
Just because they don’t show a replay on TV doesn’t mean they didn’t have access to it. Bob Irving did have access to it. It was his view and his overly-critical colour guy’s view (both during the live play and after seeing a replay) that the Als’ receiver was offside.
Maybe, Blue Blood, you should drop your bias and take a look at this objectively. The fact is, while the refs may have missed the call, it could be that Irving and other were wrong… the closest people to the play are the officials, and if they did not see an offside, then it could be that the Als were onside! Even at that, if the ball is snapped as the receivers get their running start, usually the refs will give some leeway there. They do that for ALL teams. The fact remains that the Bombers let this game get away from them… no matter what the officials called or did not call.
that they’re repeating what they heard. doesn’t prove a thing, of course. but it doesn’t mean they’re necessarily wrong.
they haven’t called a lot of things this year.
i’m not saying someone wasn’t offside and i’m not saying someone was offside. merely that both are possibilities and at this point, i highly doubt either is going to be proven one way or the other.
bottom line is, you can’t prove 12 players were onside by showing a picture of 11 players onside.
Bob Irving is incredibly unbiased in his playcalling (drives me crazy sometimes that he is). He even said after the review of the “fumble” that he could see why the ruling of incomplete pass was made. If he thought it was offside during the live play but saw a replay which showed it wasn’t then he would have said he was mistaken. Both Irving and the colour guy, Mitch Zalnasky (who, as I said, can be overly critical of the Bombers) said the guy was about 3 yards offside during the live play and AFTER seeing a replay. A number of people who were at the game (including people whose seats were very close to the play) said the receiver was way offside. If it were just fans who said it I would take it with a grain of salt but with both Irving and Zalnasky saying it, I believe them over an official.
in the end, what does it really matter. Maybe the ref blinked and missed one. I sure it is one of the understandably most common missed penalties, along side with holding, because both happen on almost every play, and because it all happens so fast and the refs have so many things to look at all at once in just a few seconds.
It just doesnt matter.
Without getting into the debate about off side or not, just wanted to give a shout out to RO ... Howdy and long time no see!!! Wonderful to know you are still in business. Post early and post often ... all insight is good insight 
The Al’s inside receiver looks pretty offside to me in the 2nd shot.
A snapped football moves faster than a running person, and the receiver looks like he has moved further off the line than the ball has. That means he must have been over the line at the time of the snap. I also notice that no O-Linemen have moved. Since they know the snap count, they are usually in motion at close to exactly the time of the snap. Since they haven’t moved, it means that the shot is so close to the time of the snap that the O-Line has not yet reacted. And yet, the receiver is almost 1 yd over the line.
Forgetting about the phantom “missing man”, it still looks to me like the receiver jumped.
MMMM
It seems you take this Bob Irving’s word only when it suits you.
On the fumble, you ignore it, on the Offside, which you never saw, you take his word as gospel
The LOS is inside the 48 the ball is inside the 50
The reciever is on the 48.
So the receiver did not move farther than the ball
The camera is not looking straight down the LOS it is off to the side making the receiver look farther to the right than he actually is…but even with that you can see that he is not offside
Still a far cry from
Thanks legal but other than this thread I wont be back.
I decided to see if this place has changed at all since I left.
Im sorry to say that it hasent.
All the reasons I had for leaving are still in affect and in force(and I am not talking about this thread)
You quote me but you completely ignore that I named the exact receiver that was offside before you ever posted that still. And just which receiver cannot be seen in that picture? The receiver on the Bombers sideline.
I ignored the fact that you named the exact reciever?
uh huh
here is the link
[url=http://forums.cfl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60849&p=1023249#p1023249]viewtopic.php?f=1&t=60849&p=1023249#p1023249[/url]here is your entire post
Where exactly did you post a name?
Offside or not, I really don't care one way or another. I've been saying this whole year that receiver offside is a huge uncalled problem, much like holding from offensive linemen. It seems like the refs have been instructed to only call the most egregious cases of receiver offside, and rarely to boot. I suspect the league is trying to increase offense by any means necessary and is thus instructing the zebras to turn a blind eye to most of these infractions. I also don't think it's a coincidence that PI calls are up this year.
The Richardson fumble is a black mark for the league, though. I'd like to see Cohon & co. really tighten up the meaning of having possession of the ball so the officials aren't put in these weird situations. I'd also like to allow coaches to be able to challenge different aspects of a reviewable play.
Oh well if the refs didn’t call it it must be right or will we get a phone call later?
Ro, thank you. After closer inspection of the second picture you posted you actually proved the player was offside. The ball had not been snapped in your second picture. I have added an arrow pointing at the ball:
The mark on the picture close to the foot of the o-lineman is not the football.
You do realize that offside is determined by the position of the Head Linesman and the Line Judge, not the position of the ball, yes? The ball can actually be behind the line of scrimmage because the centre picks up the ball and points it down. So judging offside by where the ball is would be incorrect. You need to look at the position of the Head Linesman's right foot. That is on the line of scrimmage.
In this case it is very difficult to tell exactly where the line of scrimmage is because both the HL's right foot and the yard marker are obscured, in addition to the off-centre position of the camera.
So what happened to the guy along the sideline?
Now its the inside receiver that is offside
Problem
That’s not the ball.
The ball is where I circled
Download both pics, put them in a folder and open one with windows pic viewer. Toggle between one and the other and you will see the ball snapped and it will appear where I circled. You dont even have to do that. Just compair the 2 pics In the first pic its not there and it appears in the second. Then look at the center. You will see him start to stand up because he has snapped the ball.
Even the entire Wpg D line has moved
And if you don’t want to do that. Consider what I have already said.
The camera is to the left of the LOS which makes the receiver more to the right, You yourself said