A 100% full apology

CFL apologizes,

admits official erred
in ejecting Armour


From Monday's Globe and Mail

August 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM EDT

click here

You can see Tom is coming from
the perspective of a former player.

“[The official] got it wrong and an injustice was made
because a young man wasn't able to play.

You can't do anything more painful
to an athlete than not let him play.?

Higgins said head referee Jake Ireland had
no choice but to eject Armour because

he was told by another game official
that Armour intentionally ran over Hagans.

8) That particular play should have been reviewed, and if that type of play is not reviewable, then that rule should be changed immediately !!
 A simple review would have confirmed the truth at the time.

 That ejection plus the ensueing major penalty given out contributed to a easy field goal for Sask. and in a game that was eventually decided by 1 point, could very well have made a difference in the outcome of the game !!               <!-- s:oops: -->:oops:<!-- s:oops: -->

Yes it was the wrong call,but I disagree that it should have been reviewed..no penalty should be reviewed.Are we going to review every 'suspect'penalty call?..game will be 5 hrs long!

Yes, and I still wonder if Willie Fleming was truly out of bounds when Mosca hit him................

IMO, if any penalty should be reviewed
it is a game injection call, catfan13.

8) No !! Willie was still in bounds MadJack, and I know that for certain !!!
 Ange has confirmed that fact to me many times over the years !!!        <!-- s:wink: -->:wink:<!-- s:wink: -->

Yup, ejections should be reviewable.

The part that is somewhat contraversial is the decision to a) not name the official that stated categorically that he had seen the entire incident from start to finish and that he was certain it was an intentional hit, and b) keep the discipline private. Obviously if they go public this ref becomes a marked man. But you know, if people are going to pay money to see a fair contest, they need to have some confidence regarding the integrity of the officials. This is not a case of a close call (i.e. did the ball hit the ground, was his foot out of bounds), this official made an obviously false accusation. Is anyone checking to see if he had any money bet on this game? Did this guy have it in for Jojuan or the Stamps? Highly unlikely on both counts, but I'm not sure we can chalk this up to an official just making a "mistake." If there was a mistake it was in telling Jake Ireland that he was certain about what he saw, and if the Head official can't trust other officials to be truthful, the whole system breaks down. As a fan I'm not satisfied with Higgins and the league just sweeping this under the table. We're entitled to answers.

If the CFL agrees on 'ejections' only to be reviewed..
then :thup:

Higgins is way off base regarding public accountability. The public are the ones paying the freight and should always be the first and primary consideration in matters like this. Personally I am not reassured that CFL officials are being held accountable, simply because Higgin's says so. Was the official in question fired, suspended, fined? Did the official have a grudge against the player from some prior incident and saw his chance to lash out? Accountability guarantees performance and maybe the rest of the crew will think twice before making a rash move if they know they will be called on a public carpet. His view that that would mean no officials is ridiculous, because if you are willing to work at the highest level you are ready to put it on the line regarding your performance. Knowing they will never be called out to be accountable just ensures officials won't care about making a bad mistake because all they have to worry about is a private slap on the wrist. Pathetic!!!

8) That's what I said in the second post, and you disageed with me !!!
What happened, did you change your mind in the meantime ?????         <!-- s:roll: -->:roll:<!-- s:roll: -->

This argument has been used to justify every non reviewable play. However, there is one fatal flaw in it: each team only gets 1 challenge per half. If they choose to use it on a review of a questionable penalty that has major consequences for the game then so be it.

It's not a secret. It was #71 Henry Chiu. You can see him explaining it to Jake on the footage.

the ref should have thought about the situation a little bit. Why would a player intentionally knock down a ref when he is leaving for the sidelines after a quick 2 and out on the second play of the game. maybe in the late stages of a game where a ref has made many bad calls against him and the player is getting upset. and when the player goes to help the guy up and apologize obviously it was an accident and the situation didnt warrant a penalty like that which allowed the ruffies to get an easy field goal.

The review should come automatically from the official in the booth.

Please -- no more reviewable plays. Kills momentum and turns this into a slower game. Give the officials the benefit of the doubt...there's still a human element to refereeing. Gives you more reason to boo.

It's somewhat odd, if you look at it this way.

No one expects their team's QB to have a 100% completion rate.

No one expects all their team's receivers to catch 100% of the passes thrown their way.

No one expects their team's field goal kicker to hit on 100% of his FG attempts.


Because they are all human, and hence not perfect.

So why do we expect the referees to be 100% accurate all the time? They're human too, and will make mistakes from time to time.

I think this case is being treated as particularly egregious because the officials behaved as if they were 100% sure of the facts when it is clear in retrospect that they were not.

It is the haste and lack of discourse with which Armour was unjustly ejected that is so objectionable.