A whole Referees Clinic in one play

In the Fourth Quarter Ham v Mtl.

Bud Steen reviewed a play deemed to be an incomplete pass on the field.

On the replay, Estelle clearly throws the Hamilton receiver out of the way, then dives for the ball. He gets his left arm/hand under the ball which is jostled around.

The field official who unbelievably missed the obvious Pass Interference call, rules the play incomplete and states emphatically to Estelle "the ball hit the ground" and "you know it hit the ground".

Steen takes OVER two minutes to review the play, which was difficult to determine as the camera angles were pretty inconclusive, then finally rules an Interception for Montreal.

I'm a fan of Mr. Steen's work in general, and I think this ball was probably intercepted. However, I don't think that the replays were at all conclusive and the call on the field should probably not have been overturned.

My problem is not really with Steen, but rather the field official.

The original call on the field should have been ruled a catch unless the official was SURE that the ball hit the turf. Had this been the case and the call was then overturned because a camera angle showed that the hit the turf, I would have no problem with the official - they can't see everything.

However, if the official sees the ball hit the turf and the replay shows otherwise then that official is making stuff up.

Someone should be sitting down with said official and getting an explanation.

You might also ask how such an obvious P.I. call was missed on this play?

Well as an Als fan you can take this for what it is worth.

I don't think that the PI was all that obvious..... They were both jostling for the ball during the route and who ever the receiver was lost his balance(albeit helped by Estelle). It could have gone either way.

It was P.I, but at the very least it was an incomplete pass which is what it was called on the field.

Not sure how there was enough evidence to overturn that to be honest. They must have been watching something else.

uh huh

Show that play at a referees clinic and it's unanimously a Pass Interference call, but that's really only a secondary issue here...

what I saw was both of them pawing at each other, with the receiver making first contact. The defender won? and the receiver went down. In any case, no way was the receiver going to get back to the ball, he was not as quick to attempt to reverse direction, which is most likely why he went down in the first place.

As for the catch, looked good to me.

and I was strongly cheering for montreal to lose

My sentiments exactly

As I pointed out, I also thought the catch was good, again not the point - what did the official see and why is he making stuff up?

no problem. from a different angle where he could not see the hand, its should not be hard to understand that it would look to him like the ball hit the ground. From a live shot, I wasnt sure, took the replay to convince me.

I'm curious also about the challenge flag thrown by Jim Popp which he would have lost, but was talked out of by Bud Steen.

Why is the referee talking him into picking up the challenge flag. Should Mtl not have lost a timeout in this situation?

I have asked myself the same thing..... To me once the flag hits the turf there should be no turning back.

IMHO: it was a blatent Pass Int. I have seen far less been called. The Tabbie player was pushed to the ground by the Als player before he even attempted to go for the ball. I certainly would like George Blacks' interpretation of this one, as it did determine the outcome of the game.

I hardly think the PI was blatant, but certainly a call in that situation is often made.
I was surprised they overturned that one.
The broadcasters never showed us the original camera shot of the play, so unless that shot was conclusive, I saw nothing in the one angle they did show to warrant overturning the play.
Surely Bud discussusses the call with his sidejudge before going under the hood?
If the sidejudge says "definately hit the ground", no way should that be overturned.
If he says he isn't sure, then maybe...

But from the angle we saw, the ruling on the field should have stood.
Of course with Steen under the hood, all bets are off!!

Regarding the challenge flag, teams have been penalized for throwing it inappropriately, but sometimes the ref simply explains the call on the field and the coach/ref agree there is nothing to challenge.
I don't have an issue with that.

Right, because Estelle was pushing him to the ground. "Handfighting" is one thing, and is allowed to happen with no call. Pushing the receiver to the turf is something completely different. That's called pass interference.

May or may not have been a catch, but the angles we saw showed no indisputable evidence one way or the other...meaning that the call on the field must stand. In this case, that call was an incomplete pass. I'm sure I'd be arguing the other way if it had been ruled an interception and overturned, but I'd be wrong and I'd know it.

Without a camera angle from field level that could see under the ball and tell whether it touched the ground or not, there's no way to overturn that call, no matter what the original call was. Period.

Am I the only one who saw Bauman trip on his own toe? Watch the replay again. His right foot "toe picks" like a figure skater and he loses his balance forward. The overturned play on the field was interesting. Steen must have seen a different replay because the ones shown on tv were NOT conclusive.

you post it, I will watch it. I know his feet were fairly close together at that moment, which is why he was not in position to brace and cut back for the ball.

Ill post it, tomorow

Video to come later but here are a couple of still showing exactly what you said
His toe does get tangled in the turf!

and notice, that while his feet are together, the defenders one foot is already in bracing position, or close to it, to cut back. This means that even if there was no contact between the two, the receiver was not going to beat the defender back to the ball.