Thanks, Blue Blood, for the rule clarification. You are always good at doing that :lol: :lol:
I agreed with the review, I just didn't know what rule they used to justify it. Your explanation clarified that.
Higgins' explanation was helpful, too, as it confirmed what I thought should have been the correct call.
Still don't know how the officials missed that one, and then the replay official missed it as well. And the "maybe they were only reviewing for no yards" argument doesn't wash, either. I remember earlier this year, (I think it was an Esks game, but may have been Riders...I don't remember) they were reviewing a "down by contact" scenario at about the 30 yard line or so, and wound up calling back a TD as they ruled the player down by contact at the 2, even though that was not the call that was supposed to be reviewed. Higgins said then that they were reviewing the entire play to make sure they get it right, even if the overturned call was not the one being challenged. Using that as precedent, they should have caught the Illegal Participation on the replay for sure.
It turned out ok, as the result would have been the same (Mtl victory, though the score would have been different), but if TO had come back to win in OT or in the final few seconds of regulation, there would have been Hell to pay.
I think they meant "had the Als accepted the penalty and taken a single...", as declining the penalty would have resulted in the play standing, and a TD, not a single. That is probably why the Command Center (inappropriately) assumed the Als would decline the penalty. In essence, the game did end on a declined penalty, which is ok.
Had the Als accepted, then it would have given the Argos one play.