Just hit halftime and I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the Richardson non touchdown... Am I right in thinking that you can't review multiple aspects of a play??? Barker challenged that Richardson was down by contact when he jumped over Lemon, not the end of the play. So, how is that not a touchdown?
Never mind... Randorf just explained it... But that is BS! Can't agree more with what Climie just said.
Wow, Higgins says it's not about whether it was the correct call it's about getting it right.
Why start now?
Hard to fathom Higgins comments… His he f’n Kidding me??? What a joke!
I'm an Eskie fan, but he was down before he crossed the goal line. I don't care how that was determined and whether or not that's exactly what Barker challenged. The right call was made in the end and that's what's most important.
The CFL is struggling mightily to improve its officiating. They did the right thing here. I get Climie's point, but I just can't agree in this case. Getting it right is no joke. Getting it wrong just because you've gotten it wrong in the past, especially when you know it's wrong? That's just sadsack.
Fantastic play by Johnson.
A pick by TO should give EE a good shot at an "easy" TD...
I don't have a problem with them getting the call right... I just think the Esks got robbed.
What this call tells me is that Higgins has just set a precedent... Every single play going forward that is challenged must be reviewed in it's entirety, regardless of what the challenge was.
Did I just see someone hold up a flag of Ellen Degenerate in the stands...what kind of crazies live out there for that?
Well Higgins et al have to start somewhere to clean up the ever-increasing pile of steaming hot crap that is CFL officiating lately right? So long as far more of the calls are right no matter what is challenged I could care less how they get there at this woeful point.
And furthermore any such concerns about too many such reviews are mitigated by the fact that aside from certain times at the end of halves, I think a coach is limited to only one challenge on which he must be successful to be able to have another one. I can’t remember the rule on how many, but all the same the fact that there is a limit in that regard is key. :thup:
It looks like the whole league can see perhaps at least part of the formula for beating Toronto?:
Neutralise Boyd in the run game, or with him absent all the same, and Lemon is forced to throw more to a receiving crop less open and make more mistakes. However also you must be able to neutralise any screen passes as Toronto has used successfully all season.
Contain Toronto's special teams by just not punting the ball too close to any of their return guys along with above average kick coverage.
We have to wonder how this game would have been different with Boyd in it, but bear in mind the Argos have done little to stop McCarty with Whitlock out! :rockin: WOOHOO ESKIES WIN! :cowboy: (I'll scream it whilst I can this season 
)
I believe that has been the case since video replay started, and it’s the way it should be. The alternative would be for everyone watching the game to know a refereeing mistake was not only made but also seen by the replay officials during a review, and yet allowed to stand. That would be far worse than this in terms of damaging the league’s credibility.
The thing that baffles me is why the Eskimos haven't used McCarty more often over the last 3 seasons... :?
I agree totally. There has now been a precedent set and from now on they must review every play.
This is going to make for some slow games as the replays will now be extended and coaches will throw the challenge flag more, knowing that Jake will have to watch the whole thing.
I think this was a mistake that will come back to haunt the league.
Thankfully it didn’t effect the outcome of the game!
BTW what are Estks
Note this post on Cory Boyd from 7 Aug and on other finer points on the Argos from the last meeting in Edmonton with the link to the video on Boyd ...what a switch on Sunday considering the offence that Lemon led so successfully back then!
[url=http://forums.cfl.ca/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=58343#p964685]viewtopic.php?f=4&t=58343#p964685[/url]