Automatic video review of scoring plays?

Also from yesterday's Edm v. Mon game was a play where Montreal punted the ball out of bounds in the endzone for a single. It was initially ruled as a single but then after lobbying from Montreal players the refs changed their decision and marked the ball out of bounds on the 2 yard line. So no points were scored. The Edmonton coach challenged the call and despite the video showing that the ball couldn't have gone out at the two yard line, the challenge failed and the call was upheld. Edmonton lost a time out which would have helped them out on the disputed final play and possibly avoided all the discussion and criticism about the game clock and replay review rules.

I do not want to rehash a discussion of the final play as there is already a thread talking about it. I also don't want to get into a debate about why the refs changed their call, or why the replay review failed to correct the incorrect call.

I was expecting that as a disputed scoring play, the call would have been automatically reviewed without Edmonton being forced to use one of their challenges. I tried to look for the specific rule regarding automatic review of scoring plays but I couldn't find it. I found many references to the rule that basically describe it as "all scoring plays" being subject to automatic review. So why wasn't the disputed single point play an automatic review?

The only answer anyone has provided so far is that it wasn't a scoring play because the refs didn't rule it as a single. But clearly the intent of the rule is to ensure that the correct call is always made when a possible score is at stake. It shouldn't matter whether the refs incorrectly call a score when it isn't one or incorrectly rule it isn't a score when it is one. If the rule makes this disctinction then it is a bad rule.

Imagine with just over 3:00 on the clock your team is out of challenges. On third and goal your team gets the ball over the line as proven by replays, but the refs call him short. So because it wasn't ruled a score it doesn't get reviewed? Wheras if the refs called him in it would automatically be reviewed? Obviously this would be a flawed rule because the intent clearly is to ensure that correct calls are made on scores.

The league has recognized that an incorrect call on a potential scoring play is not acceptable because of the impact a scoring play can have on the outcome of a game. If the rule actually makes a review dependant on which way the refs on the field erred, it would be insane.

So I am wondering if anyone knows what the actual text of the rule is with regards to automatic review of scoring plays? Or if anyone can explain why the particular call in question was not subject to automatic review?

I wouldn't be opposed to a tweak of the automatic review rules, but this same situation is handled the same way in the NFL. It's only if it's ruled a scoring play is it reviewed. On a punt like that it's almost impossible to get a good angle to see exactly where it went out of bounds, so there was always going to be inconclusive evidence.

That in my opinion was why it was not an automatic review. If its not a scroing play then the coaches have 2 challanges per game to use

Bingo, which is why Reed was stupid to ask for a review.

This is one of the many things wrong with video review. Had the officials ruled touchdown on Edmonton's final drive it would have been reviewed, but because the officials ruled down at the one no review. That is arbitrary use of the system which is inherently unfair. The system has to be applied fairly or not at all.

Both coaches are afforded the same number of challenges, but the last 3 minute rule, when it's usually most important it's not only taken out of their hands, but it can be (as we saw last night) utilized to the disadvantage of a team. The league has to review all potential scoring plays in the last 3 or review none at all.

One of many reasons I believe the system is so badly flawed it does far more harm to the game than good.

On a punt like that it's almost impossible to get a good angle to see exactly where it went out of bounds, so there was always going to be inconclusive evidence.
I thought it was pretty conclusive that the call was wrong. Based on where the ball was kicked from and where it landed it was conclusive in my opinion. I might have been around the goal line, but it certainly was not out on the two yard line. So I would agree that whether it was in or out of the endzone was inconclusive, but I'm pretty certain it was not out at the two. Unless the hand of god was involved or something to curve the ball at the last second.
It's only if it's ruled a scoring play is it reviewed.
I still haven't seen the rule, but if this is the case then it's a flawed rule. It is arbitrary. If all scoring plays should be reviewed then surely all incorrect calls made on scoring plays should be reviewed. A scoring play should be defined as one where a score actually takes place OR one where a ref calls a score. Currently its only plays where refs deem it a scoring play. So you could actually physically get the ball into the endzone but under replay rules it wouldn't be deemed a scoring play? That's insane.

(I'm not trying to start an argument with the poster I quoted. I'm frustrated with the CFL constant officiating problems, not the poster I'm quoting)

That is one way to look at it, but
Im sure they are all reviewed in a sence

Look at the play we are all refering to

As I said TSN had time to show the replay between snaps.
At the game and on the replay it was obvious to me that he did not get in

The replay official is watching the same telicast...He felt that after seeing it live and then with 1 replay plus the fact that 1 ref had a clear view of the ball that he did not score so there is no point in a review

For the Mtl play...it was not so obvious and he wanted more time to see it again

I didnt actually watch the game, but I saw the run at the end on highlights. The ball has to cross the plain, not a body part. There is no way a body part crossed the plain, let alone the ball.

It's no more arbitrary than any other rule, though. This one has the advantage of being absolute.

Was it ruled a scoring play? Reviewed. Not ruled a scoring play? Not reviewed.

There's no judgement calls, and thus no inconsistency.

"A scoring play should be defined as one where a score actually takes place OR one where a ref calls a score"

That actually is the definition of a scoring play: if the ref says they scored points. You can't call a review for "when a score actually takes place", because what does that mean? Who decides if a score actually took place before the review if the ref says it didn't? Then we're just ending up with the stuff inside the three minute warning where it's reviewed if the command center says so, and people bicker over their decision making.

Unfortunately, the CFL website still has the link to the 2011 rule book rather than the 2013 version. So I can’t find the actual wording of the rule. But here is the news release that describes the rule change:

http://www.cfl.ca/article/rule-changes-approved-all-scoring-plays-to-be-reviewed

The Canadian Football League Board of Governors has unanimously approved the rule changes as proposed by the Rules Committee, including that all scoring plays be subject to review by the replay official in the Command Centre. This would include all touchdowns, field goals, converts, singles and safety touches.
I agree that it would be good to have all potential scoring plays reviewed, but then as Tridus states, we'd all be arguing over the decision of whether the play was a potential scoring play. Maybe it should be up to the on-field officials, that if one thinks it was - and was in a position to see it - it gets reviewed. But then we'd be arguing about which officials were in position to make the call.

Does anyone else’s brain hurt?

Based on camera angles there is no way anyone watching on TV could tell where the ball went out IMO.

by the logic of 'it was close' to a score so there should be a review, you should then automatically review any 3rd down spot if it is close either way, because making that 1st or not continues or stalls a drive...a drive that could win the game late....on a play that was made just prior to the 3 minute warning.

The above simply is not realistic. The games would be far too long with too many delays. The league drew a line in the sand to make it black and white, and minimize personal discretion on to review or not. It is a shame that calls are missed and spots botched, but it happens in any reffed sport...it is simply part of the game. I am sure there were those at command that wish it had been ruled a single so it could be reviewed. Realistically and with 20/20 hindsight the refs should have ruled it a single so it could have been auto reviewed, simply because it was obviously a hard one to spot. I wouldn't mind an amendment that called for a spot review for any punt that goes out inside the 5, or out before the 20(actually say before the 25 so that the ones that clearly go out early don't get reviewed) for that matter.

As for the rule that a team can not challenge inside the last 3 minutes...I dislike this rule. Now, don't get me wrong, I like that it is in place to aid a team that is out of timeouts in crunch time. The issue I have is why can a team not challenge if they still have timeouts? Sure, keep the ruling that Command reviews any plays they feel are close enough to warrant it, but what is the harm in also giving that power back to the teams? You want to up the anti...fine...you can call for a review inside 3 minutes...if you are wrong you are deducted a timeout, but also assessed 10 yard penalty...if it was on a TD then the opposing team has the right to kick it to you (with 10 yard penalty applied) or force you to start on the 25 with no return opportunity.

I understand the frustration on such plays, but there needs to be a black and white rule on the matter, which there presently is.

but in the officials eyes it was not a TD. I am sure that in the back of his mind he thought, hey, it will be reviewed. As it was inside of 3 minutes, a ref should be afforded the assurance that anything close will be reviewed...the 3 minute review rule is there not only for the teams, but peace of mind for the refs...they want to see the right call in crunch time as well. Perhaps CC saw he was clearly down, but for the fans sake, it still should have been reviewed.

This goes to one of the other major issues I have with video review, that is they review far too many different situations. Only sport I know of that uses video review for things other than verifying the scoring of points. Review should be limited to did the ball cause a point to be legally scored and, due to the nature of possession in the game, confirming fumbles and interceptions. I know other things affect the game, but this is why video review has grown into the game killing monster it is. Hockey does not use review on offsides and icings I think football would survive without reviewing whether or not a player was out of bounds at the 45 or the 40.

I agree and I place all the blame for this fiasco on the command centre. The on field officials did their job correctly, it's not their job to call the review. Sadly, when the command centre screws up (as they do often) the on field guys tend to wear it simply because they are the face on the field and the fans are not always told what, if any, decision was made by the old blind man in the cave.

I've advocated for several seasons now for the officials to specify what the CC decision was;
After review

  1. video confirms the ruling on the field
  2. ruling on the field is overturned (with explanation)
  3. video is inconclusive, ruling on the field stands.

The difference in hockey being that if you reviewed an offside the play and momentum is dead either way. In football something like catch/no catch changes things. In hockey it changes where the faceoff is...that is about it. Football is a different beast than most sports, where one big play can be a game changer, yet there is still stoppage between plays anyways.

That said, I do agree it slows good paced games.

Ditto.

In addition, I think a detailed description of what was seen / not seen should be released by the league after the game. Included in that report would be the record of decisions for each play in the final three minutes indicating why a review was or was not called. For most plays, it could just say "duh", as it would be pretty obvious why the play would stand. But for plays like the one at the end of the Montreal / Edmonton game, there would be a note like "the second replay showed that the ball carrier landed on his back before the ball broke the plane of the goal line, so no further review was required", or whatever their reasoning was.

So you want to open a can of worms where each play that is not reviewed is justified in writing? I can see that if a coach petitions something inside of 3 minutes a review and assessment be made public.

Ro just admit it your team got a couple of breaks don't try and make some kinda excuse why it was ok to review the MTL play and not the Esks. neither one was ruled a TD so neither one should have been reviewed. Edm did not make it into the endzone that was quite clear but neither did MTL and it was just as clear, so no review should have been done.
As far as the punt goes the line judge called it out in the end zone, it's a single the replays were inconclusive there has been no reason given. The esks should not been allowed to challenge the call as the command center would have reviewed it, so the Esks should have still had a timeout remaining would that have made a difference maybe or maybe not we'll never know . So just enjoy your 2 points and we'll do it again in Edmonton. Congrats on the win MTL

Considering that this entire faux-controversy was started by the Eskimos trying to use it as an excuse for not getting another play after wasting a timeout and poor clock management, I hope the irony of this statement isn't lost on you.

neither one was ruled a TD so neither one should have been reviewed.
By that "logic", only plays that are overturned should have ever been reviewed in the first place. Since we don't know if it'll be overturned until we review it, how does that even work?
Edm did not make it into the endzone that was quite clear but neither did MTL and it was just as clear, so no review should have been done.
Not true. That's your fan colored glasses talking.
As far as the punt goes the line judge called it out in the end zone, it's a single the replays were inconclusive there has been no reason given. The esks should not been allowed to challenge the call as the command center would have reviewed it, so the Esks should have still had a timeout remaining would that have made a difference maybe or maybe not we'll never know . So just enjoy your 2 points and we'll do it again in Edmonton. Congrats on the win MTL
The call is whatever they decide it is on the field after the conference, not whatever gets signalled first. It's not exactly uncommon for this type of thing to happen, you see it where someone throws a flag and then someone else corrects them, or a pass that one ref calls complete where another had a different angle and changes it to incomplete.

The Eskimos didn't get a third play because they have a young team that screwed up the clock management. Period. Relying on the command center to review plays just to give you a free time out is not clock management, it's prayer.