I have no love for the Lions, but that was bad. BC still would have needed a TD starting from about the 10 or 15 yard line, but I don't get how the command center called it the way they did.
The only possibilities I can think of:
- The play was whistled dead because Harris's forward progress had been stopped. I didn't hear a whistle, but maybe there was one.
- The replay official determined that Harris's forward progress had been stopped before the ball came out. It didn't look like it to me, but you never know.
- Harris's left knee touched down somehow before the ball came out, and that showed up on one of the angles not shown on the broadcast. No idea how this would have been possible, though. Knees don't bend that way without the player being carried off on a stretcher.
- Jake Ireland had picked the Bombers on Pro-Line.
- Jake Ireland is incompetent. This one has my vote.
A statement, on the controversial ruling, from the league:[url=http://3downnation.com/2016/10/08/cfl-issues-explanation-controversial-replay-review-call/]http://3downnation.com/2016/10/08/cfl-i ... view-call/[/url]
While I'm not sure the call, made by the on-field officials, was right, I do agree with the decision of the replay official based on the rules, under which he operates.
In other words, had the referee called a fumble on the play, the command centre would have maintained/ruled it a fumble. Weird!
It is time to get rid of challenges. I know the calls can go both ways but imo it is ruining the game. The games is already predictable with every team running basically the same offences and defences. Yesterday was a perfect example of why it has to go. Obvious fumble, how could they get it wrong?
For this fan the game is not as entertaining as it once was. Sorry.
"The replay official ruled there was no indisputable visual evidence to change the call made on the field,? said Paulo Senra, director of communications. “It could not be determined from the angles provided if the player had completely lost possession of the ball before the player’s backside had touched the ground."Really? THAT'S their explanation? Basically they've just confirmed that Jake Ireland is incompetent.
I looked at the play I could not understand the call. But nothing should surprise any of us anymore.
I believe if the call on the field would have been called a fumble to would have stood up after review ...seeing the player was ruled down when it was reviewed there "wasn't over-whelming evidence" enough to over turn the call....but I agree that it was a fumble.
I agree. While we're at it, I'd eliminate all timeouts too. If a team can't get its act together, try harder next play.
Can someone clarify the rule for fumbles.
If a player is starting to lose control of the ball just prior to being down and fully loses it when he hits the ground, is that a fumble?
If I recall the Ticats had a similar call in the last Sask game, where the Rider lost the ball and the Cats picked it up and ran it back for a TD. Which was the ruling on the field.
It was over turned by command centre even though it look like the player started to lose control just before hitting the ground.
Funny how command thought there was enough evidence to overturn the on field call.
As CatsFan said "Jake Ireland is incompetent"
Copied from the 2016 CFL Rule Book, with key relating words underlined:
CFL OFFICIAL PLAYING RULES
SECTION 3 – POSSESSION
Possession means having the ball firmly held in hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under the body.
When players of the opposite teams have possession of the ball, it shall belong to the player who first gained possession and who has not lost possession.
If players of both teams legally gain possession of the ball simultaneously, it shall belong to the team that last previously had possession.
A ball not in possession of a player is still in play. A ball shall be considered to have been fumbled if the player last in possession has lost control of it.
If a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession.
This issued statement is just the CFL in full damage control mode. They are trying to cover their arse and save face after an unbelievably incompetent blunder.
If this play had occured early in the 1st quarter when the games outcome is still uncertain then they might have admitted to the blown call. But no way are they publically going to admit that they robbed BC of a likely win in the final seconds o a game.
The TSN panel, sports anchors, fans and armchair quarterbacks ALL know it was a fumble.8) So does Glen Johnson and the league.
Here's the relevant rule for instant replay:
[b]INSTANT REPLAY[/b] [b]APPROVED RULINGS[/b] [b][u]RUNNING PLAYS[/u][/b] [b]I.R.A.R. 4 Fumble before runner down by contact[/b] Team A ball carrier fumbles the ball with Team B recovering. Officials rule down by contact at A's 30 yard line. Replay shows that the ball was loose before the runner was down. [b][u]RULING[/u][/b] Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.
So why does the on field decision take precedence and has more weight on a challenge? A challenge should be reviewed without prejudice and on equal footing! That’s how they should be handled. Then the command centre can just focus on the correct call and not whether they have enough proof to overturn ref decision.
A referee’s screw up should not have a baring on call that is subject to review.
So you're suggesting that an "I think it's this" from the Command Centre should take precedence over an "I think it's that" from the on-field officials?
Absolutely, since the Command Centre has access to multiple camera angles, slow motion, freeze frame and zoom. Unlike the refs who sometimes have to locate the football through an obcscured view caused by a tangled pile-up of players.
But the Command Centre treads lightly so it won't portray their refs as incompetent.
That's not an issue, the Officials portray themselves as incompetent all on their own...
Then you're also suggesting that an "I think it's this" from the Command Centre should take precedence over an "I know it's that" from an on-field official. Sometimes the on-field guys do have a better angle than any of the cameras. If the replay official isn't sure, why should he be able to override the call by the official ten feet from the play?
And I'm thinking the on-field guys are way better than the guy they currently have reviewing replays. As I've suggested before, the league should have one of their off-duty referees manning the Command Centre rather than a retired referee from a bygone era.