Burn the Refs, because they deserve it...

Can the blind zebras NOT:

a) call an obvious DPI penalty in the end zone (one that Austin had to challenge); and
b) COUNT TO F***ING TEN?!?

Cuthbert and Forde couldn't understand why that on-side KO was ruled an Illegal KO, since the ball CLEARLY traveled over 10-yards. Also, the obvious DPI on Tolliver by King in the end zone. How many idiots missed that call?

Once again, the CFL officiating crews screwed the Tiger-Cats. I know that we had a slim chance of winning the game even IF we recovered the on-side KO, but to rule it illegal is borderline criminal...

These guys are as blind as the come, it makes me not even want to watch the CFL knowing these... people i'll bite my tongue, almost clean off at that
consistently make a farce out of our beloved game.
I dont care what anybody says, that had an impact, it was momentum killing and it put Whyte in instant FG position so the D knew even if they managed to stop the Esks, itd likely be a TD to win situation.
CFL refs are the absolute worst of any sport, no joke.

Alright, I suppose this will be the post-game discussion thread. I was thinking that the title of the thread would be "Burn the Few Remaining Witches" but I'll take this.

I do have to give the team credit for staying in it, as after Fantuz had to leave the game, three of our four best receivers were out with injuries. The team also lost two DBs, and I do hope Brooks will be alright after he had to be taken off on a stretcher and taken to Hamilton General Hospital.

They were down by 18, but the team was able to get that TD with two point convert to make it interesting. I also liked seeing Collins toss it to Jones in an attempt at recreating the Music City Miracle that almost ended with Jones in the end zone. When the team was down by 18, I really was thinking of switching to watching the first World Series game at Wrigley Field since 1945. It was good to see the team not quit, but there was no impressive comeback this time.

They tried hard to get the win. But still, Ottawa's magic number for clinching first place is now 1, and so they get the chance to get that bye to the EDF that we would really like to have.

"ARTICLE 7: GAINING POSESION ON A KICKOFF

On a kickoff, a player who catches the ball must come down in bounds to gain possession. If the player was last to touch the ball, either he or the ball must come down in bounds for possession to be awarded"

Refs got it right. Just a terrible, bush-league CFL rule and more 100% pure unfiltered Hamilton TiCat bad luck.

:cowboy: :thdn:

Yup Just listening to the post game show on TSN and Austin's scrum was just aired. The explanation that he received was that because Bowman was in the air when he made contact with the ball to knock it out of bounds, it's a penalty on the Ticats! :? Austin said it was the most ludicrous rule that he's ever heard and since he's on the rules committee he's going to see about it being changed.

Austin did say in his scrum that Brooks gave him a thumbs up and had been moving his arms. I did see a shot of him moving his legs too, so like the Gabriel situation in week 1, it may not be too serious but I understand them never taking any chances if it appears to be a neck or back injury.

A tough loss against a good team. I think if they'd had even half of their injured starters on the field, then it could well have been a win for them. Austin did say that the missed FG hurt them but as usual there were other plays that they should have made that could have made a difference. Personally I think that right now this team is just too beat up and missing too many good players to be as competitive as they could be. Unfortunate for those players who are out there battling. :frowning:

Please tell me the CFL rule book spelt possession wrong....

Not sure that's right, given this other rule.

RULE 5 - KICKING [b][u]SECTION 2 – KICKOFF[/u][/b] [b]Article 2 – Legal Kickoff[/b] (b) The ball, [u]unless touched[/u], shall not go Out of Bounds in the Field of Play.
The ball was touched before it went out of bounds, so it would have been a legal kickoff.

The rule you quoted would have been applied had a Ticat player knocked the ball out of bounds without gaining control of it. In that case, Edmonton still would have been awarded the ball.

2 points here:

  1. Bowman did come down in bounds, so the refs didn't get that right.
  2. Even if it was correctly a penalty, there's no yardage on it. Edmonton gets the ball where it went out of bounds, same as if there was no penalty. The only reason the ball was moved up was because Reinebold took an objectionable conduct penalty.

HA! No. That one is on me. It was being read to me and I was typing fast to get the rule up here before anyone went "full-Reinebold" with a post. It's still not clear to me but, oh well! I'm sure we'll get muddy excuses about another archaic, poorly-designed CFL rule sometime Monday.

gary lawless ? @garylawless
Hearing from @cfl there should not have been a flag on late KO between EDM and HAM. Ball was legally recovered by EDM, placed in right spot
7:18 PM - 28 Oct 2016

This right here --> http://www.cfl.ca/2016/10/28/cfl-provides-explanation-on-onside-kick-in-ticats-esks-game/

The on-field officials missed the DPI, but that's what challenges are for. And for once, the coin flip Command Centre got it right. As for how many officials missed it, I'm thinking one, maybe two. The rest had their own responsibilities and wouldn't have been worried about DPI in that corner.

I don't think it was the length of the kickoff that was the problem. There was some confusion over the rule covering the ball being knocked out by the receiving team. But they eventually ruled it a legal kickoff. Unfortunately Reinebold had inexcusably sworn at the official by that time, so we ended up getting penalized anyway.

I think there was a missed no yards penalty against Edmonton, but other than that, I thought they (after including the CC) did a reasonable job tonight.

Here we go again! :?

“ON THE SHORT KICKOFF ATTEMPT ON PLAY #144 THERE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FLAG FOR ILLEGAL KO. THE BALL WAS LEGALLY RECOVERED BY EDMONTON #4. THE BALL WAS PLACED AND SCRIMMAGED FROM THE CORRECT LOCATION ON THE FOLLOWING PLAY.?

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/2016/10/28/cfl-provides-explanation-on-onside-kick-in-ticats-esks-game/]http://www.cfl.ca/2016/10/28/cfl-provid ... esks-game/[/url]

Love the spin they put on it. The refs got the play wrong...but since Edmonton ELECTED to take the ball where it went out....there was no error in where the ball should have been spotted.

They still made another mistake. When it happened I wondered what all the fuss was about.... it havmd zero impact on the game.

OK, so the officials threw a flag in error. But in the end, they realized their error and gave Edmonton the ball at the right spot. And had Reinebold not blown a gasket screaming at the official, that would have been the end of it.

Sounds like the CFL is sucking and blowing at the same time.

How can they say there should not have been a flag, which there was, after two officials dicussed it, and the ref announced the penalty. Further the ball was placed and scrimmaged from the correct location.

Does that mean, after announcing the illegal kickoff penalty, the officals changed their minds and spotted the ball with the added yards for the bench penalty but didnt announce it in the stadium?

How many more times are we going to here the CFL say that key penalties called on Hamilton should not have been called?

Is the theme song for CFL officials, OOPS I DID IT AGAIN?

The CFL is starting to loose long time fans because of the performance of their officials, both on and off the field.

No. Edmonton had the option.

  1. Rekick 10 yards back.
  2. Decline and get it where it went out.

Had hamilton had touched the ball and they made the same ruling. It would have been disaster.

Again. This had zero impact.

It did have potential impact.

Because of the wrong penalty call for an illegal kickoff, a Ticats coach, blew a gasketand was penalized, which advanced the ball into Ticat territory. Was the coach wrong? Yes. But after two officals confere and both throw a flag for the kick, what do you expect?

I was watching on TV, and I didn't see the officials give Edmonton the option, and I didn't hear them announce an illegal kickoff. As there's also nothing about the call in the play-by-play online, I assumed that they had waved off the penalty rather than it being declined.

As for no impact, technically you're right. But it did contribute to the UC penalty, so in a way, it did have an impact. But Reinebold should have kept his temper under control better.