Can someone explain this to me?

So we had the ‘non-fumble’ debacle on Friday night, Higgins talks to LaPolice and explains that it probably was a fumble, but that only the catch/no catch could be reviewed.

I’m wondering how that’s different from what happened at the end of the first half of the Toronto/Edmonton game.

The challenge was whether the Edm player was down by contact. It was determined he wasn’t. So how the heck can they then go and review whether or not he got into the endzone afterwards?

Is this not blatantly contradictory?

....the only explanation i have kubie is that the officiating in this league is inconsistent , leaving a huge credibility gap that should be addressed...i think the league should start with the replacement of Higgins and his pal in command centre,Jake Ireland....they are incompetent.. It seems to get worse with each passing year and i.m not just going by what has transpired in some of our games this year....IT'S LEAGUE WIDE :thdn:

That's my thinking too.

I mean, THE DAY AFTER Higgins says what he says, the opposite happens...

Sad.

I think it's time they put the technicalities aside and simply make the right call. I don't care what they think they are challenging - just make the right call based on what happened on the field. During a replay, you should NEVER get that wrong!

I was mad as heck when the fumble occurred but after checking the rulebook the next day the command centre had no choice but to make the ruling they did. The exact scenario is listed amongst the approved rulings in the reviewable plays section of the rulebook. What Higgins is saying is they will look at that and hopefully make changes to the rule. What they should do is change the wording so if an incomplete pass is ruled a completed pass and fumble that the same rule applies to the fumble as is currently applied when down by contact is ruled and overturned.

IMO there wasn't anything wrong with the ruling in the game in Moncton. The Argos challenged whether the player was down by contact (we weren't told whether it was when the Esk caught the ball or when he was tackled) and he clearly was down before he entered the endzone. IMO the only reason there is some contraversy is due to the explanation that was given on the field. There are times when fluently bilingual people struggle to explain things in their second language and I think that was the case.

I'd love to know the thought process behind the rule as currently written. Seriously, it makes zero sense. Let the play finish.

So, it shouldn't happen again to any team. I think we should get points for being the team that finds all the mistakes and failures in the system. Maybe 1 point from each of the others, we'd be right up there. :lol: We should thank the refs, instead of complaining about the team and coaches, they've given us a common enemy. If we feel this way, imagine how the players do! Maybe some good will come of it. Looking forward to seeing Hef again.

I'm convinced the officiating crews are suffering from "Friday Night Fever".

Everyone is all a twitter to be performing before a massive American audience...they lose their perspective...and their judgment.

Maybe in the process of attempting to legitimize the CFL in the eyes of our neighbors to the south...we Crazy Canucks end up soiling and embarrassing ourselves. We're certainly not impressing anyone with that kind of officiating display.