Can someone tell Jake the rules

From the rulebook!

(c) If a player commits pass interference when a forward pass is deemed uncatchable, it shall be ruled as “Illegal Contact On A Receiver.

Should have been a 10 yard penalty and a first down!

if thats the worst offense the refs commit today, i will be satisfied.

A bad call is one thing, improperly applying the rules is another but it looks like Jake just gave it back.

The call was PI (screening). If the ball was deemed uncatchable, then the calls turns into Illegal Contact. If there was no contact, there cannot be an Illegal Contact penalty. Good job at getting it right by Jake and his crew.

I heard during the Rider/Stamps game that the CFL finally had someone (Daly ?) reviewing the challenges upstairs to assist the on field officials.

Did they do the same thing the Bomber/Als game ? If so, how could they both get the call incorrect ? Unless they have no idea what the rule is, which I highly doubt. Perhaps the explanations being given by the on field officials just aren’t clear enough ?

You must be a bomber fan :lol:
I posted the rule.
(c) If a player commits pass interference when a forward pass is deemed uncatchable, it shall be ruled as “Illegal Contact On A Receiver.

The is no mention that there must be contact.

Im not complaining however. Jake gave it back when he gave Cahoon a catch on the next series

Black was supposed to be upstairs also viewing the plays for video review. However in this case it was/was not a penality so video review was not in play. The refs huddled and then concluded no penality

The Cahoon catch was a CATCH, as Jake announced, he survived contact with the player AND the ground, THEN the WPG player stripped the ball. They got this one right as well.

what do you mena he gave it back, ball got into cahoons arms and he ahd control on first contact with the ground. i am a bomber fan and believe he caught that pass. and with no contact or illegal play how can he flag the bomber db?

....you're right Jake evened it up...BUT...the Armstrong td. in the game previous should have been ruled the same way, a catch....the reffing seems so inconsistent...i can't figure it out... :lol:

I agree with Jake on both calls.
Even though the rule (c) that you quote doesn't state there must be contact, I think interpreting that way is correct. An illegal contact penalty should imply contact was made.

But it doesnt!
It states quite clearly.

The was no flag to be given. I dont think that Cahoon, based on the new rules made the catch.

see i and i disagree, as did everyone i was at the game with. i think it was a good play by cahoon. but no sense argueing it now. it can be seen either way because there has been alot of calls in a play like that called the other way this season

And that's the point...inconsistency. If Cahoon's was a catch, then why in the world was Terence Edwards' TD in a previous game ruled no catch? He had the ball in his possession quite a lot longer I thought...

But at this point, who cares now, it's over.

On to the Eastern and Western finals, and here's hoping they are 2 barnburners that go down to the last minute like the 2 semifinals did!

Actually it makes a blanket statement, which in the case of a screening call contradicts the dictionary definition of contact.
I can see that rule being clarified next year for that specific case, if in fact there's more people than just you complaining about the call.

I think Jake explained it correctly, that he survived contact with the ground, and the ball was pulled out afterwards. Even with the new rules I would still call it a catch. Just because calls were called "no catch" earlier in the season doesn't mean they were right and this was wrong. Refs have had trouble with the new rule all year and this was the one close one where they actually got it right.

I think on the cahoon catch, it clearly shows him hitting the ground, he is on his back and the WInnipeg player pulling it out. I think that one was a catch. The contact with the player didn't dislodge the ball, the ripping notion after he was on ground did.

In terms of the interference call it could have gone either way. Clearly when the ref threw the flag initially the ball was already way to far gone to catch it. Therefore no penality. But there was some earlier grabbing that could have been called. Either way these two plays didn't affect the final outcome.

No, not therefore no penality.
The rules say....On an uncatachable ball.....
Uncatachable is uncatchable. The is no level of uncatchable

Why would it be clarified next year when it has been in place for 3 years.

I agree it is a contratiction but it still stands as written, and it has been called that way in the past.