Cats Should File A Complaint With The League

Instant Replay Manual
CFL Publications
Overview
"...An officiating decision made on the field will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence that the call should be changed."

The ruling on the field for Bolden's "interception" was incomplete.
I'm not sure what the referee got a look at under the tent but the replays on CBC did not show any "indiputable visual evidence" that the call should have been changed.
The ball disappeared from view on all angles.
One angle showed the Line Judge two yards from the play.
He was on the side of the player where the ball was and he called the play incomplete.

What a joke!!!

BUT...
Jason Armstead never should have taken the ball out of the endzone and put us into that situation.

Good effort by the D, they should have let Williams throw more in the fourth quarter and that first FG attempt off the upright was the difference in the game (apart from what I percieve to be totally amateurish refereeing - they can't even apply the rules correctly)

We should of had a touchdown instead of a 23+/- yard field goal as well.

There was no replay that showed the ball at all, I was yelling at the tv that he overturned it. Plus, the ref that made the call was 4 feet away from the Bomber and had a perfect view. Unbelievable! We got robbed on that call.

Also, that was definitely a bad spot on Richie Williams' 3rd down gamble. When I saw it in live action, I thought he was short. When Taaffe challenged, and I saw it again, I thought it would be close. But, they marked it at least 2 feet short of where Richie ended up, and he was only short by about 1 foot.

Dusty, it's tough to overturn a call in a pile because it's so hard to say EXACTLY where he was downed. Which just adds more fuel to the fire on the interception.

If there's not 100% proof that he picked it you can't change the call!!!

Read the second line and #2 from the CFL rules

An officiating decision made on the field will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence that the call should be changed.

Once an official has whistled a play dead, Team B (the defence) cannot gain possession of the ball, unless otherwise specified in this manual

REVIEWABLE PLAYS - GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The instant replay system will cover a variety of plays in three main areas:

  1. possession rulings in the end zone; forward progress with respect to first down or goal line; and end zone plays involving the sideline in goal and dead ball line

  2. passing plays – pass complete or incomplete. If a pass is ruled incomplete, then the defence cannot get possession of the ball

  3. other detectable situations, such as a ball carrier ruled down by contact, and a fumble which occurred prior to down by contact

You are right completely, the argument isnt whether or not he caught the ball, its whether or not there was an angle that showed it.

Bush league officiating.

Au contraire.

There was no angle that showed the ball come out...therefore, it must have been a catch.

I didn't like the call, but I would have been screaming blue murder if it was one of our guys that made that pick.

Typical zebra inconsistency and the shaft.

  1. As other have said, poor spot on the Williams 3rd down gamble. Ball spotted with hardly any advance at all. Replays clearly shows QB did advance, getting close to the 55 yd line (1st down territory). Yet challenge maintains the call.

  2. Bombers interception, no camera angles show ball DID NOT hit the ground yet the head ref reverses the call.

At least the refs are being consistent, shafting us right to the end of the season.

:thdn: :x

I'm sorry hendy77 - I disagree - that's not how the rule is intended to be used.
There was no indisputable visual evidence to change the call made on the field - there was no angle that showed the ball come out or not come out...therefore, the ruling on the field stands.

That’s not how the challenge is supposed to work.

The original call was “no catch” (ball hit the ground) from an official 10 feet from the play and on the “ball” side of the players body so the referee, on review, has to have indisputable proof the ball did not hit the ground.

It’s not up to him to think “I didn’t see it dropped, and I can’t tell from camera angles it was dropped, so he must have caught it.”

Unless he had a different view than the 4 shown on TV (and those are the ones used… no special/extra cameras available), he blew the challenge in reversing the original call.

I hope Cats raise hell, for all the good it will do considering all the other lame excuses and coverups of blown calls and officiating incompetence all season from CFL head office.

8) Exactly !!! The linesman standing 3 feet away from the play with a completely unobstructed view of the entire play, ruled that it was incomplete. No replays showed that it hit the ground because of the camera angles. So now the referee makes his own officiating partner look like an incompetent fool by over ruling him !!!

This kind of crap is just so bush league that it almost wants to make you give up on the CFL completely !!!!! :thdn:

Maybe all the refs should discuss the call first then watch the replay.Theres 3 teams on the field HOME and VISITER and the REFS

Question: When the refs go under the hood, do they just see replays, or do they get the TV coverage with the announcers audio?

I only ask because as mentioned, there was NO angle that proved he made the interception. However, the announcers were going bananas talking about what a great interception it was. Could the ref have been persuaded by this commentary?

And if the refs do get to hear audio, why why WHY??? They should only get to see replays (with no audio) under the hood.

Very true!! I coudln’t believe both announcers were talking about it as an interception right after Kahari said the ref who made the call was 4 yards away. There was no angle shown on CBC that indicated the ball didn’t touch the ground. BUSH LEAAGUEEE CALL!!! I also noticed how excited Kahari got in the second half with Edwards and a lot of other winnipeg plays. He seemed to talk about the Blue Bummers a lot more than the Cats.

i disagree with all of you i was sitting in the corner right where the int happened Juran made a great effort to get his hands under the ball to make the catch and thats what the refs seen and made the right call

Sure he made a great effort. However, the ref, who Kahari said was 4 yards from the play, made the call as an incomplete pass. So it must have touched the ground at some point before he regained control. The replays show his body shielding the actual view of the ball from all angles. So how can an on feild call be overturned? ? ? BUSSSSH LEAAGEEE REFFFS AND ANNOUNCER

Sorry - I disagree. I was sitting right in front of CBC that replayed the "phantom interception" at least 6 times.
None of the angles showed the ball definitively staying off the ground.
One angle showed the ref clearly and quickly calling incomplete.
When they showed the play in actual speed you could hardly tell where the ball was.
If you could make that call from your seat - call the Commish becasue the league could use refs with eyes like yours.

:)

All the replays CBC showed had the view of the ball blocked by Bolden's body as it was near the ground.
The only angle that had a view of the ball was the original "live" sideline angle, which CBC never replayed.
That's the only angle the ref could have possibly used to overturn the call. He may have been given that one, but we don't know that.

hmm well i dont know what you were looking at because i got to see a few replays of it on tv and even then it looked like a catch