CFL admits to 2 blown calls costing us the game

CFL admits it blew key calls in Ticats loss to Redblacks

[b]The CFL has acknowledged its officials blew two separate calls on a key play in Sunday’s game between the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and Ottawa Redblacks.

With just under five minutes to play in the fourth quarter and Ottawa leading by six, Ticat defensive back Brandon Stewart intercepted Redblacks’ quarterback Henry Burris and returned it for a touchdown. But officials called two penalties, an illegal block on Hamilton linebacker Simoni Lawrence and unnecessary roughness on defensive back Craig Butler.

So instead of 13-12 lead, the Ticats were forced to scrimmage at their own 45 yard line. They ultimately lost 12-6.

CFL vice-president of officiating Glen Johnson says he’s reviewed the play and determined that neither flag should have been thrown.

“Both of the penalties on that play were incorrect,? Johnson said. “Both of those calls don’t meet the standard that we define for those types of penalties.?

Butler was penalized for a “tourist hit,? or contact on a player that is not involved in the play. But Johnson said the receiver in question was still chasing Stewart when he was levelled by Butler with a legal block.

“A player that gets hit needs to have stopped playing and put themselves in a position where they shouldn’t expect to be hit,? Johnson said. “In this case, the man continued to play and he was pursuing the ball carrier.?

Lawrence was penalized for blocking an Ottawa player below the waist, something which is illegal after a turnover has occurred.

“The official had a bad angle on the play and assumed something happened based on the way the play finished,? Johnson said. “But it clearly wasn’t contact below the waist.?

The officials who threw the flags, umpire Patrick MacArthur and field judge Bryan Taylor, will see their ratings affected by the missed calls and that could impact playoff assignments, Johnson said.

“We had guys on that crew who ranked at or near the top for their position because we knew it had playoff implications,? Johnson said. “Both guys are disappointed in themselves and they are good, solid officials who had an error in judgment.?

Ticat CEO Scott Mitchell wouldn’t address the specific calls from Sunday’s game but said he remains convinced that expanded replay is something the league should be considering.

“Overall, I think the officiating in this league is very good but we’re always focussed on how we can make the game better,? Mitchell said. “Our position would be to continue use technology and replay to help the officials make accurate calls.?

The CFL expanded replay before this season to include pass interference and Mitchell said that’s a trend that should continue.

“Despite the fact that we’ve added the number of things available for replay review, the length of games has actually gone down this year,? Mitchell said. “There are ways that you can increase the amount of football that’s challengeable and we think it’s better for everyone if we allow the officials to be as accurate as possible.?

Johnson didn’t want to speculate on whether expanded replay would have helped in this particular case but said the play will be a talking point in the off-season.

“The rules committee process has just begun for 2016 and on that docket is how do we expand the use of replay to help in situations like this,? Johnson said. “We’ll use this play and others from throughout the season to see whether replay could have helped.?

There is, however, no recourse for the Ticats, who must now beat the Redblacks by six points or more in next Saturday’s rematch in Ottawa to win first place in the East Division.

Notes: Johnson also clarified that the first quarter hit by Lawrence on Burris that sparked so much controversy was indeed within the rulebook. “That was a legal hit by the standard we have for roughing the passer,? Johnson said. “When the passer is on the run and is not in the passing position he can be tackled low. We treat him just like we would any other ball carrier.?… the CFL has also reviewed the fourth quarter hit by Ottawa linebacker David Hinds on Ticat quarterback Jeff Mathews and determined there will be no supplementary discipline. Hinds was flagged for roughing the passer on the play, which left Mathews with a concussion and will force him to miss Saturday’s re-match in Ottawa… after watching the ball from his first pro touchdown pass sail into the stands on Oct. 9 – courtesy of an over-exuberant Luke Tasker – Ticat quarterback Jeff Mathews got it back on Wednesday. Lifelong Ticat fan Tonya Ness, who caught the ball, returned it to Tasker in exchange for another game ball signed by several players and other Ticat gear. “I knew it was important to him so it was the right thing to do to give it back,? Ness said.[/b]

2015 CFL Zebras blow The big one they are terrible :thdn: maybe the new rule changes have made their job that much harder :roll:

And is this a big surprise considering who the Ref was for that game.

Not sure that it cost us the game, because they go on to say:

"The CFL has also reviewed the fourth quarter hit by Ottawa linebacker David Hinds on Ticat quarterback Jeff Mathews and determined there will be no supplementary discipline. Hinds was flagged for roughing the passer on the play"

It turns out it was a legal sack and The Ticats would have had to kick on 3rd down but were given a first down on a blown call, we would have had to kick into that strong wind and Ottawa would have had got the ball back in excellent field position.

I don't see where it says the hit was legal. It just said there will be no supplementary discipline, which I interpret that the penalty for roughing the passer was sufficent punishment. The league did not say no penalty should have been called.

Read it over again Jim and this time take off yer Red n Black coloured glasses. Nowhere does it say in that statement that the refs got it wrong in that call against Hinds. It states NO supplementary discipline will be levied against him, nothing about it not being an illegal hit. It's rather obvious to everybody Jim that your pom poms are Red and Black and not Gold n Black. Not to mention that you are probably the head of the Henry Burris Official Fan Club. Why not just admit it.....Your a REDBLACKS fan masquerading as a Ti-Cat fan. Believe me Jimbo your not fooling anyone in here as to where your true allegiance falls.

Simoni Lawrence said the officials "in this league are just not good enough." For that, he got fined. "Not good enough!" They have hit the absolute of incompetence! Simoni predicted that the refs would be targeting him in Ottawa this Saturday. Well my friend, they didn't wait that long. Prouxl and his bumbling crew decided at half-time that there was a neon orange X on your back for the rest of the game. They decided that they'd take Craig Butler (3 days of film study and they failed to come up with any evidence of what he did) down with you on what would have been Brandon Stewart's game-winning touchdown.

Do the math, instead of being down 6, they're winning by 1, the call cost the game, no way around it. Neither team played well and the offense sucked, but despite playing poorly, this game was a win for the tiger cats with correct officiating.

God don't add further replay...its slowed the game down now to where it is at times unwatchable....just get, train , or find better officials ( one's that realize that they're not the stars of the game and nobody's come to see them.) Really don't know what the answer is but I don't think it's technology unless they can somehow implement it in a way that it doesn't slow the game down any further.

I'm very impressed with Glen Johnson, publicly. admitting these errors, and the league for (I'm sure it has) backing him on the admission. It makes me feel better about the Cats performance in that game and should help motivate them for the rematch. Other than that, to me, this is issue spilt milk.

Oh boy, BIGCAT is right - everyone really is against us.

So ...

  1. Simoni is right about the officiating, but is fined for saying so.

  2. Officials were wrong, and are 'downgraded'. No fines or suspensions. If this crew is at or near the top of their positions, who in the name of all that is holy, is near the bottom? CNIB?

  3. Simoni's hit is not only legal, it is well within the rules. No injury occurs but Burris and TSN crew continue to rant and whine about what might have happened. No sanctions.

  4. Hind's hit is illegal, Mathews is injured and out for at least one game. Luckily for Jeff I suppose, unlike Hank, he has no children to feed. So far, no word from Hank on how he will ensure that a player like Hinds "has no place in the game?"
    Again, no sanctions to Hinds.

Who exactly is the 'victim' here? Besides fairness, truth and dignity?

What the heck are you talking about Slimjim? The call cost us the game! How is scoring more than the other team not winning? And how is taking away that score not losing?

I won't go on about how you are wrong slimshady, I feel the others have done a fantastic job pointing that out but I will ask Who's this "us" you are referring too?

he, himself, and him

LOL It's gotta be, or slimstick forgot this wasn't the Ottawa WHINY HO'S (grover) message board?

When they deem "no supplementary discipline" then they are not saying that the call was wrong - because it wasn't - it was a bit late - but obviously they don't think it was excessive enough to warrant a fine. I'm not sure that a concussed Jeff Mathews would agree. It looked almost as bad as the one on Zach last season by Willis that put him out for several games and for which Willis WAS fined.
By my count we should have won the game by 4 as they also blew the fumble that was charged to Jeff instead of calling it an incomplete pass. ANY shots I've seen of that play indicate his arm in a forward motion when the ball was knocked out. Ottawa was awarded the ball in excellent FP and went on to score a FG. It should have been a continuation of a scoring drive for the Ticats.

I think now everyone can understand Austin's post-game rage.

Note that it's not the arm that has to be moving forward, but the ball. Most angles were inconclusive, with only one angle conclusively showing the ball moving forward before coming loose - the reverse angle that was shown very late. Not sure if the Command Centre has access to angles that haven't been broadcast or not - something in the back of my mind tells me that they use recordings of the broadcast rather than on-demand direct feeds from the TSN booth, but I could definitely be wrong on that. But if so, that angle might not have been available for the review, which would explain the otherwise inexplicable ruling.