CFL- CREATIVE OFFICIATING UPON FURTHER REVIEW!

:?: :oops: :roll: RE:RENEGADES-ARGOS Wednesday September 28, 2005. Boy oh boy. CFL Officials really love the attention. The creative replay review and fumble / and Touchdown reversal when there was no whistle really must be a new High or Low in their attempt to become credible. This was so bizarre that one simply cannot dream something a call like that up.

Let’s see:
a)There is not an officials’ replay booth.
b) There is no replay official.
c) There are no rules that allow for a replay review
This leads everyone to ask the question:
WHAT THE HELL HASPPENED THERE!? :twisted: :oops: :roll:

I would really love a debate on this one!

All nine teams must live by the same advantages and inconvenients. Replay isn't available for all. So it shouldn't be used, especially if it ain't allowed by rules. The refs made a bad call by not whistling right away. True. But that is the topic of another debate (that exists on here on a regular basis): ref training and experience.

The officials should have lived with the wrong call, as every team has to suffer them too from time to time and replays aren't available elsewhere.

The Cahoon fumble against Winnipeg was clearly not a fumble. He never had possession of the ball. But no replays were available and the Bombers benefitted big time of that mistake.

What happened last night showed the apostles of fairness failed their duties.

That was a fumble. John Avery fell on the Renegade defender and was not yet technically on the ground when the ball came out. The replay clearly shows that Avery was down, but he was down on top of another body when the ball came out which makes it a fumble that was called right in the first place. By the way, what the hell are the officials doing watching the TV Screen when they are actually supposed to concentrate on the field of play in the first place? Comedy was all around those guys!

this same topic is being talked about on the bad call on john avery non-fumble and was also talked about on ottawa is killing the argos.

I don't blame the Argos. They must have been embarrassed themselves on that Comedy routine that should come to a YUK YUKS near you.

we really don't know what happened , do we? Was there a REF conference that took time.......? Was the REF that made that didn't make the right call around the other REFS.......they were all confused and had to talk about it. AT LEAST THE CALL was the right one. :wink:

OMG, I'm listening to The Team1200, and a guy who claims to be a CFL referee and who knows the refs from last night's game claims, to the bemusement of Glen Kulka (whom he was talking to), that a whistle is not necessary to call a play dead. So this so-called ref claims that, quote, "a whistle is not required to call a play dead".
You should hear Glen Kulka, he's livid, stating that he was always taught to keep going until the whistle is blown.
Glen chewed him up and spit him out.
Un freaking believable. The CFL refs are a joke.

Nope. The call was not the right one! That was a fumble. John Avery fell on the Renegade defender and was not yet technically on the ground when the ball came out. The replay clearly shows that Avery was down, but he was down on top of another body when the ball came out which makes it a fumble that was called right in the first place. They reversed the right call and made it a wrong one.

Some of you seem to be missing the point. It is no longer relevant if it was a fumble or not.. The whistle was not blown.. The Gades player picked up the ball and ran for a touchdown. That SHOULD be the end of the story BUT... Lets watch the replay on the jumbotron a few times and reverse our decision. YOU CANT DO THAT... well.. I guess in the CFL you can??
I personally believe the player was down.. Thus it is not a fumble.. but that’s not the way it was called on the field. Part of the game.. Especially in the CFL is that you have to live with some bad decisions by the refs. I have been impressed lately that they get together and try to get the right call but in this case.. It was too late. And the method they used to change the call... Watching a replay that should not have been shown on the screen by CFL regulations.. Is just wrong! I understand you cannot show a play in replay on the screen until the following play is complete. The gang at the dome played it 25 times for all the refs to see. That influenced the decision. Someone needs to be suspended! Isn’t this the same ref that last year, the Gades wanted to decline a penalty in order to not give up a single point, but he decided he would not allow them, and cost the Gades a game?? He is incompetent!

we don't know what was in the refs mind , OR HOW THEY CAME UP WITH ....and his knees , both of them , were on the growd ,then the ball came out.

ARGOS WIN....

Apparently it is true. Or at least, they are consistent on that answer. The director of officiating, George Black, explained that after the Edmonton vs. Montreal game on July 8th. You know... when the time stopped at 0.2 second from the end, and Edmonton fans were whining about it.

He said that "playing to the whistle" is a coaching concept, and that, sometimes, plays stop when they meet requirements for dead ball, even if no whistling is heard. Like, if the ball carrier is down on the ground and is not attempting to gain more yardage, the ball is to be considered dead, even if refs wait for someone to touch him before the whistle is blown. That's why refs sometimes ask the timekeeper to add two seconds to the clock... when they waited to long to call the play dead.

That was a legitimate touchdown. Period. If what you guys say is true ABOUT NOT NEEDING A WHISTLE TO STOP A PLAY, then..... What constitutes a LATE HIT?

That was a legitimate touchdown. Period. If what you guys say is true ABOUT NOT NEEDING A WHISTLE TO STOP A PLAY, then..... What constitutes a LATE HIT, and how do you determine that a penalty is to be called for a late hit?

read this..........

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Football/2005/09/29/1240544-sun.html]http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Footba ... 4-sun.html[/url]

According to this THE REFS were already in a conference, WHEN OTTAWA came out to kick the extra point.

none of the REFS saw the call......... :smiley:

If the refs didn't see the call how did they reverse it. I agree with Banks on this one.

see : CFL rules for not seeing calls

THE REFS WERE RIGHT , AND THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT THE REFS WERE already IN CONFERENCE , THEM OTTAWA, came out to kick the extra point. :wink:

Can't find that rule, can you post it?

Huh? That's not new.

I don't have to........I believe what the......... OTTAWA COACH said. :lol: