Guess he had it coming. :roll:
As much as that was a bad call and I was criticing him at the time, not sure if it warranted him losing his job. Maybe a suspension would have been more fitting.
Certainly was a wild and crazy finish like i never want to see again except between other teams.
In my far too many years of watching football that had to be the worst call I have ever seen. However, the more polished way of handling it would have been to say the official has been reassigned and then quietly release him in the off-season. I
m sure his fellow officials can not be pleased with how the league handled it - one strike and youre out.
To compound matters Higgins certainly shouldn`t have gone on record as saying justice prevailed in the end. This opens a whole can of worms next time there is an apparent make-up call by an official.http://www.winnipegsun.com/2011/10/04/black-mark-on-cfl
Bomber fans are being idiotic. Higgins never said he wanted even-up calls or that he was favoring Montreal to win. He merely opined that justice was done, because there was no way Winnipeg should even have been in a position to win the game except for that awful 'PI' call. And the goal-line sneaks were by no means conclusive. If myopic homer Winnipeg fans want to induce bias or unprofessionalism from Higgins's comments, let 'em. Must be a Swaggerville thing. :roll: :lol:
As much as I hate to admit it, the Als benefitted from a couple of suspect PI calls against the Bombers earlier in the game.
Shhhhh. Not so loud. go als go. lol.
Gotta disagree. Suber had one borderline call on him but got away with blatant PI at other times. And we were penalized 18 times for 205 yards versus Winnipeg's 16 times for 156 yards. The officiating was bad for both sides, but I'd say we came out on the short end of it, considering we had more penalties, more penalty yardage, and easily the most egregious call of the game (PI on Laybourn) go against us at a critical time.
No question the last call against Laybourn was brutal. Just saying there were at least 2 that went against the Bombers that were "suspect" at best.
IMO, there are waaaaaay too many flags flying in the CFL! Every other play a drive is halted for offside... Now, officials have to call obvious infractions of the rules, especially where unneccessary roughness, or even dirty play is concerned.
I have never been impressed with officiating in the CFL and I guess never will be. I do realize, however, that they have a thankless job and I'm sure their families love them, but no matter what you do as an official, someone isn't going to be happy. One of the problems, I suggest, is the low wages paid; it's hard to attract top-quality officials. Video replay, however, has helped. It is always more bitter when you lose because of a blown call by an official. While extreme, this measure sends a clear message to all officials that there could be repercussions. The official in question had probably made other bad calls in the past and this was the last straw.
Its cause the players and even some coordinators don't know the friggin rules or ignore them . How many times we have to see
Receivers not reporting
Should be like in Soccer, first no yards for example 5 yards, second time 10 yards... same for pass interference, offside and the like. If you have to throw 7 flags for pass interference and 6 flags for no yards... your penalties are worth taking...
So yeah you end up with 34 penalties because most of those the team chose to take them. Change the weight of the punishment and penalties will go way down.
Well, at least the no-yards thing was somewhat cleaned up by a rule change. That is, 5 yards if the ball is rolling around and the receiver fields it late - 5 yards for encroachment. The big one, 15 yards, is for a receiver waiting for the ball to come down. This one makes sense to avoid serious injury to the receiver. I would even add on an unneccessary roughness and even a game misconduct where a member of the ST is obviously not regarding the restraining zone and intent on injuring the player while the ball is in the air and the receiver is helpless.
But I'm not talking about those penalties. There have been, for a number of years, very dubious PI and holding calls, both of which are drive stoppers and change the natural ebb and flow of the game. Now, there are cases where both PI and holding are painfully obvious; these have to be called. In many other cases, however, the PI was suspect. Is incidental contact allowed? If so, how much and by whom? The CFL rule book states:
SECTION 1 – DEFINITION
Interference takes place when a player obstructs, blocks, screens or charges
towards an opponent, with or without direct contact, in such a manner that prevents
the opponent’s approach to the ball carrier, potential ball carrier or the ball. Blocking
is identified as the act of creating interference with contact.
To me "with or without contact" makes it clear that you are not allowed to touch an eligible receiver before he has made contact with the ball. "Incidental contact", therefore, becomes very hard to define and is not always judged uniformly from game to game. This needs to be better defined.