CFL Officiating

What is happening with the officiating again. Are they out of their minds. Yes we deserved to lose but it could have been a lot closer if Higgins had been able to challenge the Fantuz fumble and the call in the enzone about the rider being down on contact was bogus. Come on CFL get your act together. :twisted:

...you can't challenge a incomplete call...end of story...no whining allowed...

And, the interception in the endzone was a dead play, because the officials blew the play down. ANd you can clearly here the whistle.

I think the officiating has been good this season in most games. You can notice improvments.

Look there is no excuses the Stamps deserved this fate. Talking about what ifs does not change the fact the Stampeders played probably the worst game in years. I am not taking away the fact the Riders wanted not only to rub the faces of the stamps into their new turf but stomp on them afterwards. Yes there were bad calls but the out come would not have changed.

They ruled it incomplete but later they made it complete did they not? But who cares thats move on to the next game this one I would rather forget but I am sure the rider fans will remind us. :lol: :lol: :lol: Rember 1989 green fans.

I think you can challenge whether a pass is incomplete or not…from where I was sitting it looked like a completion, and a fumble.
I will watch the video of it later and see what is there.

Regarding the one in the endzone, that is a prime example as to why even allowing that type of play to be reviewed is stupid.
The fact is, the whistle went. It should be irrelevent whether he was actually down or not once the whistle goes.

Yeah, that one was confusing, why review if the whistle blew it down?????

Refs have been decent this season so far. Yes, they have missed a few calls but an improvement so far and i hope it continues.

After reviewing this play, the play stood as called, so the officials got the call right. The replay did what it was designed to do, help officials make the right call.

I thought the Fantuz play was a fumble as well, the officials were out to lunch on that call. The fref ended up giving him the reception,so it should have been reviewed at that point.

For some reason the refs told Higgins he couldnt
review it. Personally i believe all plays should be reviewable.

Nobodies to upset about it, hopefully they correct it for next week when a bad call might matter.

From what I read on GSG and RF sites the ref just had a quick whistle on the Fantuz fumble. The whistle blew before anyone recovered the fumble, a mistake on the officials.

Someone also stated you should still be able to challenge a play after the whistle if it's obvious that one team is about to recover a fumble.

I agree as well that all plays should be reviewable, and the first one should have been.
Anyway for what it is worth, here are the 2 plays in question!

Click on them


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/th_VTS_04_0_NEW.jpg


http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/th_VTS_05_1_NEW.jpg

The first one is still confusing. The endzone interception you could clearly hear the whistle, so Calgary wouldn't have gotten the ball back anyways, the ref just screwed up in allowing a challenge at all.

I'm sure ro1313 is the replay official! LOL

Heres a thought about the Fantuzzi fumble......Is it possible that forward progress was stopped before the fumble? I don't know what the criteria is for replay, but if they rulled forward progress stopped and had a whistle to stop it, then, like the whistle in the end zone, it couldn't be turned over?

Just food for discussion, I may be totally all wrong here.

Maybe, but the play in the end-zone was reviewed even thought there was a whistle, A ref told Higgens that the fumble was not reviewable.

While the angle is hard to tell on the second video, if the Marc touched him as he was grabbing the ball. The other angle they had shown from the end zone might have been better.

In terms of the first one, while it is difficult to say, it is clear, his free hand was on the ground prior to the ball coming out. The question would be and we will never know is if the rev thought the ball had come out after and therefore was a result of contact with the ground.

The refs looked really stupid on the one call
in the endzone saying he was touched going
down. If he saw anyone getting touched, he
better clean his glasses. Just call it like
we all saw it, play was whistled down. Right
or wrong thats what happened, dont justify
it with something that didnt occur.

The penalty that hurt the most was getting our
nose tackle kicked out in the first quarter.
Supposedly he kicked someone, wasnt caught on
camera.

I don't believe that the hand touching the ground constitutes down by contact. Many times we see a player get knocked off balance and place his hand on the ground and the play is never stopped

Finally watched the video of the game...

The hand touching down certainly had nothing to do with it. By definition, a player is only considered down when a part of the body other than his hands or feet contact the ground. In fact it was putting his hand down that kept him from being down(he kept his balance for another second), which is why that play was 100% a reviewable play, and if they had reviewed it, it was a fumble--Calgary ball.
And as it was only a 17 point lead, with still 25 minutes left, a big play on defence could have turned the game around. It is baffling why the refs told Higgins he could not even review that play.
Terrible call by the refs.

The endzone play, for my money, he wasn't touched. Unless the refs had another angle from behind the play showing that Bo did indeed touch him. But from the angle I saw, it was possible, though unlikely that he was touched, therefore we are left with the standard "inconclusive evidence".
But the whole point here, is, it was reviewed. If the refs had ruled he was not touched, therefore not down by contact, are they telling us that it would have been Calgary ball at the 5 yard line?
That's nuts!!
Clearly the whistle had gone and Johnson actually tosses the ball aside as opposed to fumbling it, or having it knocked loose.
So what could possibly be the purpose of reviewing that play?

Anyway, more proof as to why video replay sucks!!