Once again, CFL Ref’s almost cost the Cats the game, Andre Prix and his team of so called Pro Ref’s, Austin was furious as were many fans including myself, I have said it all along and yet some fans love to stick up for the ref’s, leave the poor ref’s alone, they do a great job, yah right, they STINK, I like to call it what it is!
Congratulations Tiger-Cats on overcoming adversity and bad calls and Winning against the Al’s and taking home field in two weeks time for the Eastern Semi-Final Game, hopefully the CFL will send us some good ref’s for that game.
EAT EM RAW TIGER-CATS!!
** I’ve taken the liberty of improving the title to this thread, while you are welcome to discuss anything you want in these forums, they are for the amusement of our fans. One of the things we don’t encourage is any post or thread that discourages our fans from following our league and our team, so blanket insults are not ok. **
That rule is nuts, but I think there were some blatant missed calls, particularly of the PI variety. The hold on Fantuz by Parker was crystal clear and no one called that!
Oski Wee Wee,
True…The rule needs to be changed…
And the ref’s missed a few calls…Including at least two illegal blocks on us that I saw…
It’s not bias,guys…They’re just bad…
All words quoted here are absolutely true. But, among the numerous missed calls, against both teams, by the Proulx crew, certainly the one that most likely would have changed the outcome of he game was Murray contacting Whyte on his FG attempt which Banks returned for the go ahead TD. All together now … Merci Monsieur Proulx.
Can someone explain to us mere mortals why Hamilton did not have posession after the fumble?
I believe Austin won his challenge, that the ball was fumbled, but the recovery, which occurred some seconds after the whistle did not count as is was not “an immediate recovery.” When Sutton fumbled, Johnson bent over to pick it up, at about the same time the whistle blew, but had it knocked out of his hands by an incoming, diving for the ball, Alouette. Had that not occurred, Johnson IMHO would have accomplished the required “immediate recovery” after the whistle.
Can someone explain to us mere mortals why Hamilton did not have possession after the fumble?
The instant replay approved ruling states (under a fumble by a QB, not by a runner or pass receiver, but whatever) that a fumble recovery on a reviewed fumble can only be given if it is immediately recovered. While Johnson went for the ball immediately (or at least immediately enough in my books), he did not recover it immediately as it bounced away from him. Players from both teams then tried to recover it, and eventually, Isaac ended up with the ball. So technically, the ball was not immediately recovered, and therefore the turnover could not be awarded.
Basically, burned by a technicality. Fortunately, it didn’t hurt us after Banks’s punt return.
I was not very happy with the call at the time, but it looked to me like the team turned it up a notch after seeing Austin's reaction to the call. Maybe the ruling that wasn't really was the TSN turning point.
I was not very happy with the call at the time, but it looked to me like the team turned it up a notch after seeing Austin’s reaction to the call. Maybe the ruling that wasn’t really was the TSN turning point.
Lots of lousy calls both ways. On that really odd play* there was no call on an obvious and extended hold on our player (Issacs?) who was rushing the Smith and in the clear. Smith would never have even gotten the pass off if not for the hold.
*Even with the explanations here I still don't get the fumble ruling.
That call was awful, maybe the next step is going to be to have whistles that transmit a time stamp to master control. Also this is the second time a potential game changing play was taken away from Hamilton because the refs blew the play dead too early, like that returnable convert in Moncton.
Austin was right to be pissed, because the ref got it wrong, control ruled he was wrong but even despite him being wrong he still killed the play. The Ref blew that play dead too early, he initially flagged the play as incomplete in error (don't ask me why, as the Montreal player clearly had possession for a few steps) he then ruled it a catch, he then got challenged and it was proven to be a fumble, and then the ref gets to say "Oh...but I blew it dead anyways."
Rule 7 Section 2 Article 3 identifies the Roughing the Kicker as:
“Unnecessary Roughness against the punter, kicker or the ball holder on a place kick.?
"Contact with the kicking leg, before it returns to the ground, should result in the application of a Contacting the Kicker penalty, unless the contact was severe in nature (in which case Roughing the Kicker would be applied)."