Bloody stupid that just because two previous calls (that were overturned correctly) were challenged, the touchdown by Walker is unchallenable. When you're right, you should be right. Sounds like the CFL takes lesson from the Canadian Justice System.............
Would you expect any different from the No Clue Proulx Crew?
Personally, I think Proulx is one of the better refs in the game---better him than Steen or Ireland...
LOL, I'm plagerizing that one!!!!
the officiating in this game was appalling and the cfl needs to disipline this crew.it was a digrase to the league that the refs were trying to sway the outcome of this game. call it down the middle and let the players decide who wins.
I thought thats what the refs did this game (let the players decide who wins). It was a very physical game and I thought the refs let them play. All the plays that were challenged were very close plays and could have gone either way. The rules are the rules and it is unforunate that we were 1 challenge short on the no touchdown. I thought Proulx's crew did a good job this game even though the thought of him officiating a Rider game turns my stomache.
But my 2 cents is that if you challenge, and you're correct, you shouldn't be charged a challenge. 2 or 3 incorrect challenges, should then eliminate further challenges, but I feel you should be able to challenge all day long (correctly) if the officating is lousy. Which it is.....
Or they could get rid of replay challenges altogether? My preference!!!
If there were unlimited challenges, get ready for 4 and a half hour games…
I could see rewarding a team for 2 successful challenges by giving them a third. But beyond that, you guys are nuts!!
I hear ya Arius, but if they challenge correctly, and the delays cause 4 1/2 hour games (which I would still watch), then time to step up the quality of the officating.
The sad part is that they've shortened the bench as far as officiating crews for the second half of the season. so this means this is one of the better crews. really, that's just sad.
That game had absolutly terrible officiating. Correct me if I'm wrong but an illegal contact on a reciever penalty, if it is only taken half the distance to the goal is still a first down is it not? Not second and 3 or whatever they called it.
Rule 8 Section 4, Article 3
If the 10 yards put them past the 1st down marker (or goal line), then it is an automatic first down.
I don't remember the play before if Cates was tackled past the line of scrimage or not. If he was tackled for any kind of loss at all, it was the correct call. If he made any forward progress, it was another botched call.
The offense occurred on second down so it is second down over again. What other calls are you questioning. The 2 challenges that we won were so close that it was difficult to determine the correct outcome in slow motion frame by frame. I thought the officiating was good for a change as much as I dislike Proulx and his crew.
Well it was probably about second and 8 or 9 seeing as it was 2nd and 3 after the penalty.
It was 2nd & 10. Ball about the 15yd line. Penalty resulted in a 7 yd gain, and now 2nd & 3.
From the rule book.
SECTION 4 – RESTRICTIONS NEAR A GOAL LINE
Article 1 – Within 30 Yards Before Goal Line
If a distance penalty is applied within 30 yards of the offending team’s Goal Line,
it shall not exceed one half the distance between the point from where the penalty
is applied and said Goal Line. In no case shall the ball be scrimmaged within the
It's RULE 8, Section 4, Article 3 that's in question.
Article 3 - Yards Gained or Goal Line Reached Where an unrestricted penalty would have resulted in yards gained or Goal Line reached by Team A, a first down shall be awarded.As I said, purolator play-by-play shows the PREVIOUS play as Wes Cates run (0 yards). (2nd and 10 from the 14).
If he was actually stopped for a loss, it was the correct call. If he made any progress, it was a botched call. The refs usually get things like this right.
The 10 yard penalty had to put them past the first down marker for it to be a first down.
It was however, the first time I ever remember seeing a half the distance penalty not be a first down.
It just doesn't seem fair that we end up 2nd and 3 rather than 2nd and inches. I figured that if they had to reduce the penalty because it was half the distance, it would be an automatic first down because that just seems to be fair.
I suppose Cates could have lost half a yard and it still would have been declared 2nd & 10 and no first down after the penalty. I don't remember the Cates play or what happened on 1st down.