Command Center Stupidity

How ridiculous is the CFL becoming. After botching the game in Montreal on a play that meant the game, they now show the ultimate in ignorance by reviewing a meaningless play. The problem is after screwing up on Thursday, now we will be seeing reviews of every play.

By reviewing that play the CFL has pretty much admitted that they screwed up on Thursday!

Isn't that what people have been asking for ?

No, just a kneejerk reaction by the league, knowing they screwed up. Had the call been handle properly, we wouldn't be going through this now.

people will complain regardless of what happens.

Because obviously if they don't take a long time to review a play, even a play that only takes a few seconds to figure out, they can't be doing it right. :roll:

Agreed, reviewing that play today just made a mockery of the whole thing.

:thup:

Which review did you have an issue with in the game last night? The game log doesn't list any reviews in the last three minutes, and I'm having trouble with TSN's VOD, so I'm not sure if there were any. Or was it a challenge by one of the teams that you thought wasn't handled properly?

I have to admit that I thought the review official made the wrong call on one challenge, but I wasn't able to step through frame-by-frame like they can in the Control Centre, so I don't know for sure. Just curious if it's the same review.

The game was essentially over(second last play) and they reviewed the spotting of the ball on a turn over on downs by B.C. The Lions were stopped well short of the first down, basically a head scratcher as to why the review was called other than to make sure they didn't screw up again.

That explains why I missed it - I had stopped paying attention by then. And yes, it does seem a bit odd to review a play that obviously won't affect the outcome of the game, although it could affect the total points for and against for the season, which could come into play at the end of the season.

I'll have to try watching the play again (maybe VOD will work for me at some point?) to see if it made sense to review to spot of the ball. You may very well be right.

The TSN crew seemed to be at a loss to explain what they were reviewing. The ref had to explain at the end that it was for the spot of the ball, which seems an odd review as they never change where the ball is spotted, particularly when it is in the middle of the field as opposed to the end zone.

The call on the field was a turnover on downs, so it should have been obvious to the announcers what the review was for. Oh right, I forgot. This is TSN.

I definitely want to watch the play to see how close it was.

bitch bitch bitch... that seems to be all some of you ever do around here... :roll:

The crying and whining around here lately is ridiculous. The CFL does the best they can, they get most of the calls right. If people are that unhappy ...don't watch turn the channel and go away. I enjoy the CFL and all the quirkiness and sometimes odd calls. In a game with a million different movements and such, things will be interpenetrated differently by each individual. It's funny though, how the guys on the couch are so quick to judge and are the experts. But the officials are the one's putting themselves out there and doing their best. I'll go with their interpretation of the rules, on character alone, before some "expert" on his couch !

I finally was able to watch the play (quite a few stops and starts in the stream - there's a pill for that), and I have a few of comments.

First, the announcers seemed confused over why they would bother reviewing the play at all given the score. But because it was called a turnover, that prevented BC from continuing their drive, eliminating the possibility of them scoring. No effect on the outcome of this game, but as I mentioned before, pints for and against could come into play to break a tie at the end of the season. So it was important to get the call right.

Second, it looked to me to be pretty obvious that Harris was short of the first down marker, although the marker on that side of the field is not the official one, so hard to say. It also looked to me like the spot of the ball was pretty close to correct. But it needed to be reviewed.

Third, I don't understand why it took them as long as it did for the review. Probably because there were no cameras right on the first down line, so hard to judge the angles.

Bottom line? Meh.

Plays are reviewed on the basis of if they think the play needs a review to get the call right, not on the basis of the score.

People are really complaining about this? What a ****ing joke.

This coming from a guy who complains bitterly over the Player of the Week picks. :twisted:

You are entitled to your opinion, preferably without the editorial comments. The fact that people are talking about this is because there is controversy. The officials made a mistake (in my opinion) on Thursday and now are making a statement by blatantly erring on the side of caution. If the league truly felt that the correct call was made, there would be no need to make an adjustment.

If you don't like that people are complaining, don''t read it. You have the power to choose, don't belittle others. I would say complaining about others complaining is a far greater ****ing joke.

No, a couple of people whining about it doesn't make a controversy.

This didn't even have an impact on the game. So we've gone from complaining about actual blown calls, to complaining about correct calls that some people wanted a review on to make up for Edmonton's bad clock management last week, to now complaining about correct calls that got reviewed because you think the review was a waste of time?

People are supposed to take this seriously?

When the league officials make a decision or lack of a decision that impacts the outcome of a game, yes people are supposed to take it seriously.

Edmontons bad clock management notwithstanding, the review of a meaningless play during the Toronto/BC game shows that the league is making a knee-jerk reaction in reaction to what they know was a bad decision.