1st- How did Winnipeg challenge the no yards call on the kick return??? you cant challenge a penelty and there was 2 penetys on that play against Winnipeg.
2nd -Winnipeg used a challenge at 2:56 left in the game. I thought the CFL has a rule you cant challenge under 3 mins in the game only the refs can call a challenge or a review a play under 3 mins. :roll:
How would that be "Winnipeg breaking the rules"?
If anything it would be incompetent reffing.
BTW, the challenge flag thrown at 2:56 was for a play that ended at 3:25. Wonder if that is why it was allowed.
But, it was all good.
As I asked in another thread, there were 2 other questionable "non" calls that perhaps should have been made against Winnipeg (not that it mattered the way the TiCtas played but I do believe it speaks to consistency, or lack of, in officiating).
One was when the Bombers huddled in the east end zone (close to the TiCat bench) and had 13 men in the huddle for a couple of seconds before one of the players left. The TiCat bench must have been on the ref because he made some motion to explain why there was no call. Only guess in that he hadn't blown the whistle to start the clock.
Second was when Stala went down (after having the ball ripped from a TiCats hands) and he was on his way to the bench. He collapsed on the field and laid flat. One of the Bomber receivers (#84?) came over and flipped Stala over as if to say "quit faking it and get up".
Imagine if Stala had had a spinal or neck injury. Notice the care (and immobilizing of the head) by the training staff when Kelly went down.
Why didn't the receiver get penalized for unsportsman like conduct? It could have been a potential devastating stunt.
I don't believe Stala was the same after that "fake" injury as he seemed to hobble chasing after the Bomber DB during the TD interception return.
cause the ticats were saints out there 
the game wasnt won or lost due to penalties, your offence threw 5 interceptions....
I think the exact interpretation is that you can’t challenge a call after the three minute warning. The warning takes effect after the play is finished, and until the challenge is resolved, the play is not over. That play was started before the three-minute mark, and it should be completed like any other play up to that point.
At least, that’s how I would take it. Hate to say it, but I would have been disappointed if they weren’t allowed to challenge. The rules change in the final three minutes, and a single play should not be subject to two different sets of rules.
Correct. Just looked it up. Here are the rules:
All Instant Replay reviews prior to the three-minute warning of the fourth quarter will be initiated by the head coach. All reviews after the three-minute warning of the fourth quarter will be initiated by the Replay Official.[url=http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rule_Book_2011.pdf]http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PD ... k_2011.pdf[/url]
Here’s the rule that came into play on this play.
The review showed that Thigpen hadn’t touched the ball before the Winnipeg player entered the five-yard zone, so the no-yards penalty still applied.
Interesting rule interpretation question. If the review had shown Thigpen had touched the ball early, would the unnecessary roughness penalty have been overturned as well? After all, the penalty was only called because the Winnipeg player nailed Thigpen after illegally entering the five-yard zone. Without the no-yards call, it would have been a legal hit. My guess is that the UR penalty could not have been overturned, only the no-yards call.