Doug Berry Blew It

OK RW05.
Even if every Rider fan across the country says “you are right, it was not a catch” It wont make any difference… Berry did not challenge and the game is over.

Anyone who now tries to call the game tainted is the one who is looking for excuses.

I assume you are talking about the play where KJ was stopped and the spot was overturn on replay.

You cannot challange the spot of the origional line of scrimage. You can only challange the spot on third down. If he was unsatsified with the placement, he had to have challanged it 3 plays earlier.

As for the firstdown line moving backwards, it was constant. In the first pick,for the second down measurement, the stick is on the outside of the 10 yard line. The second pic is the measurement for the third down and the stick is still outside the 10. In the replay announcement the ref ruled the ball had broken the plain of the "major line" therefor it was a first down

Sorry papa but blaming Black or any of the refs for that TD is just wrong.

We all saw the play and no-one here even questioned it until almost 2 weeks later.
The refs saw a bang bang play,
The players saw a bang bang play
The coaches on the field and in the booth saw a bang bang play.
We saw a bang bang play and we were all fine with it. Its only 2 weeks later where inconclusive video is shown that the people who had no problem before, now criticized the refs over it.

Again, we all agreed 2 weeks ago, we lost out right to complain about the reffing 2 weeks ago as well

I hear through a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend that a few years back that the parents of Brett Favre thought about maybe/potentially/hypothetically moving to a Canadian City and that maybe/potentially/hypothetically he would have played in the CFL for that team. However hypothetically/maybe/potentially they watched a movie called Canadian Bacon that night in the hotel and fled back to the USA. Now of course this is all hypothetical and may or may not have even a shred of truth, but shouldn't we find out what city that they were maybe/hypothetically/potentially they were thinking of? Surley if he maybe/hypothetically/potentially played for them they would have had a 10 year cup dynasty and that team and there fans surly deserve to maybehypotheticallypotentially have history record that they could have won?
All kidding aside - at this point the what if's are of no value.

It doesn’t look like he had it to me but it’s irrelevant at this point.

Bad calls are made in every game and it’s just something we have to live with.

…sorry ro…but you will notice the disclaimer ‘could be’ in my post…i don’t usually get too upset about calls or non-calls by the officials during the season…they usually even out…i would however, always expect ‘top-of-the-line’ officiating in a Grey Cup game…did we get it?’’’’'i think each fan has their opinion on that one…Did Black get canned because of it.???personally i don’t think so…rather a culmination of ‘contentious officiating’ through-out the year…anyway just my thoughts… :wink:

I know you said "could be" but I see no fault in the officiating in the cup what so ever. The reply got the call right and as I said about the Pick for a TD. The refs at the time called what they saw and no-one on the field or on the forum questioned it at the time.
I believe Black's contract was not renewed as opposed to him being fired.....
Not the same in my books even though it is the same result

I agree about the challange
As for the ball bouncing.....
I dont agree,
His arm is under the ball and it never bounced.....The tip "MAY" have touched the ground but it didnt bounce

I thought so too ro, but here is a video that shows the ball did bounce, and Berry should have challenged the call:

Sorry but I gotta disagree yet again. I just watched it again & his arm was under the ball the whole time. Like RO said the tip "MAY" have touched the ground but even if the tip touched the ground the ball was still between his arm & his body the whole time. It did not pop out... never. He had control of the ball, it is between his arm & body.

Here's another angle. A what if angle.

Lets say that the challenge flag was thrown & the touchdown was negated. How many threads of how many pages long would this discussion be?

I for one would be livid.
But on the other hand look at all the fodder that situation would create.

LOL I can see now, lets see if I can guess.


One more thing, if you say that the ball bounced off the ground. Where? Can you please provide a still of this?
Just because you can not see his arm does not mean its not there. It got squished between the ball & the ground, it is at that point where it appears that the tip may have touched the ground. BIG DEAL! Do you really think that is conclusive evidence?

I guess we are watching different replays then, bohdon. I'm a Rider fan myself, but it does look like the ball bounces off the turf. Who knows how the refs would have ruled on it? If you want things to balance out, on the Armstrong TD, a Bomber receiver looked to be offside on the play, but no call.

Just to reiterate what I said earlier.
The ball clearly touches the ground.
I don't see how anyone can argue that point if they actually watch all the replays available.
And most of the year, that play, had it been challenged, likely would have been overturned.
however the refs have been thoroughly inconsistant when reviewing similar plays.

The rule, as it was changed this year, to allow interpretation of the so-called "bang bang" play, says the player must have control AND SURVIVE CONTACT.
He clearly has control of the ball while in midair.
And he clearly survives contact regardless of whether the ball touches the ground when he impacts the ground.
Had the ball actually come loose, it would have been an incompletion, not a fumble.
But as he catches the ball, and then impacts the ground, maintaining possession, I don't believe it should/would be overturned upon review.

The question is not "did the ball contact the ground?", but rather "did contact with the ground cause the ball to come loose?"
And I do not believe the evidence is conclusive that it did.



Rule 1 Section 3 defines possession -

* “Possession means having the ball firmly held in hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under the body.?

Rule 6 Section 4 Article 6 (e) states that a pass shall be incomplete, if -

* “While in midair a receiver of either team who has firm control of the ball, but loses possession of the ball when that player’s feet or other part of the body hits the ground, with or without contact by an opponent.?

On what is generally referred to as a “bang–bang? play, there are several elements involved in determining whether the pass is to be ruled complete or incomplete.

Typical “bang-bang? plays are:

(a) When a receiver is attempting to catch a pass and either gets contacted quickly by an opponent; or

(b) When a receiver is attempting to catch a pass and falls or is driven to the ground quickly;

* .

For a forward pass to be ruled complete on a bang–bang play, the following needs to occur.

  1. The player must catch the ball and have it firmly controlled. Control in the air does not equal possession.

2) Possession occurs after he survives contact with an opponent and / or the ground.

FOR 2007

The Catch / No Catch on a “bang–bang? play will be ruled as follows:

For a pass to be ruled complete, the receiver must catch the ball, and have it firmly controlled.

If the ball is quickly jarred loose by contact with an opponent and / or the ground, preventing the player from achieving possession, the pass will be declared incomplete.

The receiver must retain control after “bang-bang? contact to confirm possession.

If a player catches a pass near a sideline, and because of contact by an opponent he cannot get a foot down in bounds (called a Force Out), he must still retain control of the ball once he comes to the ground out of bounds, to confirm possession in order for the pass to be ruled complete.

Note: The old myth that the ground cannot cause a fumble is not completely true.

  1. If a ball carrier goes to the ground without contact, the ground can cause a fumble

  2. If a ball carrier goes to the ground after contact by an opponent, he should be ruled down by contact with no fumble.

  3. In the process of catching a pass before possession has been achieved, if the receiver goes to the ground, the ground can cause an incomplete pass.

I suspect on replay, if this camera angle was available (and it is possible it wasn't because it didn't wasn't shown on CBC), the call may have been overturned. But there again that would be up to ref and Black to determine.

I suspect this game didn't change outcome of the game. But rather is just one of the plays that will live on for years. For Bomber fans it will be the big what if play. This is one of those plays similar to the one where Flutie was 3 or 4 yards over the line scrimmage when he threw the touchdown. It happened...but didn't get call.

In terms of Black leaving the head of officiating, I suspect it was a mutual thing. That position has been a thankless job all year and Daly didn't help take any heat of him.

Bottom line, the Bombers didn't lose this game because of this play. They lost it because the riders outplayed them all game long.

Theres only one thing left to do....

Replay the Grey Cup game.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

So the Rider fans don't think I'm picking on them, lets replay it at Taylor field, lets say on Sunday December 23. Since George Black is gone, we'll make ro1313 the replay official for that game.

:wink: :wink:

So the Bomber fans don't think I'm stacking the odds in favour of the Riders, we'll put in Saskatchewan's favourite Referee, Andre Proulx into the game. :twisted: :twisted:

Man oh man, I should run for Commisioner next time it comes up! :lol: :lol: :lol: