The challenged call on Breaux was bogus to the extreme.

Does Jake Ireland forget that the defender has every right to the football field that the receiver does? That the receiver initiated contacted TO BREAUX'S FACEMASK (illegal use of hands, if not facemasking)? That the side judge ruled the pass uncatchable? That the receiver SLIPPED AS HE WAS PUSHING AGAINST BREAUX and EMBELLISHED his tumble?

THIS is why the DPI challenge needs to be reviewed and tweaked during the off-season.

The most glaring issue here is the linesman were overheard telling Prouxl that that ball was absolutely un-catchable!

The ball was thrown out of bounds, and was therefore uncatchable.

Carter initiated contact on Breaux with hands to the face.

Carter stepped out of bounds before the push by Breaux.

This was NOT offensive pass interference.

Fortunately, it (and the other blatantly bad call that Harris was down by contact) didn't matter.

Nothing matters to this team! The city of Toronto is against them, the league is against them, the refs, the media, TSN nobody gives them any respect! They still keep swimming against the river and winning!!!

It was quite apparent on TV that the announcer named Black was in favor of Montreal.

Not to mention, neither Eric Harris' knees nor elbow touched the ground in the replay I saw after his interception. But, as we know Jake Ireland.... Ugh!

So, I just arrived home and started reading my fellow ticat fan posts. After reading this one, I asked my wife. (who watched the game at home on tv ) how the announcer's were. She reply's "O by God, that Black guy is in love with Tasker. He must have mention that his dad played in the NFL like 10 times."
Too funny!

No doubt he likes Tasker, or at least his Dad, they even had snipets to show of plays by Dad Tasker.

From the replay I saw on the big screen at the stadium, Harris' elbow was down.

The big errors, from where I sat, were the Gaydosh fumble recovery and the Collaros fumble. It looked to me like the ball was coming out before Crompton was down and that Collaros' shin was on the ground before the ball was coming out. Obviously none of the calls mattered, but I still don't like to see the wrong calls made (if they were incorrect; they may have been called correctly, they just looked like the wrong calls from my seat at Tim Horton's Field).

Blogskee Wee Wee

From the replays shown on TV it looked like the calls were right on both of the Collaros and Crompton fumbles. The call on the Collaros play was very close with the ball just starting to come out before his knee was down - could see his shin I don't think.

I do agree with the call on Breaux which gifted the Larks with a FD and 5 yards (OC called on Carter on the same play which offset the yardage) instead of them having to punt. The ball was clearly going out of bounds and so DPI shouldn't have even been considered and wasn't until Higgins challenged it.

Saw in a tweet on the Scratching Post that Austin chose not to challenge the possible missed DPI in the end zone (forget the players involved)- probably thought he wouldn't get a favourable response and went for a FG instead. Fortunately it didn't matter.

What REALLY bothered me was that it looked like Banks face mask was pulled on THREE plays in a row - a punt return and two receptions immediately afterwards and there was NO flag. Larks seem to get away with stuff like that too often. I know we got away with one two on the Crompton fumble which was clear on the replay but to miss three plays like that IN A ROW seems like pretty poor officiating!

On the Collaros fumble, from what I saw on TV, it looked to me like the ball came loose at about the same time that his shin was down. I think the command centre came to that "no conclusive evidence to overturn the call" conclusion. It was very close, but the offence was able to finish what it stated after the Breaux interception.

As Tabbiefanmcb said, there were missed facemasking calls as well. And as Drew Edwards tweeted here:

This has not been a well officiated #CFL game. At. All.
[url=https://twitter.com/scratchingpost/status/536619558782910464]https://twitter.com/scratchingpost/stat ... 8782910464[/url]

That has been re-tweeted 29 times so far.

The fumble was caused by a hit on a sliding QB. I can see not calling a personal foul, but I can't see ruling it a fumble.

Just watching the game, what a brutal call!

That one actually worked out to our advantage because we had to go farther to score, and used up more time against the wind.

and that leads to a couple more questions. A sliding qb is basically giving himself up. When they start their slide the plays done and he shouldn't of been hit let alone been able to fumble.

Agreed. What crap!

Stubber and Ryan got it right. Zac is clearly sliding ,i.e. giving himself up on the play. I guess Jake missed that one too. Kinda like the Flutie fumble in the 96 Grey Cup in Hamilton. God only knows who will be the ref in the 2014 Cup but we can depend on Jake to mess it up. :roll: :roll:

Pat Lynch(the old guy who recalls Ralph Goldston being tossed for throwing a punch in a Grey Cup game but I guess Carter of the Als is special)

The slide came late. By the same logic you also feel that it should have been a penalty for a late hit? At the time i was mad but watching it again the Montreal player came in and hit the ball at the exact perfect time. Bad luck and ZC has to hang onto the football better.

Good point...it's always been an unwritten rule that if a quarterback is going down at all the play is pretty well done and he is down...the hit was not necessary....even my Argo friend that watched the game with me had to laugh at the one-sided ref's during the game(it was hard for him to feel sorry for Hamilton)...he said if the game is anywhere close on Sunday that it will go to Calgary...as I heard earlier in the year is that Hamilton should be happy and content with their new stadium and has no business taking a run at the Cup??? "This came from a media source but I can't remember where"...I know...plain stupid but it almost looks like it's playing out via the ref's or trying damn hard??? "Good Luck...Cheers"

From the CFL Rulebook:

Section 4 - Dead Ball (pg 13)

When the quarterback, in possession of the ball, dives in a feet first sliding motion, the ball shall be declared dead at the point it was held when another part of the quarterback’s body, other than hands or feet, touch the ground

So, the question is if a part of Zach's body, other than hands or feet, touched the ground prior to the ball coming out.

Further ...

Section 2 - Major Fouls - Article 4 - Roughing The Passer (pg 55)

(e) When the quarterback slides feet first, all unnecessary contact must be avoided. The slide must be done in a timely manner to allow the defence to avoid such contact.

So, the question is if Zach's slide was in a timely manner to allow the defence to avoid such contact.

I don't have the game on PVR anymore ... so I'll leave it to those that do to review.