Explain THAT Flag please

Someone please explain to this long suffering CFL Fan the flag thrown by the goal line judge on the riders attempted field goal. The referee is watching the Argo returner and as the fumble occurs, the referee throws a flag. No riders were within 20 yards of the argo returner and the Head Referee later stated that there was only an unneccessary roughness infraction. Maybe there was, but that certainly wasn't what was called by the judge on the goal line watching the fumble. This play reminds me too much of the flag thrown to nullify the interception in the Als - Argo game a couple of weeks ago.
What is really going on?

Good question preds! The ref called the 2nd Rider coming in on the loose ball for roughing and on the replay he did come in a tad late and attempt to block the Argo off the ball---BUT THE FLAG WAS THROWN WAY BEFORE THAT. FOR WHAT???? THERE WAS CLEARLY NO INFRACTION WHEN THE FLAG WAS THROWN. IT IS A MYSTERY!

Does anybody have the video of this one?

... THE funniest flag of the night though was the one thrown in the end zone in the Lions vs. Bombers game that hit Barrin Simpson right in the head charging him with pass interference. it was as though the ref intended to throw the flag at his head and say "...GOTCHA!!!"

It was a strange play all around, with Levengston fumbling the kick and the video review of the play. I thought the replay could have went either way. The official must have seen that the Sask Olineman had the ball, and Levengston grabbed at it after the whistle blew.
As for the flag, the official behind Levengston must have seen the infraction by Abrou-Mecherek, its the only way to explain it. I guess that particular official has psychic ability, LOL.

Good one sambo!!! LOL!!!
Riders Rule(at least this week!!!)

RO posted it in this thread:

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=19106]http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpB ... ic&t=19106[/url]

This is how I see it. The flag was thrown because the ref though it was a no yards call. After the whistle was blown Abrou-Mecherek did commit an unnecessary roughness. Now! What the ref should has announced was

The flag was thrown for no-yards, however the Toronto player touched the ball and no-yards does not apply. We have a second penalty…Unnecessary roughness SSK number…

This would have eliminated all the confusion…That being said I believe this was a non -issue

Anyway here is the video

You really cant see Abrou-Mechrek in that play until the final few seconds to see where he committed the uncessary roughness, and that flag was thrown in he direction of Levengston and the Rider Olineman Smith, who recovered the ball. The official was looking in that direction and threw the flag. My guess would be that the flag was bothering that ref in some fashion, so he decided to throw it to feel more comfortable!

lol sambo!!!!!!!!!!

Well suprise suprise another bad call by the CFL officals. Number 42 clearly sees Leveingston fumble. So it is a free ball why the flag. Unless the infraction occured behind what the video shows but something tells me number 42 whats to be a star of the game.

I think you're bang on RO. I agree 100%.

The flag was supposed to be the blue bean bag to mark the point of recovery.

I think an important thing to point out is that the refs always have a little scrum to figure out the call, in simialar instances. The flag(thrown by official #42) was clearly thrown by mistake and he didnt have a second flag to throw for the unnecessary roughness call.

But what urks me is that really wasnt unnecessary roughness at all, the whistle was blown a split second before the infraction, making it perfectly ok for M. Abu-Mecherek to keep his man off the teamate who was fighting for the ball.

I think the ref's just wanted to look like they had a clue...a mistake is just a mistake but non-admittance of that mistake is just disgusting. Fire official number 42!!!!!(jokes)

In my honest opinion, Id rather a ref throw a flag then not throw it. But admit when ur wrong instead of making idiots out of CFL viewers.

Kel

I don't think the refs wanted to cover up the error in this case. I do believe the UR was a good call. Had this not been the case, I'm sure the refs would have said that there was no infraction on the play as they have done many times before

I respect that opinion. Yes, they do often go back and pick up the flag, but not all cases are as obvious as this one, watch the video again. I counted .9(point nine) of a second between the whistle and the hit. Now, at full speed tell me you could have done better to avoid the guy with when the whistle was blown???

Players make mistakes too, and USUALLY officials realize that. I can wrangle up a ton of video where QB's get hit after .9 of a second or recievers that go out of bounds and get hit and there is no call.

I will always give the officials a break because we're all human but the fact that another official(head Ref) didnt have the guts to challenge him was rediculous. Especially when they video reviewed the play. And yes, I realize you cant overturn a penalty call on the replay.

Kel

I don’t understand what you are getting at.
The challenge was for the fumble not the penalty. The flag, unlike the Mtl interception did not change the outcome of the play. The fumble was legitimately recovered by SSK and the refs did not need to…make something up. All they had to do was say there was no infraction and there would have been no problem!

Here are the facts. The official under the post threw his flag mistakenly and not his bean bag to mark the spot of recovery. Of course he saw Levingston touch the ball and it go forward. The UR was called by the umpire who was trailing the play. That makes two flags, the one in error (should have been the bean bag) and the UR.

I think ned is bang on here. Glen Suitor does raise an interesting question in that video. Who is considered the offensive team on a missed field goal when the fumble recovery is recovered simultaneously by members of both teams?

From the rulebook:
"When players of the opposite teams have possession of the ball, it shall
belong to the player who first gained possession and who has not lost
possession."

"If players of both teams legally gain possession of the ball simultaneously, it
shall belong to the team that last previously had possession."

"If a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either
team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession."