GDT: BC @ Winnipeg

I can guarantee you that if that was a qb, the whistle would have been called even quicker than this one was, which basically means the ball was dead in this case and would have been deader if it was a qb. There are basically two sets of rules in football with a back having possession of the ball, really. Now let's talk about what is a catch and what isn't, sorry I'll defer to the NFL on that one. :wink:

I've seen many more blatant screwups by refs than this play, in all sorts of leagues and sports. This screwup, and it was a screwup IMHO albeit the video evidence wasn't what anyone could call 100 percent conclusive to be overturned, would be an average one across the board. No one can deny that. You gotta love hockey and the hooking call, I still to this day don't know how exactly a hooking call is called, is it one tap, two taps, or a tap with a little pull or two taps with no pull.... Who the f knows. :?

Whether or not the whistle blew is no longer important
They changed the rule a few years back that the ball must be immediately recovered. Even if a whistle is blown, the command center can give possession to either team if it was recovered immediately. Only the return yards would not count

Got a link to the statement by the league? I would like to read it. Also I don't know why they just don't announce that there was not indisputable evidence. It would prevent the "Cover your ass" excuse later on

The important link is to the rulebook, not some media thingy. If anyone can find this in the rulebook.... :?

Find what?

Find what ro,yup you, asks:

They changed the rule a few years back that the ball must be immediately recovered. Even if a whistle is blown, the command center can give possession to either team if it was recovered immediately. Only the return yards would not count

Got a link to the statement by the league? I would like to read it.


It's either in the rule book or it isn't. No need for any statement by the league on some media release which is by definition not primary information but secondary information.

Oh, BTW, I'm too lazy to look things up in the rule book. I'll leave that up to the much smarter, not as lazy and more well read CFL fans here than myself. Ok, getting ready for the big debate tonight starting in a few minutes. This should be interesting! :o

I don't have a direct link to the CFL's statement, only to a reporter's article that quotes it.

“The replay official ruled there was no indisputable visual evidence to change the call made on the field,? said Paulo Senra, director of communications. “It could not be determined from the angles provided if the player had completely lost possession of the ball before the player’s backside had touched the ground.?
[url]http://3downnation.com/2016/10/08/cfl-issues-explanation-controversial-replay-review-call/[/url]

As for the rule, here is the relevant Instant Replay Approved Ruling from the 2013 CFL Rule Book (latest I have found to download):

[b]INSTANT REPLAY[/b] [b]APPROVED RULINGS[/b] [b][u]RUNNING PLAYS[/u][/b] [b]I.R.A.R. 4 Fumble before runner down by contact[/b] Team A ball carrier fumbles the ball with Team B recovering. Officials rule down by contact at A's 30 yard line. Replay shows that the ball was loose before the runner was down. [b][u]RULING[/u][/b] Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.

Not a good night for the country squire Rod Black.

Black is either way ahead on the play or way behind - rarely in the moment.

Also, still can't figure out when he's gotta toss it over to his color man, Duane Forde. Lots of dead space in first half, no real analysis. When Forde gets paralyzed Rod tries to fill in with some really rotten color.

Most wrong calls (guesses) on 1st downs. That's the Rod Black Story!

Edwards again, mmmm at least this time he gave a name...But again I think the ref should announce that there was no indisputable evidence to overturn the call

Here is a link to the 2016 rule book

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/2016-cfl-rule-book-and-facts-figures-records/]http://www.cfl.ca/2016-cfl-rule-book-an ... s-records/[/url]

I'm not saying anything. I'm asking questions.... Harris's forward progress was stopped. How long before the whistle is blown ?

I agree with your assertion and your specific question. Aye, that's the rub!

The weight of video evidence seems to tilt in BC's favour - however the call on the field is always key to these reviews. The field call was no fumble - and the only way they could have made that call is by virtue of forward progress halted.

The replay clearly showed Harris being held up by BC tacklers - and 1 BC guy working (successfully) to rip the ball out of Harris's hands. I think everyone agrees Harris's ass or knees hadn't touched ground. He seemed to be quite involved in the struggle - as if he was trying to make a valiant attempt at first down, when his 100% responsibility was BALL SECURITY.

There is no signal in CFL as to whether a ball carrier is down - or if he's still in play. I think the review process determined he was fully tied up and finished as far as progress was concerned. They probably applied a silent count in their own minds - ie. 1 Thousand, 2 Thousand, etc. before deciding Harris was stopped - although Harris didn't help his cause by continuing to squirm while being held up and giving up 2 hand control of the ball.

I posted before, but I'll paraphrase my prior comments that deciding to hand off to Harris was a dumb coaching decision, hardly saved much time vs. the traditional way of having a QB take the ball, kill a second or two and kneel in concession. O'Shea had Harris run the identical play - on the next play after the controversy but Harris was smart to go down early before BC had a chance to hold him up and go for another strip!

Thanks. And downloaded. :slight_smile:

So the only difference is the qualifier that the ball has to be recovered immediately.

[b]INSTANT REPLAY[/b] [b]APPROVED RULINGS[/b] [b][u]RUNNING PLAYS[/u][/b] [b]I.R.A.R. 4 Fumble before runner down by contact[/b] Team A ball carrier fumbles the ball with Team B recovering. Officials rule down by contact at A's 30 yard line. Replay shows that the ball was loose before the runner was down. [b][u]RULING[/u][/b] Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance [i]if they immediately recover the ball[/i].

From what I could see, Harris was still moving forward. Hard to tell, though. Perhaps it has more to do with whether the ball carrier is still struggling to move forward?

Exactly and he was stopped and still struggling BUT he was facing backwards struggling and not advancing at all. At some point the refs have to determine when it's over... I'm not arguing, just wondering.

This is a critical point. At some point the officials do decide the play is done and only then the whistle comes...but sometimes there's a delay of a second or two. But, that doesn't mean the play wasn't dead. The whistle doesn't end the play in the officials' minds it's a signal to the players to ease up. As well, the officials can only blow the whistle if they can see the ball and sometimes that takes a bit of time too.

As far as the replay is concerned, the only view we seemed to have on TV didn't show much of the ball carrier's body so we'd have no idea if any other part of him had touched the turf. If the command centre didn't have any other views to the contrary, of course they can't change the call on the field.

There were four separate angles shown on the broadcast. One didn't show the contact with the field, another (from the end zone) didn't show the ball. But the other two, the live view and the last replay shown, showed both the ball and the contact. I just wish I had the capability to capture a short video clip from either my PVR or the TSN VOD. Not sure individual screen captures would do this one justice.