There was no such play. HAM never got called for DPI in this game.
HAM did challenge successfully for DPI when Cioffi gave Banks a nice hug before the ball arrived, in the end zone. (Not the same as the other DPI called by the officials on Cioffi in the end zone against Addison, challenged by OTT and overturned by the CC.)
The Cioffi-Banks call was fairly clear, so it’s hard to believe that is the CC call that ended your support for the CFL.
Never said it ended my “support for the CFL”. Do me the courtesy of reading my post before commenting on what I said.
As for the play, that was end and there was no “hug”. There was zero evidence of PI on that play and for the CC to over rule the on field officials without a shred of video evidence is absolutely horrendous. That was a phantom call. Two players running together going for a ball in the air will make contact, this is football not checkers, but only when one of those players is playing the man and not the ball is their PI of any kind. Both players went for the ball. That was a classic case of a coach fishing and he got the CC to bite at NOTHING.
Judgement calls should not be reviewable and coaches should NOT be allowed challenges.
Sorry, I re-read it, and technically you’re right. While your first sentence makes it sound like you are nearly done with the CFL, and the second (“this game”) could be read either way, you use of “a” rather than “the” in the third sentence says that it is only the current game and not all games that you are done with. I’m such a bonehead.
I will need to read your posts more carefully, as you suggest. Well, except for the ones where you get the team wrong (“PI against Cats”) on a play that seemed to have carried so much significance for you. (You’re welcome for the correction, BTW.)
“Without a shred of evidence” is very strong when a defender has his arms wrapped around the receiver as the ball arrives. Forde calls it a “little bear hug” and says he was surprised not to see the flag.
Not just mine, apparently. But yes, that’s my opinion based on my viewing of the replays. I can understand the onfield official getting it wrong, but I’m positive that the Command Centre got it right.
As for the earlier challenge by Hamilton that resulted in DPI against Ottawa, the Redblacks fans I was sitting with all couldn’t believe it wasn’t called by the official on the spot, even before seeing the replay. It was that obvious.
Take the Ti-Cat glasses off so you can look at it objectively. :
First of all “defender wraps both arms around the receiver”, while technically true is beyond deceiving. At no time did he have more than one hand behind Banks back, watch the video because that is a fact.
Second, both players are running into the goal with the RB leading; Banks ran into him which the video clearly shows so if there is PI it would be on Banks but even that would be an incredible stretch.
Thank you for providing the link to a video that proves the exact opposite of what you claim happened and clearly shows no PI by either player. You didn’t read and understand my post before responding with accusations that were factual errors so I’m not surprised you posted the video link without watching the video.
It wasn’t me who posted the video, but that’s beside the point.
I watched it again, and you are correct in a couple of your points. Cioffi was leading, although by less than half a step. At no time did Cioffi have both arms around Banks.
But … Cioffi first wrapped his left arm around Banks, slowing him down, while looking right at Banks and blocking him from turning towards the ball. He finally looked back for the ball, then wrapped his right arm around Banks. At no point did Cioffi make a play for the ball, instead using his body to box Banks out, preventing him from getting to the ball.
[b]RULE 6 - PASSING
SECTION 4 – FORWARD PASS
Article 9 – Interference By Both Teams After A Forward Pass Is Thrown
[/b](b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following shall apply:
(vii) It is pass interference by either team when a player physically contacts an opponent creating separation, redirects, restricts or impedes the opponent in a manner that is visually evident and materially affects the opponent’s opportunity to play the ball. A player who has gained position shall not be considered to have impeded or restricted the opponent in a prohibited manner [u]if all such actions are a bona fide effort to go to and play the ball. [/u]
Had Cioffi looked back and made a play for the ball, he wouldn't have been penalized.
As for why Banks wasn’t penalized for OPI, he was looking back for the ball, and trying to get to the spot to make the catch.
(ix) Any eligible receiver who makes contact, however severe, with one or more eligible opponents while looking for and making a genuine attempt to catch or bat a reachable ball will not be called for interference. It shall be ruled pass interference if a player “goes through? an opponent during an attempt to play the ball.
That last part about "'goes through' an opponent" I think applies to opponents who are also making a play on the ball, not to opponents who are deliberately impeding them. At least that's how I would interpret it, given rule (vii). I could be wrong.
I just watched the first replay that they showed in the broadcast, and what isn’t evident in the posted clip was that Cioffi pushed Banks away from the ball well before the ball arrives. It’s the view from the back of the endzone.