Ham/BC Game ref screw up

Everyone's up in arms about the EE/SSK call. The Tor/Cal call how about the fumble that BC had in Ham. It was clear on the replay that the reciever had posession as the same thing in TO. Both challenged both held up when they should have been turn over calls. The refs made bad calls this past weekend and the director of officiating is backing his refs. Too bad the Tor/Stamps and Ham/BC calls were bad calls.
At least admit the mistakes made refs and director of officating. I would have more respect for you then.
At least Ron Lancaster threw the challenge flag a second time to challenge the challenge ruling.

Killic

I agree instead of looking at fixing this problems George hides in his office making up excuses for the bad calls. Why not learn from these mistakes? By making excuses for his refs will not make the refs get better now will it George! Just maybe the cFL needs a change at George's job he sure has not done what he stated "improved" the reffing. We have talked all season long many fans have voiced their concerns (yes I stood up for the refs as well) but with having the ability to reveiw these plays is it not suppose to correct the wrongs. Well George I think you need to do something and fast or leave.

I didn't recall which play you were talking about....until you mentioned Ronny trying to challenge the challenge!
Not only was that very funny, but I don't blame Ron at all.
That was a far worse call than the one in TO that everyone is griping about.

I'm glad others brought this up, so I can discuss it without looking like I'm griping because my team lost.

I sit at the opposite end of the stadium from the video board, and while it looked like a catch and a fumble to me, my eyes aren't good enough to cry foul from that distance. But the ruling was that there was "no evidence" that the player caught the ball and fumbled. Even I could see that from the angle they showed it would have been clear one way or the other. To say there is no evidence when at least one angle offered a clear view is to say "we are disregarding the evidence before us."

After the review, they showed the replay on the screen, and we were all yelling for Lancaster to throw the flag again, knowing full well it would not be allowed. But by doing so, he made his point.

The video replay rule requires that there be clear evidence to overturn a call. Since whether there was possesion or not (control of the football) is often a judgement call, as it was in this case, exactly what kind of evidence would be needed to overrule? The "no evidence" does not mean there was nothing to view, only that the evidence was insufficient to conclusively overrule the decision on the field.

What time of the game did that happen?
Does anyone remember?

It was in the second quarter. I believe about mid point but not sure of when in the 2nd quarter. Do you have the game on tape? If someone hasd a clip of this I would love to see it again so I can get a better view of it. I say it on the as the play happened and on Tiger Vision but forgot to tape the game. I was also wondering if anyone heard the TV commentators talk about this.

I have an idea, I'll pay the 6.00 bucks for the game on webcast, PM ro1313 the name and password used so he can take a look at the play in question.

sound good everyone?

no cause I already have the game.
You can sent me the 6 bucks though

nice try :wink:, I was hoping to be able to see the game after you were done with it.

I remember that play, and I too thought the ref screwed Hamilton on that one. While I don't believe it would have made a difference, it was a horrible call.

but again when did it happen?

I can post it here

It was between 6:29 left in second quarter and 4:59 left in second quarter. It was the play right after 6:29 left in the second according to CFL play by play live.

2 56 HAM H39 1/10 J. LUMSDEN Run (1 yds), Tackle: T. WILLIAMS b[/b]
2 55 BC B46 3/5 P. MCCALLUM Punt H31 (33 yds), D. FOWLKES Punt Return (8 yds), J. POTTINGER Special Teams Tackle
PENALTY B.C.: J. POTTINGER No Yards - Declined
2 54 BC B46 2/5 B. PIERCE Incomplete Pass intended for P. JACKSON Tackle: R. COX
HAMILTON Challenge, claiming the reciever had control of the ball and then fumbled. The ruling on the field stands.

2 53 BC B41 1/10 J. SMITH Run (5 yds), Tackle: J. ARMOUR b[/b]

Hope that helps because I would love to see it again.

Ok Ill look for it

Ok I found it Ill try to post it tonight

ro, you should be typing a resume to George Black. I'm sure you could make the instant replay crew!

Interesting though

You can't overturn that anyway cause the whistle was blown. That's why they let the last play go in the Esks/Riders game, because they know if he was down they could just review and overturn it, where as if they rule him down but then it's ruled that he wasn't down via replay, they can't do anything cause there was nothing that developed after that in order for them to overturn to.

Obviously you can or they never would have reviewed it. We've already been through this with the Holmes fumble in toronto.
Plus I don't think the whistle actually blew until just as Cody was picking up the fumble.

Ya he fumbled that , but watching on TV , they analzyed it. They figured that the call went the way it did because the whistle had been blown when he hit the ground ending the play.
Having said that , what is with all our regulars suddenly whining about all the reffing after putting down other posters for doing just this after all this time???????