I'm convinced that was a fumble

I watched the slow motion in frame by frame on my PVR and the ball was definitely moving in Whitaker's hands (even if he still had his fingers around it) before he hit the ground. I'm cheering for Montreal though so I'm not too upset. Feel sorry for Hamilton fans though.

I agree with you there...

Talk about the onesided reporting by TSN!

How about that? What appears to be the exact same play on the ensuing kickoff. It appeared to me that the ball was moving in Thigpen's arms before down by contact, but not quite free. Will it be ruled the same way?

And look, it was ruled the same way.

So much for conspiracy theories. . .

They had NO choice but to rule it that way MJ... none!

I wasn't trying to suggest any conspiracy theory. In my mind though, both plays looked to be fumbles. Especially since both times that was the on field call. If the ball is moving prior to, and then pops out as you hit the ground you don't have possession.

And yeah, if that second challenge was ruled any other way I would have been speechless. I've seen worse from the CFL command center though.

It should of ruled unconclusive and thus the play should of stood... I watched the game with an NFL fan and he honestly thought the game was fixed in Montreals favor.
Hard to blame him really...
If the ensuing challenge went the other way... It would of been the last CFL game that I ever watched.

should HAVE, should HAVE, not 'should of'

Anyway. . .

Then they did a pretty poor job of it, didn't they? Montreal lost.

Late 4th quarter. . . Montreal backed up in their own end; game tied; Als are second and five. Pass to Richardson, not complete, no pass interference call, so the Als have to punt.

Now, if there was really this nefarious conspiracy the officials to give the game to Montreal, they'd have called p.i. on that play thus giving the Als a first down, now wouldn't they?

Oh you mean when Richardson dove like some TiCat fan shot him from the grassy knoll??.. that PI non call??

Pretty pathetic use of the quote function MJ.. I really expected more from you... honestly!!

Perhaps you misunderstood me Half.

I was NOT saying that there should have been a p.i call on that play.

It was a correct non-call.

The point I was trying to make is that, IF the refs were trying to make the Als win, then they would have called p.i. on that play.

They were right not to, and it disproves any silly conspiracy theory espoused by BombsAway's NFL fan friend.

My apologies.. I did misunderstand the post!

Can we throw another grammar point at Bombs Away? It's inconclusive, not unconclusive.

Anyway...

Personally I didn't think it was a fumble on either play. It sure looked like the players had their hands on the ball both times. The command centre was correct IMO.

Some of the pass interferance calls in Montreal's favour was b.s but just like I said before the Ref can can only save your ass so many times,but not today friends,not today.Go Cats all the way! :smiley:

Yes, whatever the call was on the first one, the second one had to be the same. They were the same play. Either they were both the right call or they were both the wrong call, but at least it was called consistently.

I'll agree with this, the one in the 2nd quarter at 7:24 was BS. Thankfully Bratton still came up with it so it was a mute point, but that was a terrible PI call. Also the non-call late hit on Glenn that took him out of the game briefly.

The roughing the passer on AC by Hickman as well as both of the fumble calls all could have gone either way in my eyes.

I was at least 50 yards away from the play and I clearly saw the TiCats player grab Richardson jersey. I thought that Referees were closer than me!