In bounds or out?

Should this have been Hamiltons ball of Winnipegs?

I say it was out of bounds and Hamiltons ball,

I agree it was out of bounds and should have been Hamilton's ball. Is this not the play where they couldnt review it because of no audio?? Its a lame excuse, because you dont need audio to tell wether or not the ball gets touched by a Bomber before it goes out of bounds.

...the play was very close....and you have to have 'irrefutable' evidence...Barrin Simpson says he was in-bounds when he knocked the ball out would he lie...didn't make a difference to the out-come anyway...we got beat fair and square.... 8)

I would say out.

what I thought was funny with this play was how the 2 refs were arguing the fact.

the one in the pic above I believe had the better view not the other one who said
if reading lips " it is my call not yours"

In my opinion the two angles are very difficult to view conclusively whether the ball went out of bounds or not so in my opinion whether or not the ball went out of bounds the call wouldve stood because there is no conclusive evidence to overturn the play.

although you got to wonder if it was ruled winnipeg ball and there was a ref standing right on the sidelines near that play if he allowed it to be ruled winnipeg's ball then chances are it was the right call.

The only way it should have been ruled Winnipeg ball is this. The ball was out of bounds but had not touched the ground when the winnipeg player touched it. The winnipeg players feet and knees were in bound. So, if the rule parallels the rule for a reciever catching the ball, then its winnipeg ball. Otherwise, if it is a simple matter of, is the ball out of bounds, then it should clearly have been Hamilton ball.

Looking at the second picture it looks like Simpson was still in the air when he touched the ball. Not sure if the ball had already bounced out of bounds though. (Hard to tell from a single frame). If it had not already bounced out of bounds, then again it's hard to tell what part of Simpson hit the turf first, and where: in or out of bounds; from a single frame.

While I would like to say it was out of bounds, out of loyalty to my team, I can't with all honesty say that it was based on the above pictures and the replay shown last night. That doesn't mean that it wasn't out of bounds of course. Does anyone know how disagreements are settled between refs? Is it a seniority thing or what?

I think I have changed my mind!
The ball is inbounds untill it touches the ground and was still in the air when the Wpg player had touched it.
First down WPG!

What would be nice, actually really nice, would be if George Black (supervisor of officials) would comment (either here or elsewhere) what the decision would have been if the play had been properly reviewed. My thinking, against loyalty to my team, would be that the decision would be to uphold the on field ruling as the evidence was not overwhelmingly conclusive. (Again this doesn't mean that it wasn't out of bounds, only that there was not enough evidence to overturn the on field decision) This is against what Leif Petterson said last night, but hey, haven't those TSN turkeys been wrong before?

Based on the second photo, the ball was definetly inbounds.

simpson was definitely in bounds when he touched the ball. Look at his feet. His toes are definitely touching the ground and again Im fairly sure that the ball is only out of bounds once it either touches the ground outside the boundaries or if the player holding the ball steps on the sideline. simpson was in bounds when he touched the ball and it had not hit the ground yet so it should be winnipeg's ball (woot I was also the first person to say that winnipeg shouldve had the ball in the poll)

The Fact that they couldn't do the replay because of issues with the box is laughable enough!! Even the announcers for TSN commented on how this is not good for the CFL.

that ball was already out of bounds when Simpson hit it.

Insatnt replay is good if it's done right but if not it's a nightmare. Since the resources aren't there I say just scrap it

It isn't a question of whether the ball was in bounds or out, since it hadn't touched the ground. The question is was Simpson in bounds or out. It's not enough that his toes are in bounds...if any part of Barrin Simpson's anatomy touches any part of the white line, he is out of bounds, and as soon as he touches the ball, it is out of bounds as well, even if the ball itself was still in the field of play.

The still photos above aren't conclusive, and I doubt they would have found sufficient video evidence to overturn the call. But regardless, the fact that Hamilton was unable to challenge a call because of a technical problem at Winnipeg's stadium is ridiculous. I wonder how quickly that technical problem would have been resolved if the Bombers had wanted to challenge a call?

What do they need audio for anyway? The only time they really need that is if the whistle plays a factor in the outcome of the play, and it didn't here.

I would think they needed audio to direct the booth as to what they want to see! "forwards, backwards frame by frame" etc

It was out of bounds.

They should have those controls inside the box. Have the booth cue it up for them and allow them to control what they see themselves.

Frig, I have that much control over my VCR at home, and it didn't cost a million dollars to install it.

I agree!

In-bounds, no doubt in my mind.