LaPolice, players fined for criticizing officials

I can't imagine too many people in Winnipeg will like this. :lol:

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=335676

It was expected. There's already talk amongst some Bomber fans of setting up collection spots at the next home game to help the players pay the fines. :smiley:

I have heard the donations will go to a charity, the CNIB. :lol:

I still think the fumble/non-fumble was the worst call I have ever seen.. As I said before, not a bomber fan, but it was almost like the officials wanted the Al's to win... Horribly horribly officiated game..
But thats just my opinion..

The league is a lot better at dishing out fines for pointing out bad calls then it is at disciplining dirty players.

no kidding..

....the players and LaPolice spoke their mind.....most likely what a lot of other players and coaches would've liked to have done this year , with regard to some of the atrocious calls :wink:

They should be fined for playing crappy football and then whining about it in addition to the fine for venting on the ref's.

Kind of like the NBA. Stern will fine every coach and player in the league before he admits the officials made a mistake. :lol:

When the players and coaches start talking about officiating thats a good indicator there is a problem in this league. Not something that happens often like a blindside Jiminez cut block.

Its funny. I was at a WHL game last night, and a guy behind me yells out at the ref, “If you were any worse, you’d be doing CFL games!”

Not really relevant, but I thought it was pretty funny nonetheless. What was less funny was just how many people nodded their heads in agreement with the concept. In fact, general conversation in the section stayed on that topic for some time. It was less than positive for the CFL.

The biggest problem for the CFL is perception. At this point, the officials could have several perfect weeks in a row, and people (I’m talking about general population and casual fans, not the hard-core types that we find most often on boards) would still malign the league’s refs. It’s almost become ingrained in our collective psyche, like losing has for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Yes, officiating needs to improve. But even if they succeed in that, it won’t help the casual fan’s perception of the CFL until some serious image management is conducted by the League Office.

If the improvement is short term you are right. If the improvement is long term it will have an impact. Image management will backfire in a big way if the on field efficiency is not improved upon. Fix the problem, then attempt the PR campaign.

I saw the play in question for the first time yesterday. I am left with one conclusion, Jake must not have taken his dementia pills, that was clearly a completed pass and a fumble.

I by the way am not a Bomber supporter in any way shape or form. In fact as an Eskimo fan, this call actually helps Edmonton as well as B.C.

now I know the refs got it right

You have obviously not read any of the other threads about the play. When the play was ruled as an incomplete pass on the field the only ruling the Command Centre could make was whether it was a complete or incomplete pass. The review rules state that they could not rule it a fumble if they overturned the call on the field. The rule needs to be changed - the Command Centre called the play according to the rules. And I am a Bomber fan.

Now I'm positive they got it wrong.

First time. I can't recall the game, it was last year though. They ruled a fumble then award the ball to the defense despite the fact the whistle had already gone. Love the excuse though, it is an original one for Higgins. This is the rule, we finally learned how to apply it properly and thats why it appears we made the wrong call. :roll:

That is a completely different scenario from what happened in Winnipeg. This is the approved ruling when a player is ruled to be down by contact before fumbling but it is overturned:

A.R. Fumble before runner down by contact 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. RULING Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.
If Team B recovers the ball immediately then they are awarded the ball even if it is after the whistle.

This is the approved ruling which applied to the Bombers/Als game:

A.R. Pass ruled incomplete Team first and ten at their 38 yard line throws a forward pass to A77, who catches the ball, is hit immediately and fumbles the ball, which is recovered by Team B. Officials rule the pass incomplete. RULING Reviewable play. However, if pass ruled complete possession retained by Team A at point of completion as official’s whistle terminated play. Team B cannot be awarded the ball because the play was terminated by Official’s whistle prior to the recovery.

But didn't Higgins say something to the effect that it's not about the letter of the rule it is about doing the right thing, at half time of the Edmonton, TO game?

Higgins has problems communicating IMO. There was no reason for him to say the stuff he did about the call in that game. The challenge was the player was down by contact and the review found that he was down by contact before scoring. Andre Proulx didn't give the best explanation on the field. If Higgins had just said Proulx misspoke then I doubt there would have been any further questions.