Makes me smile.

Oh man, i love this cause i really dont like him for some reason but i just realized that Chip Cox basically lost the game for the als by stupidly diving at the football for no reason and knocking it into the endzone on the missed field goal and taking a no yards penalty. They wouldve had that 1 point right cause banks wouldve conceded??

ps. I know this is kinda childish and the game doesnt come down to any one play but i really want him to see this and feel a little bad.

One of two potential outcomes was Banks conceding. The other could have been Banks grabbing the ball at the two and getting tackled, therefore giving the Cats terrible field position and, with the way the offense played up until the final drive and overtime, possibly giving the Als great field position on their next drive or two points on a conceded safety.

But having said that, if the Als get the one point and everything plays out the same, the Cats would have gone for two on their lead-taking TD late in the fourth.

I don't think Banks could have conceded the point. The ball bounced out of the end zone so he (or someone else) would have had to recover it there. At best we get a 5 yard no-yards call and start around the 7 or 8 yard line.

True, but I was basing the conceding outcome on the ball bouncing into the endzone. With the way the ball bounced, it was unlikely - sure looked to me like the ball was bouncing away from the endzone - but it was possible. The more likely outcome, as you pointed out, was getting the ball inside the 10.

Hey guys, From my perspective right behind the cats bench: Austin actually agreed to decline the no-yards and concede the single before the referees decided to change their mind and bring the ball out to the 25.
At the time, I was thinking that this was a case where you should not concede the single. Even if you got the ball on the 7 yard line, and made no first down, Bartel could easily punt (with that wind) out of field goal range. Anything over 25 yards into the wind was not field goal range.

That's because the actual ruling was that Cox fumbled the ball into the end-zone, where it was recovered by Banks. The no-yards call was the icing on the cake.

True, but I was basing the conceding outcome on the ball bouncing into the endzone. With the way the ball bounced, it was unlikely - sure looked to me like the ball was bouncing away from the endzone - but it was possible. The more likely outcome, as you pointed out, was getting the ball inside the 10.

Hey guys, From my perspective right behind the cats bench: Austin actually agreed to decline the no-yards and concede the single before the referees decided to change their mind and bring the ball out to the 25.
At the time, I was thinking that this was a case where you should not concede the single. Even if you got the ball on the 7 yard line, and made no first down, Bartel could easily punt (with that wind) out of field goal range. Anything over 25 yards into the wind was not field goal range.

My post starts here!

I seem to think that the refs on the field made the wrong call but because it was a scoring play it is automatically reviewed and our friend Jake Ireland back in Toronto who contacted the refs to correct the call. What I do not understand is how it was a fumble into the endzone? Cox should not have even touched the ball. By touching it, in my opinion it was an intentional no yards penalty so it should be a 15 yard penalty applied from the 25 yard line. But I guess if you take the penalty, you give them 1 point. Perhaps they were only going to make it a 5 yard penalty so we declined to save the point but this is not how it was described.

I'm also not sure how it was considered a fumble, since Cox never actually had possession. "Last touch" for possession only counts when you knock it out of bounds, but maybe there's some rule on a kick that I'm missing.
Also, by touching the ball, it was indeed a 15 yard intentional no yards. If we had taken the penalty we would have had it on around the 17 or 18, no point scored (penalty applied from where Cox touched it). Because of the "fumble into the end zone" ruling, declining gave us the CFL's equivalent to a touchback, with the ball on the 25.