There’s a school of thought among Tiger-Cat fans that CFL refs are, for some mysterious unexplained reason, always against us. People seem to notice bad calls that go against us, ignore the ones that work in our favour, and reach the conclusion that the world (and in paricular Jake Ireland) is out to get us.
I’ve never subscribed to that theory, largely because it’s ridiculous. As evidence, I will point out that both Printers TDs last night were probably awarded in error. Close calls to be sure, but my gut (and the replays) tell me that we got away with a couple there. If those had been Kerry Joseph plays, I can only imagine what the reaction would be from Ticat fans.
I’ll take the points and the win, but let’s try to keep some perspective next time a call doesn’t go our way.
I think the officials made the right call on Printers TD's. Sure he crawled over on the first one but he was untouched so he wasn't down by contact. That's only in the College game where if you touch down a knee the play is dead. On the second TD the ball broke the goal line plane IMO, and that's all that matters. Hamilton won the game because they were the better team last night, not because of any referee calls. And when they lose its because they are not the better team.
That’s funny…I have no opinion about the call because from the 57 different angles shown on TSN, you can’t see a thing! There is no way to know if it was in fact a TD, nor can you tell when he fumbled the ball. “Inconclusive” is right so I don’t know how you can have the opinion that is was a fumble for sure.
Apparently the official who called it a TD (who was standing two feet from the play mind you) was mistaken? Even if you were at the game, there is no way you could’ve seen the play better than the line judges that both called it a TD.
I’m not saying it was a TD for sure because I have no idea. But for you to say “in your opinion it was a fumble”…based on what? I really want to know. Just a hunch?
I don't really agree. From the angle on TSN (freeze frame), Casey was lying on the ground (in his sliding motion), the ball hadn't crossed the line and he had an Argos player's hand on his thigh. I think if Stubler challenged it would have been reversed but the Ticats still would've had two cracks from the one-yard line.
On this one, the Cats got a break with the initial call on the field.
I'm not saying it was a TD for sure because I have no idea. But for you to say "in your opinion it was a fumble"....based on what? I really want to know. Just a hunch?
Probably based on the replay tsn showed that clearly showed printers lost the ball on the first surge into the line. The refs blew the call, it was a fumble. I think it was the final replay from the defensive backfield that showed it coming out and if the argos ended up with it the refs blew it.
the tsn crew did a great job freeze framing the picture of the ball coming loose as printers hit the line. it was clearly a fumble missed by the refs. it might not have changed the outcome but not very often you get two touchdowns when you dont deserve either, its about time the cats got some big breaks.
Someone responded to a poster asking what made him think it was a fumble, a hunch? I was responding to that post. The replay clearly showed the ball come loose just as printers hit the pile and on side angles at that point he wasnt close to the goal line. The argos came up with the ball. It was a fumble the refs missed but thats all, just a bad break. It didnt decide the game but fair is fair, they missed a couple the other way this week.
if you watch the game again, and go frame by frame on the replays of that play you will see the ball out clearly before printers was close to the line. The refs blew it and it happens, as we saw last week on one play. I am not calling a picture irrefutable evidence but the broadcast showed it come out and if you check the side view you will see that at that point the ball was not over the line. Its clear but the refs missed it, no biggie but I certainly will call it as I see it and it was a fumble.
You're right, Beet. It was definitely a fumble and a missed call by the officials. It was also time, we got a break.
The assumption that Hamilton was destined to win this game is also correct. Even with two bad touchdown calls, Ticats would have won, and lets not forget the TD to Tony Miles that was called back. That looked like a cheap call to me on the replay, I think that TD could have counted.
Give me a break…Beet, that photo doesn’t show where Printers is while the ball is coming out. They were one-yard away from the endzone so who’s to say he didn’t already score?
For someone to say “it was definitely a fumble” is outragous. There is absolutely nothing “clear” about it other then the fact that Casey did fumble the ball (which I already agreed with that at some point he did), but you have no idea where he is when he does.
If someone was to say it was definitely a TD, I’d feel the same way.
I watched this replay 25 times on the TSN broadcast in slow motion from every angle they gave…you can’t see a thing and there is no way to determine one way or another.
The call on the field stands. The call was a TD and was made by two refs standing two feet from the play. Maybe it was the wrong call…I’ll give you that, but words like “definitely” and “clear”?? Please.
No it didn't and no it doesn't....I just watched it again.
I'll have to disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion.
And for the record, I'm not just saying this because it was a Ticats TD. Like I said, the other replay on the other TD clearly showed that Printers was touched when the ball was behind the line. That was the wrong call, but on that play it would've been 2nd and goal from the 1 if they ruled him down.