Yeah it did go our way last night. Who cares though? Take away those two touchdowns and the Cats still win.
"....based on what? I really want to know. Just a hunch?That is what I responded to. You asked if someone based the opinion on a hunch. Its no hunch when the replay shows the fumble and the broadcast slows it down and shows the ball come loose early on in the play, long before printers body ended up in the endzone. You asked what he based his opinion on and its far from a hunch when they show right on tv in super slow motion that it was a fumble. Missed call by the refs, didnt change the outcome and dont worry............the cats still deserved it. Printers scored two tds without getting in the endzone on either one! lol. If it happened the other way people would be screaming its a conspiracy. I just think it was a blown call and the replay shows that it was. I dont base that opinion on a hunch.
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.did you see printers lose the ball as he hit the pile on his first surge? the replay where they slowed it down and pointed a little arrow at the ball and froze the frame as it came out? The refs didnt because it wasnt until after that they set that up to show it clearly. Geez amg, last week you wondered how the refs could possibly all miss the beveridge strip and recovery and now this week suddenly its no fumble cus surely the perfect refs would have seen it. It dont work both ways. They were wrong last week and they are wrong again this week. It doesnt take anything away from the win, the cats still deserved it. I like the fact the ref gave the cats two tds they didnt deserve. It feels good to me to be on the good end of the bad calls for once.
Didnt "deserve" the touchdowns?
They were both products of great drives and against one of the leagues best defenses.
Man, we know how you love to play the downer, BJ, but couldnt you take a few days off?
Thanks zontey03, now I realise touchdowns dont need to go in the endzone, you deserve them just for good drives but you dont need to punch it in. Thats gonna help with our scoring this year. glad you told us all about this new rule, thanks zontey03 for clarifying that. now go back and sit on bobs lap.
Except the replay doesn’t show that…not at all! I don’t care what speed you’re watching it at.
And if it did, I’ll again ask, “Why didn’t they reverse the call when they reviewed the play?”
What do you mean when they “set it up right so you can see the fumble?” They have every angle and every speed they want in the replay booth…and they have the same opinion as me…you can’t see anything!
This is an awful comparison man. The Beveridge play was “clear” in fast, medium, slow and super slow motion last week. There is no question about it.
The play in question this week is a pile up with a dozen 300-pound guys blocking all angles of the replay.
I’ll again say this, “I have no idea if it actually was TD or a fumble, but based on the replay, the ruling on the field has to stand.”
IMO, you can’t blame the refs for the final call…but you can possibly blame them for making the wrong call in the first place. (And after watching every angle, the same angles that you have Beet, I can find no way to fault them for the call.)
you watch the replay and dont see the ball coming out at the start of printers jump? that means fumble and they didnt see it, bad call. Its not a hunch when video shows it coming loose.
Beet, let's agree to disagree. I watched it many times and can't see anything.
The funny thing is (and that you won't address) is that the official looked at the same replay that you say "for sure" you can tell that Printers fumbled before the endzone, and called the play inconclusive. I agree with the officials call after the video review, but obviously there is no convincing you, so lets just agree on this....we see it differently.
This is not a biased opinion that I have, this is just my thoughts based on what I can see on the replay.
I just watched it again.
The reverse angle does show the ball starting to come away from Printers' body, but you can't tell exactly where it is in relation to the goal line, and you also can't tell if he's still got his hands on it.
(At least I couldn't tell.)
What you can tell however, from the original angle, is that the Argos 2nd man in on the right side of their D-line had his hand a few inches outside the goal line. So he should have been called offside.
It was all Stubler's fault anyway. He didnt ask the right question. :roll:
Wow! You guys have milked this one to death.
Why not let it go and accept our good fortune.
There are obviously dozens of arguments in both directions, so why not give it a rest?
P>S. It was a missed call! 
:twisted:
Agreed and that’s exactly what I’m saying. I never questioned if Printers fumbled…because we know he did. It’s when…and I’m with you, I couldn’t tell either.
if you look at the first picture below you will see that when they highlighted the ball coming loose michael fletcher was just starting his hit. on the second photo you see side view of michael fletcher hitting the pile and printers was well outside the goal line. Pretty simple to see it. Glad tsn put the arrows there to show the ball was coming out. Printers lost the ball almost right away and he never did get close to the line at any point in the play. Break for the cats, thanks Jake!
Yeah…that’s really clear. Crystal clear. :lol:
In the first pic…there is no question Casey loses the ball. I have no doubt he did.
In the second pic, you can’t see the ball.
If you know for sure that these two pictures are taken at the exact same instance (which you don’t), then you can guess that based on the other photo he might have fumbled the ball before scoring.
Is that fair enough to say?
I have no problem with that, but to say “clear” and “definite”…that’s my argument and that’s why I believe the right call was made after the challenge. There is no conclusive evidence…including Beet’s exhibit A and exhibit B that he just provided.
The refs that were two feet away from the play might have made the wrong initial call. That’s a different argument then saying this video evidence is sufficient.