Did the Montreal player not have his hands wrapped around Hebert's hands, while Hebert's were wrapped around the ball?
I was at the game so I only got one replay, so for those of you who saw it on TV was this not what happened?
Watkin's hands were always on the ball. Not that I'm saying I agree with the call, but to answer your question no his hands weren't on Hebert's.
Thanks.
but Hebrat touched and had control of the ball first
Yes and then he came down with it as Watkins tried grabbing it away from him. Therefore it should have been a pick. Such a brutal call!
Let me start off by saying that I do not agree with the call, but technically, it does not matter who touched the ball first, it's who has posession at the time the reception is made. I like everyone else believe that Hebert had posession, but I am interested to hear an official interpretation of the rule. Does the receiver having both hands on the ball at all times during the play count as split posession? Or is it up to the interpretation of the referee?
It does not matter who has more of the ball...the fact is, is that both players, simutaneously gained possession, and the ruling is that it goes back to the team last in possession. It is different on a kickoff...if this happens the kickoff is repeated. I agree that the WPG player did have more of the ball, but more of the ball does not matter. It was the correct call, people just do not know or understand the rule
I dont know how you could say they simultaneously gained possesion of the ball because Hebert had his one hand on the ball first than cradled it as Watkins had his hand around heberts arm and then tried ripping the ball away from him but failed and Hebert came away with it.
Its a simple in and out the booth review call.
There'sa no way that there was simultaneous possession. It was an INT, plain and simple.
Reminder: I'm Als' fan.
Entire CBC panel said likewise and they're not ALL idiots.
people who go by the name “rjjk”.
Have to agree how Hebert first came up with the ball and while both were going down that's when Watkins managed to touch both ends with his hands. Still with Hebert in possession and if they consider that simultaneous, then I give up.
The ref should have used his discretion after viewing the replay which clearly showed interception.
It really does not matter though, by then the rout was on and the game was over.
Not sure if this applied in the case, but when a receiver jumps up for a ball, he does not technically have possession until he comes down to the ground.
Thats why if the ball is jarred loose as he hits the ground it is considered an incomplete vs a fumble.
SO in this case, it may be that the initial possession appeared to be with one player but if the other player managed to share possession before the players touched the ground it would be a tied possession.
watkins wouldn't have made the catch if hebert wasn't already holding onto it
Still wondering what the situation was when they touched the ground. A pass is not completed until the receiver touches the ground in possession of the ball. If both players had contact with the ball when they touched the ground it goes to the offence
i hope the CFL doesn't send out ress releases when they review bad calls from games and overturn the descisions, like the NFL does. otherwise the freepress is going to be very thick
I watched the game and clearly saw on every replay angle that Hebert had both of his hands on the ball while the reciever only had his hands on Hebert’s arms. It was an interception that anyone could see.
At least there are some Al's fans out there that can read a reply 
(KK thinks out loud to himself)
Well looks like Black is saying the situation was what I mentioned above, the possession that mattered was when the player touched the ground, not while they were in mid jump.
Personnaly i would have given the interception. When the ref overturn the call, i was screaming at my tv bout the incompetent refs till my wife tell me to sit....Anyway it was an horrible game by the refs.
Why? When by the rules it was not one!