Because Hebert had possesion. Watkins was the one trying to rip the ball off Hebert hands.
I would have give Watkins the TD they recalled though.
leeing does have a point!
The rule says pos on the ground!
How can you accuse the refs of being bad when you just admitted you would ignore the rule
RO it seems there are a lot of backyard ref's on this site! Just maybe if Uglyandnasty reads it over and over he just might get it! :lol:
Go to the home page and listen to George Blacks teleconfrence call. He explains it there and it really makes sense.
It remain its a game of possession, and when Hebert fall to the ground i thaugh he had possession. He had possession first in any case, and didnt drop the ball. The simultaneous catch is non-sense. When touching the ground they both had their hands on the ball. Now because Watkins have his hands on the ball they gave it back to Montreal. That rule isnt clear enough. Too much room for interpretation. You have to rule on ball possession, not on who touch what. Even thought Watkins touch the ball, you can tell he is the one that isnt control the ball. Hebert roll and Watkins loose the fight.
On the TD Watkins got cancelled, he clearly had control, didnt drop the ball, and it was rule incomplete ? IMO they're just babling to get away with an explanation.
U&H
everything you are saying makes perfect sense and I do agree with you to a point but but look at it this way!
A receiver jumps up for the ball, grabs it, tucks it under his arm and has full possession of it, then sails out of bounds. Why is it ruled incomplete?
He had possession in the air.
He has to have it on the ground~
I understand the point, but we know that this situation will happen again, and the next time they might call it the other way around. Anyway, it was a tough call, i'll bow out of arguing it. I'll try not to shout at the tv next time ... hehehe not
Hey!
You and me both!
that’s carp.
black was covering his ref’s a$$.
it was an INT.
How is that crap? Its the rule!
Sigh...some fans just wont let it go....
where in the book does it say so, leeing? I’m just curious.
no rule changes are going to be coming from me.
Yeah, Hebert has posession on the ground too.
Take a look at Article 6, subsection e.
This is the part talking about what is and is not complete as a pass.
Not sure if you remember the rather long post I made of my email conversation about the rules with George Black, but remember that the rule book IS NOT the definitive bible, rather most CFL and NFL rules are more like common law than Napoleanic Code.
You will not necessisarily find everything written down.
If you combine the 6.E section with the other sections on possession and what makes a tie catch, thats how you get the rule.
[rant] I like feasible things like the Constitution, because if you say every detail, you will end up with a big document, and a poorly functioning government.
But this is likely why I have been having so much trouble with the rule book, although I was able to prove that one of my rules could work under the existing rule this way. [rant]