Poor Officiating

I know, it's an old topic, but before I go any further, I should say that I watched the Winnipeg/Calgary game (10/07/2009) as an impartial fan of the CFL. I cheer for neither Calgary nor Winnipeg. Secondly, I feel somewhat qualified to comment as I refereed rugby for some 14 years at a very high level. (Union Level III)

No referee wants to be second guessed, however when you reach the calibre of ball such as the CFL, fans should be able to expect a reasonable game of officiating. Now specifically , and in my humble opinion, three plays resulted in calls that changed the course of the game, and all three, once again in my humble opinion were extremely poor calls.

  1. 2nd half a skirmish resulted when the Winnipeg quarterback was pushed out of bounds. He was hit inbound with a perfectly legal hit. Several offsetting penalties resulted with the final penalty going to Calgary. In fact, the skirmish was instigated when the Winnipeg quarterback shoved a Calgary player. In the ensuing scrum, I saw no reason to penalize Calgary additionally, rather, where's the penalty for instigating. Poorcall number one!

  2. The officials failed to award a touchdown to Calgary when the reciever broke the plane by touching the corner post with the football. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the post is set inbounds because it's part of the ingoal area. It rises vertically from an inbounds location. The runner was not conclusively out of bounds. So tell me why no touchdown?? I should note that Calgary scored on the ensuing play, but what if they hadn't. Poor call number two.

  3. Lastly Shabazz' touchdown was clearly a poor call as the replay showed his foot to be out of bounds on or about the two yardline. I don't criticize officials lightly as I have been one myself, but lets be fair. There are so many on a football field with specific jobs such as touch judge, linejudge and official, that these things should be caught by a sharp crew.

Perhaps the lads had a bad night, but then tell that to Calgary who takes it right in the loss column!

Calgary deserved the extra penalty imo. From what I remember there was pushing and shoving and you're right offsetting was the right call UNTIL another calgary player came in from behind and pushed a bomber a few times from behind. To me he should have been flagged the extra for that.

On the second call; IMO Refs made the right call and stands as called on the field. All in all: :expressionless: Inconclusive as the ball touched the pylon on the right side. Contact Tom Higgins for more info, if any thing, first/second and goal from the one inch mark.

I don't know if you can call the second call a blown call (that was a lot of calls). The officials ruled him out of bounds, and there wasn't enough evidence to overturn that call. At least that's what I got from the situation. I would've appreciated an explanation from the head official instead of him just saying the call on the field stands.

I think we could all debate these calls at great length and not come out with any sort of consensus. A perfect example: You say the first brawl was instigated by LeFors, the Winnipeg QB. When I watched the replays, I thought him and the Calgary player pushed each other.

I think the only call we all might agree on is the last one. I think even Shabazz knew he got away with one because it looked like he turned around to see if the officials were actually going to call it a touchdown. When they did, he celebrated.

I don't think it's fair to call it poor officiating. Less than perfect officiating? Certainly. That doesn't make it poor. There have always been close calls and there will always be close calls. Television condenses the action, making it easier for armchair refs to make the perfect call every time and unless you can put yourself physically in the shoes of a ref on the field, you can't fairly comment on what they saw or didn't see. There's gonna be calls you don't like. Thems the breaks in football. If you think a call changes the course of a game, then score more points so your team isn't affected by close calls.

It's quite fair to call it poor... if it's not good.. it's POOR... maybe games should be ref'd from the booth then, it seems they get the call right... take the game tonight, BC was handed 14 points in the 1st Q on a TD call that was shown in replay to not be a TD, and that pass interference call.. the lord himself was overthrown on that play... both those calls/non calls directly led to 14 points and ALMOST changed the course of the game.
Your comment about scoring more points so your team isn't affected by the calls is just asinine, there are too many variables to overcome in that. The Cat's were able to do that but rarely does it happen

The Ref's are paid to do a job, and for the most part, the last few years, they have done a POOR job!

Are you certain you are an unbiased observer? Because you pick out 3 calls, argue the most favourable Calgary position on all 3 and are potentially incorrect on all 3. The skirmish, I will watch again to be sure, but who starts something like that is generally not who gets penalized. But the Calgary player bumps Lefors, and then he pushes and then.... after that, it is what the refs see and if you watched it on TV, criticizing the refs is likely not fair.
If the onfield call was that the player stepped out of bounds, then the call was 100% correct. No replay showed that was not the case. So your criticism again appears unfounded.
Shabazz clearly stepped out. If you had a nice TV replay and got to look at all the angles, easy call. Blaming the ref if he didn't see that, is lame. And as Huffer gets an opportunity to challenge that play, but did not, more blame lies on him than the other way around. Because his spotters get that replay. So all in all, rugby is a different sport and let's leave it at that. One thing is certain. Calgary was thoroughly outplayed, and none of the calls changes that.

I actually missed the first TD, so won't comment. But the PI --assuming we are discussing the same play-- call was what we generally like to call "blatant". Being overthrown has nothing to do with the call.

Pass Interefence on an uncatchable ball......is still pass interference

From the rule book

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rulebook_2009.pdf]http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PD ... k_2009.pdf[/url]
(c) If a player commits pass interference when a forward pass is deemed uncatchable, it shall be ruled as “Pass Interference.?
its been that way for about 3 years now

Exactly.
Where they have left room for interpretation is, the refs may (rarely) decide the ball was "uncatchable" and therefore only illegal contact, but you will almost never see them just wave off the penalty anymore. And that call last night was an easy one to make as the DB ran right over the guy.

Sez you! You think three calls you think didn't go the way you think they should have been called results in poor officiating? Riiiight then. Lets move on. You apparently haven't paid much attention to the debate over booth calls, as some even think some of those were missed calls! Which proves my point that neither you nor anybody else can fairly call officiating poor. You can call it less than perfect but not poor. It will only be good (in your opinion) if you can agree with every single call they make. Sorry, but that's an unfair and arrogant opinion since it implies that YOU know more about officiating than the pros on the field. Get a grip.

Excellent post rpaege, I agree. The officials have a tough job, and many, including myself, have bitched about poor officiating, but overall, they do a good job. I don't think many here can make a call in a split second like the officials do all the time. Even replay officials have to quick decision on plays, and no one can be right 100% of the time. Time to give the referees a break.

The calls that you pick out were really, really close calls, that were the most difficult calls they faced this week. If that's the worst of it, they had a pretty good week. The only thing one that I thought was poor was the pylon play. It needs to be ruled as out at the 3 yd-line, or a TD, or ruled as out of bounds when it crossed the goal-line. The call on the field wasn't one of those, so saying the call on the field stands made the referees look bad.

This week I give them an A-

I can honestly say that the last poor call I saw, where the ref was out of position and not watching the ball, was two seasons ago. And though I have only seen about 90% of the games since then, that's an incredibly high accuracy percentage, since I don't count merely close calls or calls I don't like as missed calls. To me, if an official is in position to make a call and calls the way he sees it, then it's a good call whether I like it or not. It's only when the ref is clearly out of position that the call is even questionable. If the coaches think a call is wrong they can challenge it — but even they're in a better position to decide that than I am.

About the Pylon one, this is my interpretation of the call and review.
The ref ruled that the player was down on half yard line (approx). He ruled him such because at the time that the player stepped out of bounds, the ball was at the half yard line.
They reviewed it. There was nothing that could clearly show that he didn't step out of bounds, all they can do is then look at the spot and if the ball was between the 1 and the goal-line then really it makes no difference.

Thats my take and is purely going on what I observed while watching the live feed, and I only formulated it all after the last time I got to see the replay so I don't honestly know where the ball was at the time of stepping out of bounds.

Sounds about right to me

I think you have the perimeters right, but missed one aspect. If they rule him as having stepped out at the 3, that doesn't mean they spot the ball at the 3. It is where the ball is, not the players feet. And I think if you look at the play again, you'll see that the ball was well in advance of the players feet, so the spot inside the one was likely right.

But you didn't read that whole article, ro:

(c) If a player commits pass interference when a forward pass is deemed uncatchable, it shall be ruled as “Pass Interference.? PENALTY: L10
On an uncatchable pass, interference is a straight 10-yard penalty. The fact that they awarded BC an automatic first down at the point of foul means that they deemed the pass to be catchable. To say it was the correct call, you would have to argue not the definition of interference, but that it was a catchable pass.

NOTICE that I'm not coming down on either side of the issue; I'm merely clarifying what the issue is.

  1. The ref did not give the number of the player called for roughing, at least I did not catch it. A Calgary player appeared to knee a Winnipeg player on the ground which should be a penalty bet I would agree if the call was for the hit on Lefors, it was a bad call.

  2. I thought they got the call right as there is no evidence to overturn and the ball was clearly out of bounds when it touches the pylon.

  3. Calgary still had a challenge and they did not use it, blame Hufnagel, not the officials.

Lastly, we could pick any game and find errors by the officials, let's not make it a year of crying about the officiating.

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/article/notes-from-inside-the-command-centre]http://www.cfl.ca/article/notes-from-in ... and-centre[/url]
[b]Notes from inside the Command Centre[/b]

Tom Higgins

I have been in the CFL Command Centre during the first two weeks of the regular season and here are some of my personal observations:

We have made the replay system more fan/coach/player friendly by being more time efficient.

Watching CFL football on four High Definition monitors at one time is a football junkie’s dream.

Analyzing and reviewing each play with touch screen technology seems so futuristic.

No matter how advanced and high tech the equipment is, no replay system is perfect.

‘Indisputable evidence’ means just that.

So as you watch while your favorite team throws a challenge flag know that the people in the Command Centre are hard at work deciding if the ruling on the field stands or needs to be overturned.