Positive Referee Comment

Since I am all for eviscerating the referees over the inconsistencies regarding pass interference, I think it is only fair that when the refs do something that is good it should get some billing.

I refer to the Hamilton/Montreal game when a touchdown was scored where the player reached out and broke the plane with the ball prior to going out of bounds. What I liked on this play was that the two officials got together, discussed what had happened and then came up with the correct call after coming to an agreement and then and only then, indicating the touchdown was scored. This I believe was the correct sequence and avoided a situation like one earlier this year where the referee in the end zone signalled that a single was score and then was over ruled by another official which created some controversy.

On that occasion, great communication by the officials and not coincidently, the right call.

Absolutely agree.. Carter reached out with the ball, it was definitely a TD, but it was good to see the conference.

it really should be the procedure when there is doubt, as all scoring plays are reviewed anyway.
if it wasn't a TD, the command centre will notify them and the correct call will be made.
the alternative is, call it no TD, and have a coach burn a challenge they may need later.

But as was shown earlier this year, if that play was wrongly ruled not a touchdown, then there is no automatic review because it was not a scoring play.

Officials communicate on the field with each other a lot more than most fans know....they just do if in very subtle ways that are rarely picked up on TV.

Officials are taught, whenever a sideline/goal line play takes place, if there is another official within the line of sight, to look up and confer with their colleague before making a definitive signal. Same on fumble recoveries, they will yell to the closest official "I've got blue ball (or white or red..whatever)" and when their fellow officials agree, THEN they're supposed to signal. It doesn't happen 100% of the time but it's high 90's to be sure.

If an official has no fellow stripes in view and they make a call, occasionally another official who may have a better view will come in quick to offer additional information. If the second official is 100% sure and sells it hard then the original official will usually hand over the call. Officials are taught, at ALL levels, to work together to get the call right....which is what players, coaches, fans and officials all want, right?

Football is a fast game played by extraordinary athletes on a two acre field. There's 24 players and 7 officials...you think it's easy then you contact your local association and do a couple of Pee Wee game and tell me how it goes....

Let me provide a counterpoint to this thread. Does anyone have any idea what Andre Proulx meant when he said that Stefan Logan's fumble on the 1-yard line "wasn't recovered fast enough" when the ball squirted loose in the end-zone and was immediately pounced on by Paris Jackson??

No harm as BC scored on the next play, but Good Lord, that was a head-shaker. :roll:

gentlemen, we have the technology to count milliseconds. I guess Paris was just 5 milliseconds too slow :slight_smile:

Listen for the whistle on the play. It went way too early, well before the fumble. I’m thinking it was down to the recovery being a couple of seconds after the whistle.

I agree, whats "Immediate?"

Thank goodness it had no bearing on the game as BC scored on the next play.

What if Saskatchewan had recovered? If they had made the same ruling, I suspect it would have been raining "Pilsner" cans on the Officials.

Four seconds is not immediate, and if the review official went by what we hear on the video feed, that's how long it was between the whistle and the recovery. I suspect, however, that part of this four second elapsed time was due to the audio and video being out of synch, that it was really only two seconds. Was the review official misled by the bad synchronization? Or did he think that even two seconds was too long?