Proof Tom Higgins is the main problem

[url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Winnipeg/2010/09/26/15485956.html]http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/ ... 85956.html[/url]

The CFL offered an explanation, but not an apology, to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.

Tom Higgins, the league’s director of officiating, told QMI Agency on Sunday that neither the on- nor off-field officials erred on Jamel Richardson’s non-catch in the waning moments of Montreal’s 44-40 win over Winnipeg on Friday.

“We’ll never apologize,? Higgins said from Moncton, N.B. “Our guys go out and do the best they can.?

Richardson appeared to catch a tipped ball and then fumble it when Bombers safety Ian Logan hit him as he turned toward the end zone. Winnipeg defensive back Brandon Stewart scooped up the loose ball as the officials blew the play dead.

Higgins said the play was so close the referees would have been correct whether they had deemed it a catch or not.

“The on-field call said it was an incomplete pass,? Higgins said. “It was so extremely close.

“If it was ruled a catch and a fumble it would still have been looked at, and the call would’ve stood because it was that close.?

Since it was deemed an incomplete pass, the only thing the command centre could have reviewed was whether it was a catch or not. They could not have ruled it a catch and then determined if Richardson had fumbled.

1 - Tom Higgins seems to be the only one who thinks this play was close.

2 - The idea that they could be right to call it either way is absolutely insane. If he had said he could understand the officials seeing it from either side I could understand. There's an old saying amongst officials "We may not always be right but we're never wrong". Simply put, the call may not be what happened on the feild but it is correct based on what the official saw. For Higgins to say it would be correct to call it a catch or an incomplete pass is lunacy. The officials can misinterpret what they see but there is only one correct ruling for any play on the field.

3 - “We’ll never apologize,? Higgins said from Moncton, N.B. “Our guys go out and do the best they can.?

[url=http://communities.canada.com/theprovince/blogs/fifthquarter/archive/2010/09/19/cfl-a-mistake-happened.aspx]http://communities.canada.com/theprovin ... pened.aspx[/url]

Guess the above link is a dream or an internet hoax. A good one though, it even has Higgins supposedly saying " "Games are officiated by humans. A mistake happened."

4 - "Since it was deemed an incomplete pass, the only thing the command centre could have reviewed was whether it was a catch or not. They could not have ruled it a catch and then determined if Richardson had fumbled."

Biggest load of BS in the article. This statement only hours after Jake Ireland ruled on an Argo challenge of a player down by contact then looking at another aspect of the player that happened 3-4 seconds later and 100 yards away. Not the first time the league has made this kind of call. Selective memory on Higgins part.

When will the league fire this guy. He blindly supports his officials as God's gift to the game rather than admit there is a problem and try to improve the situation. He openly lies and has shown a lack of comprehension of the rules. Give the job to Jake Ireland and ban this moron from ever entering a CFL stadium again. He's done more to bring discredit to his officials than they have with their head scratching calls.

whatever.

I saw it, I think it was fine. everyone's opinion is on this.

referees are not perfect and they have to make decisions in split second time frames.

I am sure that when the next season comes along the league will find some way of working with the officials to improve their game by game performance.

you're just wasting your energy here.

You had some points here even though I don't think it was fine CFLISTHEBEST, but just because this excellent explanation does not agree with you does not mean one is wasting their energy in that regard.

That's where you went too far again with your post. :thdn: :thdn: :thdn:

This statement makes absolutely no sense based on what was said by Mr. Higgins today and happened in the Argos vs Esks game:

In reference to the last play of the first half:

Am I the only one thinking Higgins is contradicting himself here? How can you say you can only review the catch and not the fumble when they clearly reviewed two aspects of the play from the Argos/Esks game? He's really setting himself up for failure... perhaps he's already looking for a new job!!!

Thoughts?

I didn't see this entry in the rulebook until yesterday but the first situation is covered specifically in the rulebook. This is from the Reviewable Plays - Approved Rulings section of the 2010 rulebook:

A.R. Pass ruled incomplete Team first and ten at their 38 yard line throws a forward pass to A77, who catches the ball, is hit immediately and fumbles the ball, which is recovered by Team B. Officials rule the pass incomplete. RULING Reviewable play. However, if pass ruled complete possession retained by Team A at point of completion as official’s whistle terminated play. Team B cannot be awarded the ball because the play was terminated by Official’s whistle prior to the recovery.
This approved ruling needs to be changed so that the entire play can be ruled on and there won't be a repeat of what happened in the Montreal/Winnipeg game.

As for the review at the end of the 2nd quarter, when Proulx announced what the challenge was he said that Toronto was challenging that the Edmonton player was down by contact. The replay showed he was down by contact at the end of play. I think the only reason there was contraversy is that Proulx's explanation wasn't the best but either way the correct ruling was made based on what was challenged.

Here is a link to the page at CFL.ca where a pdf version of the 2010 rulebook can be downloaded (thanks to the Ticats fan who posted it a while ago in the Ticats forum):
http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1

As long as it isn't holding when Saskatchewan is playing.

"As for the review at the end of the 2nd quarter, when Proulx announced what the challenge was he said that Toronto was challenging that the Edmonton player was down by contact. The replay showed he was down by contact at the end of play. I think the only reason there was contraversy is that Proulx's explanation wasn't the best but either way the correct ruling was made based on what was challenged."

Yeah right.

that's fine.. but it's just my opinion. I'm only stating what I think, I didn't go too far by any means.

what does that have to do with the call?

I saw the replay, over and over and to me he did not have the ball long enough for it to be a completed pass. If any of you have paid attention to numerous games in the past, you will have seen more plays that are exactly or almost exactly like that one and they have AGAIN made the call, INCOMPLETE PASS..

so it's not hard to see that the Referees were CORRECT!

And that is what Higgin’s said after the game, the problem is with the rule and not the system and that they would look at changing it.

hey, if screwing the bombers ( a team that doesnt deserve a sniff at the playoffs ) is what inspires the command cetre to look at entire plays and not just the challenged aspect, thus creating more correct calls going forward, then its a good move, IMO.

the bombers crap play has lead them to a terrible record, NOT a couple of blown calls by the command centre / refs.

Hey but did you forget the part that goes “SCREW THE BOMBERS!!!”? :lol:

.....that;s exactly what the refs. did last game.....funny you should mention that :lol: :lol:

....much like your crap record of last season....and hey drummer ...this year ain't over yet.. :wink:

look, every team at some point in this season has felt the wrath of the officials.

no one is immune.

....no one team is immune for sure.....certainly not us after that last fiasco.... the als. also had some bad calls by the onfield refs. .. what you don't expect is for COMMAND CENTRE to blow the bloody call when it's right in front of their nose... :wink:

What goes around comes around. It all evens out in the end. :roll: Some of the lamest and most common excuses for inadequate officiating. So when the the officials blow a call in the last minute of the Grey Cup that has an impact on the outcome, it's OK if it gets evened up by an equally bad call on the other team, that has an equivalent impact on that game which happens to be their next meeting, a preseason game.

A blown call is a blown call and the only way to make up for it is to use it as an instructional tool for all your officials so it doesn't happen again. From the deteriorating quality of officiating from week to week either that isn't happening or the officials aren't learning.

I would think as a Roughrider fan you would be concerned about this possibility. Having already lost a Grey Cup to a last play penalty you deserved how much more painful will (maybe not to you but it will happen to someones team if things don't change) it be when it is an incorrect call and Monday morning Honest Tom Higgins is telling you "we made another mistake".

HI.. I have had a hard time getting on with my old name..ridrfan1.. In case anyone cares..lol.. so I had to make a new one..
Anyway.. I watched that game and in my opinion, that was the worst call I have ever seen. I dont even care about Montreal or Winnipeg as far as cheering for a team and I was ticked off. And the fact that it was a replay challenge, and they still got it wrong.. Good lord.

But Papa, on the incomplete pass the Command Centre did NOT blow the call. They called it the way the rule is written for incomplete passes. The rule needs to be changed so it is the same as the rule for fumbles that occur after a ruling of down by contact has been made.

The Command Centre does need to improve though. There is no doubt the Bombers were the victim of a bad Command Centre review on the Glenn fumble play earlier in the season.