Question about the convert

I didnt see the last quarter so I missed the 2 point attempt

The TSN page is saying that Cahoo caught the convert but it was called back for Off pass interferance.

CJAD sports says he didnt catch it and if he did it would have been called for int.

Who is right?

I am surprized by your attitude about THE DON's, call for 2.Even, I was freaking out about that one.......even though MONTREAL losing , was good for the ARGOS.

STALLA,CAHOON had awesome games as did your defence.

STALLA, caught the ball , but it was ripped out of his hands , so if he had caught it they would of had to try it again because of the offensive interference.

From what I saw, it looked like he ran out of bounds, then came back inbounds to catch the ball in the endzone.

Cahoon stepped out of bounds when running his route so he was deemed ineligeble to catch the ball.

So the great TSN has it wrong about the player and the catch
I figured CJAD was right because if he had caught it they would have redone
it from the 15 and Don would have gone for 1 for sure.

As for the call
No guts
No glory

CJAD mention that Cahoon went out of bound but he may have been pushed.
Irrelevant now though

He was not pushed out of bounds and clearly stepped out on his own. Then came back in and almost made the catch. It was, however, incomplete. So even if Cahoon did not step out of bounds, it wouldn't have been a catch because he dropped it. The penalty was irrelevant.

In my opinion............they should have just kicked the convert..........this could cost MONTREAL dearly , down the road.....look at the standings.......MONTREAL ,will be fighting for a play off stop.But it does help the ARGOS.

hellothere, we've been helping out your Argos a lot lately by beating teams in the East :wink:

Now I'm confused again.
Was it Stalla or Cahoon?
Did he drop it or was it ripped out of his hands?
Where does the pass interference come in?

We have also been helping ourselves.

It didn't look to me as though he dropped it - I thought it was stripped from him, and I thought it was Cahoon, but now you've got me second-guessing. . .

It was STALLA.........but both were MONTREAL'S players of the game.

It was Cahoon, and Dante Marsh stripped it from him. So, let's say they did not call the penalty for him going out of bounds and coming back in, it still would not have been a reception and the two point convert would have failed.

Yes, hellothere your Argos have been helping yourselves. But your regular season record is still fairly mediocre (including two losses to the Lions, and one to Hamilton). While you guys still lead the weak Eastern Division, your 7-4 record and 2-2 record within the division is still fairly vulnerable. You guys need all the help you can get.

I am not questioning the call or non-call I am just trying to find out what happened.

What about pass interference? Was there any?

I heard......pass interference by the offence according to B.C. [the team] radio and STALLA, caught the ball, but it was ripped from his hands.

It wasn't Stala, Stala caught the touchdown pass. It was CAHOON on the 2 point conversion

I was watching the game, and my brother went to the game. The pass was to Cahoon, and the play was 'too many men' for Montreal because Cahoon stepped out of bounds and then back in. Cahoon did not make the catch, so the convert failed irregardless of the penalty.

I was at the game, and I saw the replay on the big screen . He never caught the ball . He got his hands on it for a split second alright but had it stripped out before he had control . It was a great defensive play . It was never ruled a catch at the game and the penalty on it was irrelevent because he never caught it in the first place. He didn't drop it , it was ripped out.
I'm just glad this wasn't a vs Riders game , or this would be talked to death for the rest of the season and into next by those claiming it was a catch and they wuz robbed by the refs. :wink:

OK so offensive pass interference was not part of the play