Ref 51

Watching the replays of the fumble at the I noticed it was referee #51 that signalled the touchdown even though the ball had been fumbled before the goal line. Did the Ti-Cat in the endzone slow up chasing the ball because he saw the signal?

Next when Bauman was interfered with on the last play by the defender stopping and not allowing Bauman to continue his route, it looked like the same referee standing right there. From the camera angle I could not tell the number, but when the camera change #51 was getting an earful from Taffe.

he did blow the whistle too quick on the play at the goal line.

I disagree with the interfence the ball was uncatchable the call was fine imo

That didn't cause Thompson to slow up because he was already past the ref and wouldn't have seen the signal. Although he might have heard the whistle.
If Thompson did slow up, it was more likely because he thought it would be our ball anyway if it went through the end zone, since he's likely more familiar with the American version of the rule.
Either way, I don't think anyone could have gotten to the ball, even at full speed.

The ref did signal a TD to early. I`m not being biased because we lost the game.

those are the kind of mistakes the refs should not be making. signaling a TD before the player crosses the goal line. I really believe all the refs should get together and start reviewing rules and explanations. Instead of looking lost on these controversial plays. Everyone makes mistakes, I understand that. I do believe there has to be improving with the refereeing in our league.

Both plays had no effect on the outcome.

By the time the ref signals TD, the ball is well on it's way out of the endzone. No one could have come close to touching it.

Also, stoppping in front of Bauman when you have position, is not interference.

That last play was not pass interference.

What we should've done on that play though instead of the hail mary, was thrown a 6-yard hitch pass to our smallest guy on the field. Maybe he could've turned around and ran for 65 yards and a score....I know it's a longshot, but I've seen it happen before.

Very similar to what happened approx 30 seconds before.

It should have been. It should have been interference because Bauman should have made a better effort to fight for the ball, I think if Bauman makes a better effort to get to it…he makes the defender do more to restrain him and then you get the call.

Bauman gave up on the ball a bit when he saw it going over his head with the defender holding him up.

If he tries to fight through the positioning he has a chance at getting that call.

We didn’t deserve and interference call on that last one though.

I thought there were two bigger calls that hurt us/were marginal.

Mitchel’s hold on Casey’s scramble was excellent down field blocking, that holding call was BS and took us out of feild goal range.

McKay’s roughing the passer looked really marginal and lame. Result first down and touchdown.

10 points in those two calls…that hurt.

The new rules on roughing the passer we will always see that one called that way. Any contact with the head or below the knees is roughing the passer. The one called on the Riders wasn't so rough either, but the correct call.

Yes...that's the joke that apparently you missed.

Disagree.

It was barely a blow at all...more like a "skim".....but anyways Mckay's arm made contact with Durant's chest....not head.

Funny, Im trying to find the play on CFL.ca and it wasn't recorded as a penalty?

I though he caught the bottom of the facemask with the arm, or at least made contact above the shoulder pad, I'm going to try and find that play.

Also, even a skim, any such contact is flagged.

If you watch it again like I just did you will see that there was not only contact but a small tug on the facemask. That's not even HD video and it's obvious.

I have watched it again. If you call that a "tug" then that's your call.

I call it a player trying to get his arms up to block the pass, and then coming down and brushing the QB's chest (and possibly brushing the facemask on the way) but no way does he facemask the QB, deliver a "blow" to the head or do anything to warrant a 15-yard penalty IMO.

And I've heard this "new rule" BS before. Take a look at what O'Shea does after a pass and tell me how that's not a roughing the QB penalty every time? He doesn't get called for it 9 times out of 10. In fact, I'd say this is one of the most inconsistent calls made/not made in the CFL. It's right up there with holding.

Actually, I believe the Rider call was wrong because you can hit the QB below the knees once he gets out of the pocket, and Printers was out of the pocket. No use crying over spilled milk though.

LOL AMG Holdin occurs on every play Refs only call it when its obvious holding man i take it a few of u never played the game

Actually Knight, I played the game for many years until I went away to school. Mind you, I was never a defensive lineman or an offensive lineman, but I'm not a stranger to the game. Forgive me for not having the vast football knowledge of someone like yourself....because you must be a professional football player, right?

That's exactly my point and thank you for making it. "Obvious holding?" Holding is holding and the fact that they pick and choose when they call it is exactly what I'm talking about and that's why it's inconsistent.