That was obviously a catch.. what is he looking at?????
We got robbed of a great chance to tie the game. We would have had 1st and goal from the 5. Anything could have happened after that, but at least we would have had a chance.
the refs have consitently called that a non-catch. Just look at the challenge in the Hamilton Game.
"No evidence of a catch"? What? The on-field refs called it a catch. The replays were definative. The receiver had control all the way down, and had taken two steps with the ball tucked away - otherwise known as a "football move". The call defied reality, and marred an otherwise great game. The league and the officials will no doubt attempt to justify the call, but any justification will be an insult to CFL fans. Someone needs to be held accountable. This was a disgrace. And I'm not even a Stamps fan. But I feel for you guys. You was robbed.
.....one ref called it an incomplete pass, one called it a catch and one called it a catch and fumble....during the consultation the ref that called it an incomplete pass won his argument, but the consultation resulted in the call going upstairs for review at which time the video replay judge agreed the incomplete pass was the right call....I'm sorry guys I'm as big a homer as the rest of y'all but it wasn't a legit catch....two hands on the ball and we're talking a different story, but it just wasn't there....the team in today's paper aren't saying anything about a ref conspiracy....
....'had taken two steps with the ball tucked away'....????!!!!.....are we watching the same game?.....
The refs blew that call - that was a completed catch. IMO they may have been trying to make up for the botched fumble call on Toronto's previous offensive series that led to a Calgary touchdown. Why Pinball didn't challenge that one is beyond me.
Didn’t see the play. The National Post said there was a video clip on stampeders.com but I can’t find it. Does anyone have a link to a clip of the play? Thanks!
Mark it orignated from this site. Ro our resident video hound posted it here. go to the main talk area and look up the refs blew it thread.
Thanks. I'd call it a catch. I don't really like eCalgary or Toronto (I'm a 'Cat fan who lived in Edmonton) so there isn't a bias issue here. That's my judgement call.
Thanks Mark, The problem is it is not just Stamp fans that agree with you it is many fans from most teams that agree. But it seems God Black backs his blind ref whom in the past has called many games like this not just against the Stamps but others in favor of a team I will not mention. Old jake needs to retire he can not even figure out instant replay! I have in the past two years stood by the refs but no more! I can see if you do not have the benefit of replay but to see the play many times over and over and still make a decision like Jake did tells you a lot. The CFL promised it would improve their reffing of games has it! The answer is no. So this must say something about the guy at the top. No direction no better George should join Jake!
IMO, the reffing has improved this year. Can it improve more? No doubt about it. Again IMO, the use of instant replay is an unqualified success. Is it perfect, of course not.
What a lot of people seem to miss here is not whether or not it was a bad call, I think that with the possible exception of 3 Toronto fans, we all agree on the fact that it was a bad call.
What is at dispute is whether there is undisputable evidence that the replay could have overturned the original call and I think there is a great deal of dispute over that.
The fact is Red two out of three refs stated it was a complete pass the fumble would not occur because the guy hit the ground and the ground can not cause a fumble. I suggest you read the Stampeder statment they broke down the film as well and they say it is a blown call but not worth putting in a complaint (cost) because what would it result in absolutely nothing sort of like the onside kick wioth BC remember that one. So you may except the fact that it was the right call and that is your right but the Calgary Stampeders and myself disagree. Two refs signalled a completed pass hmm! There were many plays in that game in front of refs that were not called why is that Mr. Black.
Jake didn't even watch it "over and over" - he only spent 22 seconds in the replay booth!!! That's not nearly enough time, when considering a call that is at one team's 5-yard line with less than a minute to go in a 7-point game ...
I also don't understand how the ruling on the field was that it was incomplete ... ??
Its just not the fans that are ticked over this call that is for sure. Ireland and Black got to go at the end of the season as far as I am concerned the only way to improve the refs!
I am confused about something. And maybe you can help me out here.
I thought that any challenge (wheter initiated by the coach or by the officials) had to conclusively overturn the ruling on the field, or the play would stand as called. The ruling on the field was a completed pass. The officials would have had to find 'conclusive evidence' that this was an incomplete pass. Instead, after reviewing the replays, he comes back and states that there is no evidence of a completed pass? There was no need to find evidence of a completed pass. That was the original call!! It is not the ref's job to find conclusive evidence to support the call, it is to find conclusive evidence to overturn it.
Please let me know if I am incorrect, because I am confused.
You are completely correct I never thought about that you are right!
....you are partially confused....and maybe rw05 this will help explain my opinion on the catch as well....
....three refs are invovled....one says incomplete pass, one says complete pass and one says complete pass with a fumble.....the three refs convene and during that discussion they gauge the 'positiveness' of their calls....the ref that called it incomplete obviously won the debate and when Jake asks them for the final answer the three refs in unison say incomplete pass.....this is the call on the field....the replay ref radios down that he wants to confirm that, as it is a close call, and during that review the replay ref and Ireland cannot find anything to overrule the ref who called it incomplete....thats basically it, end of story....
..hey, I wish it were otherwise, but I honestly don't think the call was incorrect, if Johnson had two hands on it or if the ball hadn't squirted out like it did then no doubt it's a complete pass...but this one is too close to say we was robbed....
I agree that there was no video evidence to overturn the call either way, it was very close. But I thought the original call on the field was a completed pass, meaning with no conclusive evidence to the contrary, the call would stand.
Sorry red I agree with schoonr11 on this one and the funny thing is the Stampeder organization agrees as well. There was not enough evidence to say it was not a complete pass that two out of three refs stated it was so IMO this was a blown call the call should of stood not the opposite!
....that's good to stick to your guns rw05, but hear me out further....of course the organization disagrees with the call, even if Ted thought like I do it's still good practice to disagree with the call, it gains us to do so....the call was ruled incomplete though on the field, that is indisputable, so schooner's idea is debased (check the play-by-play stats, initial call was incomplete)....lastly rw05, the discussions the refs have are not based on a democracy (2 for the catch, one against) but rather on who is more sure of their call, then a unified decision is given to the head ref to make the actual call, the refs are not in this to show each other up, rather they support each other regardless of the outcome:
Ref#1: I'm ruling this 'no-catch', he didn't have possession for the time required after hitting the ground
Ref#2: I think he had the ball, I motioned for a catch, but the player's back was to me, you saw the ball the whole time Ref#1?
Ref#1: Yes, the ball was moving against the body and only one hand was one it (NOTE: whether it was or not this guy is sticking to his story).
Ref #3: Geez, I ruled it a catch too and then a fumble because, you know, the ball squirted out and it looked like he was down with it.
Ref #1: It couldn't be a fumble though Ref#3 if he didn't have possession in the first place.
Ref #3: Yeah, I guess you're right
Ref #2: So you're sure you saw a bobbled ball Ref #1?, because I'm only about 50% positive I saw a catch.
Ref #1: 100% positive boys.
Ref #3: O.k., from my vantage point I can't be sure either, event hough I ruled it initially a catch, so I'll go with you Ref #1.
Ref #2: Yeah, me too, I'll defer to your call Ref #1.
J.I.: O.K. guys, what do we have?
Ref #1: No possession, incomplete pass
Ref #2: Agreed
Ref #3: Agreed
J.I.: Alright, it was close though, (Replay Official) up in the booth is calling already, he may want to review, but I'll go with incomplete pass.
.....a probable series of events...so it's all in how those refs discuss the call after the initial calls are made that is key here, not the initial calls themselves...
...I'm glad this controversy swirls, it makes for good discussion....and don't think I'm not burned by this, we could've probably won based on it being complete (momentum and all).....right after the play I went searching for Black's email address to send him a scathing eye-burner of an email...it's just that after seeing the replays a few times I don't see a completed pass myself....the picture of Johnson landing on his back with the ball held against his gut by his hand is not conclusive as the player upon cantacting the ground has to make a 'football move' with possession....in this case the football move was to roll out of the impact, and IMO he did so but without clear and inarguable possession....