Rule clarification needed

Yes I like the Argos and yes I'm mad they lost, so I will put that aside and take my lumps, but can someone please tell me in what other sport can they check a replay and after the whistle has blown let the refs decide what would have happened if the whistle hadn't gone?

I am still in shock at what transpired on the Williams fumble. First, that the Argos didn't question the call, and secondly that the officiating crew would actually feel the need to make up for a botched call by speculating the outcome.

Help me out

Actually this is not unprecedented.

The same thing happened in a game between Mtl and the Stamps. Edwards fumbled the ball, the whistle blew and he was ruled down... The play was challenged and the ruling was overturned

Sounds like a good question for George Black. It was obviously a fumble and I expected it to be ruled dead by way of an inadvertant whistle as Darren Flutie speculated.

That confused me also, because ricky hits the ground and the whistle blows, but the ball pops out and a montreal guy jumps on it. You can't expect Toronto to try and jump on a fumble if the play is whistled dead. But then again how else would you rule that?

Easy fix is...When the whistle goes..END of PLAY and who has possession of the ball (or last) keeps it. For the Play yesterday that was a fumble however when the whistle blew there was no possession. Montreal player took possision after the whistle. Should have remained Toronto ball. Plays are gonna get blown and can only be limited. I'm a Ticat fan(even with how emabrassing that is) so admitting Toronto got the short end of that call is tough.

I'm wondering. Did Jake Ireland have benefit of sound when he was reviewing the play?

That does seem to be a grey area that needs to be addressed.
At least the Als got the ball, which is the way it should be considering the ball was out and bounced right to the Als player.

Another thing that came up yesterday again, how does Pinball get to challenge a play, have the refs talk for 3-4 minutes about it, and then let him retract his challenge?
Obviously the Argo brass upstairs had enough time to see that they were not going to win the challenge by that time.
Also, when the Argo's again later challenged the call, and lost, don't they lose their timeout? I know they didn't because the called a time out right after.
Or is that just the NFL that does that?

Actualy you are right they should have lost the time out. I dont rememer the second challange though

It is an interesting point...does the replay booth have the benefit of sound?

The rule is very clear, and was well explained by the announcers at the time of the call. A fumble/non-fumble can be reviewed whether or not the whistle goes before the recovery. The refs are looking for two things...First, was it a fumble? In this case, it clearly was a fumble. The second thing that the refs look for, is whether or not the recovering team got the ball immediately. In other words, did the whistle have time to affect the other team's ability to recover the fumble. In this case the ball bounced right to the Montreal player, so the whistle had no effect on the recovery. They applied the rule perfectly and rightly overturned the call. It is the same thing in the NFL this year, as they changed their instant replay rules in the off-season because they saw an opportunity to allow the officials to get even more calls right.

For all the bad calls the refs make throughout the season, you've gotta love the fact that when instant replay is finally needed in a critical game situation, and the rule is applied exactly as it should be, and a bad call is reversed, posters on this forum still have to complain about the refs. Do you folks realize that you are arguing that you want the wrong call to be made?

Excelent point!

I don't think I want the wrong call to be made.
What I am arguing is when the whistle blows, how can anyone say with certainty that by allowing a change of possession, that the "correct call" was in fact made.
A certain amount of assumption must be made on the Williams play, that had the whistle not gone, the Als would indeed have gotten the ball.
So we are back to my main point about replay.
We took about 5 minutes to make that call, and it is neither "right" nor "wrong" except that it fits the so-called interpretation of the rule.
But the rule itself is flawed.
And so what would have in fact allowed the "correct call" to be made, would have been referees who instead of being whistle happy, had been in position to decide whether it was a fumble or not in the first place.

Or delay the whistle for a second or two and let the play finish--which is what they supposedly are supposed to do.
The way it stands, first place in the east was decided by replay, and quite likely the Grey Cup representative in the east was decided by replay.
And for my money, that is way to much influence on the outcome of a game by the refs.
The best games are when we never notice the refs.
Now they are the centre of every game.

And the fact that after the call was overturned, both Flutie and Armitage both went, "ooh, replay works, we got the right call" confirms my belief that replay needs to go!!

I'm guessing that the "except that the ball is dead after the whistle" in your post subject is your response, to which I would have to saw that with the instant replay rules the way they are, that is no longer the case. If it is determined that the whistle had no effect on the recovery of the ball, and in this case it didn't as the ball bounced right into the DBs hands, then the call can be overturned despite the whistle.

To reply to Arius, you seem to think that this is an example of why replay should be scrapped, I say it is a perfect example of why replay was put into place. What you seem to forget when you say that the call changed the outcome of the game is that the call was right. Had there not been replay, then the missed call could very well have affected the outcome of the game, something that I believe fans of the CFL had enough of last year.

That is the point that people seem to be missing. The replay corrected a bad call and made it right.

It's kinda strange to say that the right call cost them them game as opposed to the wrong call gave it to them.

I see the play differently.
The "replay" discovered an undetected fumble, but the change of possession was as much a result of the whistle as the fumble.
Just because there was a fumble does not mean there was a turn over.
Help the refs become better and scrap replay and we wouldn't have anything to discuss.
As long as the refs suck, then using replay is just a crutch.

Plus the 5 minute delays caused by the replay are absolutely unforgivable.
Games are consistantly taking over 3 hours, sometimes 3 and a half, and replay is a big part of that.
For the tiny gains made by replay, we have given up an awful lot.

But again, I know replay is here to stay, so I'll stand by my position that altering play results AFTER the whistle has gone is asking the referees to anticipate what might have happened, not what did happen.
And considering they can barely figure out what has occurred, I have little faith in their prescience.
The fact is, the mistake on that play was blowing the whistle prematurely, not missing the fumble.
Replay can fix the fumble, but not the whistle.
Basing a decision on a player being fortunate enough to have the ball roll to his feet after everyone else ceases to play is not a positive.

Arius is right in the fact that the mistake made by the ref was not getting the fumble call correct but by blowing the play dead too quick. In this case regardless of whether or not he fumbled, it is a bad idea to award possession to the other team after the fact. What if he hadnt blown the play dead and Montreal recovered the ball but then fumbled it right back and the Argos scored a TD. There are just too many what ifs on a play like that to say the correct call was made. If its blown dead its dead, end of story, this just looks like an attempt by the refs to use the replay system to cover up 2 mistakes on the same play.

Right on, Pigseye. In fact, a few seconds after Mtl recovered the fumble, Soward stripped the ball away from the Mtl guy and started running to the end zone. If you can keep playing after the whistle in case the play is overturned, where does it end?

I agree Ricky fumbled, and it should have been called correctly in the first place. But isn't it common sense that once the whistle blows, the play is dead and no "play" can continue afterwards? This same rule is now in effect in the NFL, and it's just as dumb there as here.

A few minutes ago Tampa challenged a down-by-contact play against Carolina. Unfortunately I turned it on in the middle of the review and never saw the live play, so I don't know when the whistle was blown.

Did anyone else see/hear when the whistle went?
(In this case the replay upheld the call on the field BTW... no fumble.)

I'm just trying to figure out if Tampa was allowed to challenge the play because the refs delayed in blowing the whistle after the recovery, and [i]then[/] went back and marked it down by contact. That would be the correct way to apply this rule.