The Arland Bruce III catch

It nice to see that Argo fans are not bleating over the Referee's decision to call Bruce's 3rd quarter catch incomplete. We respect the officials decision...even though it was the wrong call. :stuck_out_tongue:

Only because the Argos won.

What else can be said? They blew both calls because they blew the first one. The fact the Argos benefitted from the first blown call why would anyone complain. don't see argo fans bleating because the hypocrisy meter would go off the scale....(btw, I didn't think Johnson's catch was legit, so I can say this with complete impunity)....

I was at the stadium.

And there was a chorus of boos when the replay was shown.

It was loud for that whole game, and that was one of the instances.

I thought Bruces catch was more of a catch and more control than Johnson's. Oh well, guess the BOG or rules committee will have lots to discuss in the off-season.

Bruce definitely had a stronger claim than Johnson, having taken at least two steps with full control of the ball. It makes me wonder: in a case where the ball pops out as the receiver hits the ground, is there any number of steps he could have taken previously to render it a valid catch? (3? 4? 5?)

It's funny that you can brush a toe against the turf on your way out of bounds and that makes it a catch, yet two full steps in bounds does not.

Bruce definately took two steps and the ball was actually pried loose s he was hitting the ground, so it was more likely a catch than the Johnson play.
I believe that the problem here lies in the fact that while he took 2 steps, the ball was away from the camera, so could not be seen, while a ref was looking right at the play.
In that case, he may, or may not have bobbled the ball--he definately moves it across his body as he runs.
I would think that while the Johnson play was likely to have been reversed upon review, had the call been a completion, in this case, perhaps not.
If the call on the field had been complete, the video evidence may not have overturned it.
Which of course tells us that if replay is to be effective, more camera angles are required.

However, the important thing is, the calls were, when compared to each other, consistant.
And all I want from the refs is consistancy.

Does consistently making the wrong call count?

I did see a t.v. angle that clearly showed he had full control while taking at least two steps and the ball not coming out until he hit the ground. ABSURD!!!

Actually, if it is absolutely consistant, it would never be the wrong call.
The problem only lies in interpreting the rules differently from week to week, even play by play.
If they were interpreted exactly the same each and every play, I would have exactly zero complaints about the refs.

Anyway, I believe the refs are two for two on these calls. Right both times.

The refs missed a push off call on Arland Bruce against Shannon Garett for his second TD.

I aint complaining though… every CFL team has bad calls go against them at some time or another.

Was Bruce's catch a catch? I think so. But here's the get some calls, and some calls go against you. Players and coaches make mistakes all the time. If not, there would never be a fumble, interception, kick ran back for a TD, etc. Players practice every day during the season. Refs do not. Why do people continually beat there heads against the wall over a "bad" call?
of course, there are times when I wish the CFL would just once hire someone who doesn't need a white cane... :twisted:

To me it was a catch, he had possesion before hitting the ground, but I guess a lot of it depends on how much time of possesion he had before he hits the ground.