Here are the videos of the game last night.

The fumble

[url=] ... rent=2.flv[/url]

Out of bounds

[url=] ... rent=3.flv[/url]

Now while we are at it. Can someone explain to me how you can get called for roughing the passer when he has the ball in his hand when you hit him

[url=] ... rent=4.flv[/url]

all the videos can be downloaded here


the first fumble call was correct, the ball was not out before the knee was down.

the second fumble was not, he was out of bounds and play is over.

a helemt to helmet shot perhaps, only way it would be rtp.

The fumble, TSN pauses that play at the end of the video a split second to late to make it more obvious, play around with the pause feature at the 13 second mark. When his knee touches it appears he has it (but again I wouldn’t say it was conclusive).

I still think it looks like Dominguez was out of bounds, especially if you pause the play at the 9 second mark.

I don’t understand the roughing the passer call either, he still had the ball and it wasn’t a head shot. Was the penalty maybe on the player who hit him from behind (edit, no the penalty was on Butler the player hitting him in the picture)?

....question does that ref. looking right at Dominguezs' foot not be able to tell if he was in-bounds...or not...brutal...if his eyes are that bad..somebody please....get some glasses for that man... 8) 8)

Well I think they blew both calls. On the first one it appears he started to lose the ball before going down! juggles it his knee touches and the ball comes lose! The MD play on the second iso shot if you look at the guy on the sideline and where Matss foot is there is a green spot between his foot and the line. But the hard part is when the ball came out. So in this case what ever the ref who was right there called the play should stand, Did he not call it a fumble.
The problem is the over rule of the ref that was a couple of feet away for a camera angle that is and Ro you will hate this term conclusive. It appears they change this from week to week.

For the first fumble.
Going back to the call in the Cal Tor game 2 weeks ago, there are those who said it was not a catch because the ball was moving as he hit the ground therefor he did not have possession. If that applies to one play it must apply to this one as well because as I see it he lost control of the ball before his knee hit the ground.

Are you saying the video was conclusive for the out of bounds play?

Maybe they called the other Alouette pass rusher behind Joseph for the roughing the passer call. If he hit him AFTER he threw the ball, then those calls will be made every time, wether you agree with them or not.

Once again, I have no problem from the replay you chose, calling the Dominguez play out of bounds.
The Bracey play, does however look like a fumble to me, but I’ll reiterate that had the on field call been down by contact, it is close enough to let it stand, but to overturn the onfield call, I am not so sure.

As for the rough play, if you check your video clip, you’ll see another guy coming in behind joseph and it may have been that guy that got dinged for the rough play call.
The camera pulls away to follow the ball, so we don’t actually see the result, but it couldn’t have been on the guy you capture in your still shot.

Actually, you can just see the guy coming into the frame in the still shot as well.
I don't know that is who they called, but that would be my best guess.

The it was clear that on the Bracey fumble his knee was down first. On the Dominguez play, he was out of bounds before the ball was out, but look at where the official is looking. He is looking at the ball and not at the feet of Dominguez, that's probably how he missed that call.

The video cuts off but the Als defender behind KJ doesnt touch him

Was it a head shot then? because you know QBs are like gods... and if u touch one on his head, then its supposed to be a penalty

Nope it was a clean hit! Grabbed him around the waist

I've seen the live footage, with sound etc., and they do call #25, so if it was that hit, I am baffled. But the video does cut away from the QB and we don't see Kerry go to the ground, so maybe something happens off camera.
What I do know, is the girl who sits in front of me called it right away, and she is usually pretty good at that type of play. I was watching the ball.

But roughing the QB is one of the most mysterious/inconsistant calls in the game.
You can just about kill a guy one play, and nothing.
Next play, a love tap is called.
Or they try to suspend Juriniak for a clean hit against TO, but when Crandel gets taken out and injured for 7 weeks due to a cheap shot, the guy doesn't even get a penalty.

Ro I agree with you. On the one on the sideline three different angles and I believe the second one shows a guy standing off the sideline and you can see Matt’s foot and the sideline there is a bit of green between his foot and the white sideline but where the problem comes is did the ball come loose out bounds or before. This is so close I believe it to conculsive so what ever the ref that was looking right down at the play ruled should have stood now I am sure what his ruling was because I missed that particular play in the game. But I think if the video does not show enough evidence to rule against the refs then the refs decision on the filed should stand I think that is where Jake screwed up in Toronto. He did the opposite.

Maybe for next year, they should have cameras that are for sideline plays only. Put one at each end on opposite sides. They could place them at the back of the end zones on the white paint. They could be used for end zone plays as well. The cameras should be able to zoom in on sideline plays to show different angles of plays that wind up there. If we are going to use replays, more camera angles could aid officials in making the right call.

Sounds like a good idea to me!