Waco Ref Call in Toronto

How in heaven's name could they call that a T.O. touchdown ? First the Wpg defender intercepted the pass and his knees hit the ground before T.O. receiver pulled it out of his hands. So at best an interception at least an incomplete pass. The ref was on the opposite side of the players and ball. But as soon as he called it a T.D. then it became one and as we all know once a call is made in the field it takes a lot for Central to overturn it. Thankfully O'Shea didn't challenge as he would have lost all around and he's too smart for that. This call reminded me of that famous debacle in the NFL when College refs filled in for on their on strike
NFL brothers. The play where a Hail Mary was thrown and the ref called a touchdown when it should have been incomplete. We have been promised better refereeing for at least four years by CFL but yet to see it !
Cricky

3 Likes

Yeah that was a massive garbage call but the on field ref called it a TD so it has to be overwhelming evidence to overturn and the league is being so big on increasing the offensive production of teams they are letting crap like this pass.

2 Likes

Couldnt have been incomplete, as the ball never touched the ground.

Question is did the defender have control of the ball when he hit the ground. If yes, AND posession was uncontested, then its an interception.

If possession is deemed to be contested, or control of the ball not established (ie the ball was being juggled) then it would be incomplete if it hit the ground. But since it didn't touch the ground, the ball and play are live until either the ball does hit the ground or possession is established.

Contested possession at the stoppage of play is awarded to the offense by rule.

So in order to make the call as they did on the field, officials must have decided that the defender failed to establish posession because the ball came loose/did not survive ground contact, and would have been incomplete if it had hit the ground. But as it did not hit the ground, it was a free ball, and once the ball was possessed (in the ownership sense, not the occult sense), it was either in the control of the receiver, or it was contested joint possession, which is also awarded to the receiver.

The question of whether or not the defender had possession that survived contact with the ground is critical.

Personally, I think it was close enough to go either way. I think if the ball pops out, its incomplete, which leads to the conclusion that the call was correct. If they had decided the defender had posession and was down by contact before the ball came out, and called it an int, I wouldnt argue against that call, either.

5 Likes

The defender crossed the goal line clearly before he lost possession of the ball. The on field ref didn't have a good view and at that point should have referred to the command centre rather than making a snap call. I understand that the offense gets the benefit of the doubt in contested balls but doesn't that only apply when obvious first contact with the ball isn't clear...it is clear from replay that the Winnipeg defense had the ball first and in possession and then it was removed after they crossed the goal line.
I don't want that to be the answer I really am not a person to be cheering for the Bombers in any fashion but a bad call is a bad call.

3 Likes

Yeah, I legit couldn't tell if he was juggling it or not. If he was juggling it, then it becomes a tip drill situation. That must be what they called... there's no other way to arrive at the final call. I seriously couldnt tell if it was right or not.

The initial call on the field was just bad but the command centre would not be able to overturn it as it was too close. In the end Banks got super lucky

1 Like

Ummm the ball was in his hands when his knees hit the ground. It's like when they review a fumble, if the ball is in possession when his knees hit the ground it is not a fumble. That's always been the rule except for tonight. But I'm not sure what a bigger embarrassment is. That call or the fans of Toronto. So pathetic. The TO fans are the Joke of the league and really joke of Canada. And by fans I don't mean the ones in the stands, My hat goes off to them. It's all those empty seats in the biggest city in Canada. Its why the rest of Canada can't stand TO. They are to busy wishing they were Americans I bet if they play the American anthem before every game they'd get more fans. Lol I bet Toronto doesn't sell out a game all year that's not a labor day game/rematch or playoff game. If they do ill say some nice about their city of which I hope I never have to visit, something nice about their crap hockey team, and something nice about their CFL team. Wow the first two would be so hard, thankful I'll never have to worry about it.

4 Likes

Thanks all for professional aficionado insight to the rules on the mighty CFL.

1 Like

For fumbles, yes. On passing plays, posession needs to survive contact, be it with player or ground. Unless that has changed recently.

Im not saying the call was correct, but I do think it was closer than you allow, and close enough to legitimately go either way. It comes down to when (or if) the player had full control of the ball. In his hands doesn't count as possession if the ball is loose or moving.

And if you look back through my old posts, I think you'll find I'm definitely NOT a referee apologist, especially when it comes to this crew!

2 Likes

The refs made the correct call. Fans see this through the eye of who the want to win or lose. The on filed ref made a call ... the video ref could not find evidence to overturn. fans here are already seeing the play 3 different ways.

2 Likes

Not like O'Shea used his challenge on anything else and it was a huge play.

Dinwiddie challenging the spot on the third down gamble and poor spot was way more waco than if O'Shea would have asked for a review.

Who knows how it goes but like Gretzky says you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

I'm going to call bullshit on that because there is never a day that I will ever cheer for, root for, or even slightly want Winnipeg to win anything other than the team with the most cousins getting married to each other at half time and I absolutely did not see Banks having possession of the ball before it crossed the goal line which on scoring plays is the more important aspect.

1 Like

I did not know the ref was from Texas…

[quote="Ourballsarebigger, post:4, topic:79011"]
...benefit of the doubt in contested balls but doesn't that only apply when obvious first contact with the ball isn't clear...it is clear from replay that the Winnipeg defense had the ball first and in possession and then it was removed after they crossed the goal line.I don't want that to be the answer I really am not a person to be cheering for the Bombers in any fashion but a bad call is a bad call.
[/quote] free

When a Ref doesn't have a clear view of the play the norm is to consult another or more. It happens all the time. If the other(s) can't verify then it should go to Command. But once the call is made by the Ref it's difficult for Central to overturn unless it's abundantly clear the call was wrong. That "snap" decision turned the game around for Argos and they damn near won.
CFL keeps promising better officiating .. when ?
Oh for the days of Paul Dojack again. If he's looking down from above he must be shaking his head.

Read the rules .. on a pas possession must be maintained they were fighting for the ball as they crossed the line so possession was not yet certain... The rules read the defender must beat the receiver ... Ties of possession go to the receiver not the defender... In this case fans wants and needs and wishful thinking still do not take precedence over the actual rules... The video review took a long time as that could NOT find any way shape or form to see it your way.

1 Like

Why would he challenge a play that was ALREADY being reviewed buy the rules... What hope of overturning a ruling on a play that that was just reviewed

2 Likes

Pal, I am totally aware of the receiver first.. it's the same in Baseball. What i'm contesting is the fact the Ref could not see the ball in any shape or form before Ham came up with it yet did not defer to his companion Refs as is normal.
Glad to see your absolute hate of Big Blue cause that means were doing well. I hated the Cats in the 60s as in if Angelo Mosca had a coronary at my feet i'd refuse to try and an save him !
Ciao

You are wrong on this. For a pass reception or an interception to be valid the player must survive contact with the ground or player. As the ball came free when the defender hit the ground, it is not relevant that he had full control a second before that. This is NOT the same as a fumble. The ball came out when he hit the ground, it did not touch the ground, Banks got control and prevented it from hitting the ground. Therefore a completed pass.

6 Likes

Again, YES the correct was made and the review was confirmation.

2 Likes