Isn't there rule that says if the ball is deemed uncatchable then no penalty will be called? At the 6 minute mark of the second quarter, Tate of Calgary threw a pass deep into the end zone that was so high the receiver would have had to be 10' high and on stilts to have any chance. It was so deep into the end zone there was no end zone left to run under it so I cannot see that being an argument. Nevertheless, the Lions' defender was charged with pass interference and the ball was placed on the Lions' one yard line. Has this rule been changed or did the ref blow the call?
Thanks guys. In this case the refs blew it big time. The ball sailed through the end zone metres above the intended receiver's head and as I say there is no way the Lions' defender impeded the receiver from getting to the ball.
They were already at the back of the end zone so there was no more running room and the guy would have had to be 10' tall and on stilts to even have a chance of being near the ball. A terrible call in my opinion! The Stamps scored on the next play from the one yard line. It may not have changed the outcome of the game but at the time it put the Lions into a deeper hole.
well, sometimes they will call it if the D is just stupid about it as well. I don’t recall the play, so it is hard to say, but if there is blatently heavy contact there is usually a flag, and I have a tough time arguing about that…as far as illegal contact vs PI…if it is in the air in the direction of the target, it is PI…so While they may want to call illegal contact, the correct call is PI.
Article 8 – Interference Before A Pass Is Thrown
By Team B
(a) Prior to a forward pass being thrown, a player of Team B may interfere with a Team A player in a zone one yard in depth on Team B side of the line of scrimmage. Cut blocking of receivers attempting to proceed downfield is not permitted. b In addition, a member of Team B occupying a defensive position behind the legal contact zone is entitled to use hands and arms to ward off a Team A player who is threatening the established defensive position. Any action other than that required to protect that position shall be ruled “Illegal Contact On A Receiver.?[/b]
Article 9 – Interference By Both Teams After A Forward Pass Is Thrown
(b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following shall apply:
(i) Eligible receivers of both teams have an equal right to the ball and are entitled to the positions they occupy. b If a player commits pass interference when a forward pass is deemed uncatchable, no penalty for pass interference shall be applied.[/b]
(iii) Pass interference shall not be called if it occurs after the ball has been touched by an eligible receiver of either team.
(iv) Inadvertent tripping by a player with equal position shall not be ruled as interference.
(v) Tripping an opponent from behind shall be considered accidental pass interference.
(vi) Screening (face guarding) of an opponent during an attempt to catch the ball is pass interference.
Of course if it were a blind cheap shot by the DB after a receiver had about given up on the play, it could be deemed unnecessary roughness or even rough play as would afford the possibility of disqualification.
And this is news because...........? First week and I was only able to catch half the Mon/Win game and the second half of the Tor/Ham game and the quality of officiating (including the idiots in the command centre that supposedly do video review) chocked on several plays. An Argo catch called incomplete on review? Officials completely miss PI on the final play of the game and fail to make any call on Argos final TD until the plays start to celebrate. Who called that TD the officials or the Argos?
Glen Johnston should be fired, video review crew fired and video review eliminated. Concentrate on fixing the on field officiating problems, if a former head official consistently blows video review calls when he has time, multiple angles, slo-mo, reverse, stop motion at his disposal the league obviously is incapable of handling video review efficiently.
New year, same blown calls, same officials caught with their eyes closed, same incompetent video reviews, same CFL that makes itself look second rate by their failure to even attempt to find a solution.
I didn't mention that TD for video review because I never saw a view on TSN that clearly showed whether he was in or out of bounds. So I agree with you, video review inconclusive. What was wrong with that play was no official made a call until several seconds after the play when the Argos are in full celebration. When an official hesitates in making a call it makes him look indecisive and unsure of his call.
So the official was unsure and video review deferred to the call on the field. Not the way to decide a game is it.
Actually, the video review officials can only overturn the on-field call, and only if they see indisputable proof that the call was wrong. In the Inman TD case, I suspect that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the call either way. If the call had been no TD and the Argos had challenged, they probably would have left it as no TD.
I would like the league to change the challenge announcement to include three possible decisions: the call was overturned, the call was confirmed, or the review was inconclusive and therefore the call stands.
I think you are correct on the TD. TSN never showed an angle that clearly showed if his heel was in or out. Video review was likely inconclusive.
I have been lobbying for the clear statements on video review for several years. Video review is suppose to make the game better, but it actually makes things worse when the fans and teams are not told what the reviewers decision was.
The referee announces either that the call has been upheld, or that the call has been overturned. And that information is passed on to the TV viewer. But the information is incomplete.
If it was overturned, it was because there was sufficient evidence that the call was wrong. But if it is upheld, it could be because there was sufficient evidence to uphold the call, or there was insufficient evidence to either overturn or uphold the call. And this last part, that fans are not told whether there was sufficient evidence or not, is what we are looking for. Without it, we fans make our own judgement on what we see or think we see - his heel MUST have touch the line, right? - and then when the video review upheld the call, we cry foul, thinking the video review officials are blind idiots. If they stated that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the call, we would still be upset, but with the camera men rather than the video review officials.
Such is the benefit of my having recorded the game Blue Blood. I saw no interference from the snap of the ball until the ball was sailing through the end zone. I think it was Bell who was called. There was contact by Bell that had the ball been catchable the penalty might have been warranted. Regardless, I think the ref figured the receiver had a chance to catch the ball and felt the defender impeded his progress. I can see if a guy clutches and grabs a receiver's jersey way before the play unfolds thus impeding his opportunity to run the ball down but that wasn't the case in my opinion. Just a blown call unfortunately for the Lions.
Blue Blood and her comment is what I'm thinking also; when the receiver made his cut to the sideline, there must have been a tug on his arm/and or jersey to ["IMPEDE"] his forward progress; in that case [IMO] the Ref made the right call.
Edit; The Ref has his eyes on the defender and receiver - not the football...Cha-Ching/Bingo