What would the ruling have been?

On the second 'Riders challenge, if they had ruled that it was a catch and then fumble, who would have had possession, and where? This is not to debate whether or not they got the call right, I'm just curious what the ruling would have been.

For those who didn't see it, the ball was caught (maybe) just before the goal line, then stripped just before the receiver's foot touched the goal line. The pass was ruled incomplete (they claimed he didn't have possession). The 'Riders challenged, saying that it was a catch. If it was challenged successfully and ruled a catch, the refs then would have been in the awkward position of trying to determine if he was stripped of the ball before the goal line, or if the ball had broken the plane. In my opinion, it was impossible to tell where the ball was when it was stripped (his foot wasn't across, but from one angle it looked like he was leaning forward, so the ball might have been across).

Do they:
a) rule it a touchdown (it might have broken the plane);
b) rule it a fumble (it might not have broken the plane); or
c) rule it a catch and give it to the 'Riders at the 1, because the catch was certain (if it had been ruled a catch), but the moment of the fumble wasn't.

My vote is c, but I'm curious how they would have addressed that. Purely a hypothetical question - it didn't matter much at that point of the game anyway - but I'm curious.

I agree that it was impossible to tell were the ball was in relation to the goal line when stripped.
But your conclusion that it then should have bee a rider ball at the 1 is definately incorrect. If it was stripped (or fumbled) then it's a live ball and BC picked it up . Therfore in that scenario it would have been BC ball. But the Lions player then threw the ball away thinking the play was dead ( and the ref did rule it dead at that point). The hard part would have been deciding where it went from there scince it was ruled incomplete( play over ) . I think they took the easy way out and went with the incomplete pass scince you couldn't tell enough from the film when the ball was out.
In other words you couldn't see from the replay enough to overturn the call on the field.
Out of your three scenarios , a) and b) are possiblities but not your chosen option , c).

But the problem is that the whistle blew before the Lions picked up the ball. So if it was ruled a fumble, and the play ended with the whistle while the ball was still loose, then I'm pretty sure the offence would have maintained possession at the spot of the fumble.

Personally, I think it was a catch and a fumble. My guess is that because of the uncertainty about who gets the ball and where, they decided that the ruling on the play should stand...since there was no "indisputable evidence" that the ruling should be changed.

It would have been funny, though, if after Danny Barrett had challenged an incomplete pass, possession had been awarded to the Lions. That would teach him to keep the flag in his pocket.

I would have called it pass interference since the player didn't land, and fumbled in the aire, if I'm readin this right, and it would be 1st and 1 for the Riders.

Bottomline: my call is c