Note: A challenge is deemed successful (or won) if the final ruling on the play is the outcome the team requested during their challenge. However, a team will get their challenge back if a review changes a different ruling on the play which makes the team challenge not relevant.
In this case, the ruling was not the outcome that the Redblacks had requested. So technically it wasn't a successful challenge. But should the second part of the rule applied, as there could not have been a fumble due to the ruling of an incomplete pass? Not quite sure what that second part is saying.
The play was ruled a catch and then down by contact. Ottawa challenged that the receiver was not down by contact…a fumble
The review then decided that the pass was incomplete…the fumble is now irrelevant. Because the pass was incomplete…it doesn’t matter if he fumbled or not
Why should Ottawa lose the challenge.
Here is an example from the rule book
I.R.A.R. 28 Aspect of play changed other than what was challenged
Third and ten on A35. A1 punts to B1 at the B25 yard line. B1 returns the punt to
the B32 yard line is hit and fumbles. A2 recovers the ball at the B34 yard line.
Team B challenges that A2’s left foot was touching the sideline during the
recovery. Replay shows that B1’s knee touched down before the fumble. RULING B’s ball first and ten on B32 yard line. B retains their challenge and is
not charged a time out.
The CFL is a second-rate league; not because of it's players and coaches (they are professionals, are seasoned ambassadors for the great game of Canadian football), but because of the referees and ruling body, and the control centre. Basically, the refs are incompetent and inept; and make the most ludicrous calls, stifling the players from playing, stalling momentum, and dictating calls from the emotion of the crowd. The refs and side people are very unprofessional and unprep...ared; unqualified part-timers and amateurs for this professional game!
It's a real shame and so pathetic to watch pro football amongst a group of imbecile officials...it doesn't make sense. The Control Centre is an absolute joke; ill-prepared, inaccurate, time-consuming, stupid, and operates out of where...? Some high rise apartment in Toronto...???!!! Get it together CFL! You're losing a lot of fans, not just in Canada ?? but from the States, as well. I talk to sports enthusiasts, fans, athletes, professionals, everyday people from Canada and the United States, and their main concern is the referees and ruling body, and the decisions and manner in which penalties are called, and communicated, to us...the viewing fans!!!
It is clear as sin that the ruling body is a poor excuse for judgement calls, especially when these professional football players are totally committed to their craft, and yet these part-time amateurs (so-called refs) are not! Are they even trained properly??Create a professional body of officiating and proper referees, like they have in the NFL. Not a second-rate bunch of full-time accountants and teachers who pose as part-time line judges and head referees. This practice is best saved for amateur sport, bush leagues, and backyard-community sporting events; not professional football!!
It's a disgrace toour great game, that is truly unique and Canadian. We deserve better, and so do our professional football players, coaches,and teams! CHANGE needs to happen to move forward!
CPGA Golf Professional firstname.lastname@example.org
Well, golf does have one thing over the game of football...
Say what you will about whether golf is a real sport or not—you might consider it a long walk spent hitting things with sticks, or the pinnacle of individual athleticism and mental toughness. But golf has just established itself as the leader of the entire sporting world. How? By defending spectators’ right to be entertained by events on the playing field, and putting that great scourge of modern sports—video replay—in its proper place. In the wake of the NHL’s latest replay controversy, with the Edmonton Oilers claiming they were robbed of a playoff victory as the result of a failure of video evidence, the rest of the professional sports league universe should be following golf’s lead.
In April, professional golfer Lexi Thompson was assessed a four-stroke penalty for a ball placement infraction. After putting down a coin to mark the spot of her ball, Thompson subsequently replaced her ball about an inch or so away from its original location. This error, which appeared entirely inadvertent, went unnoticed by everyone on the course—because it couldn’t be seen by the unaided eye. It was a self-appointed referee, a fan watching at home on television with the ability to slow the footage down in high definition, who spotted the error and alerted LPGA officials. While leading at the time of her mistake, Thompson ended regulation play tied for first thanks to the ensuing penalty, and eventually lost in a playoff round.
Last week, golf’s ruling bodies announced new rules to ensure no other golfer would suffer Thompson’s fate again. In particular, video replay evidence is now subject to a “naked eye? standard: “The use of video technology can make it possible to identify things that could not reasonably be seen with the naked eye,? golf’s rule book now advises, giving as an example a few grains of sand that might be visible during the backswing of a bunker shot in a high-definition, slow-motion replay. Such forensic evidence will no longer be admissible.
Technology, the new rule states, “should not be used to hold players to a higher standard than human beings can reasonably be expected to meet.? Effective immediately, professional golfers cannot be punished for infractions that are only apparent in some distant control room or basement. Just because video replay shows us something doesn’t mean we need to act on it.
Rather than going further down the rabbit hole of technology, we ought to limit video replay to the biggest moments in sport.
As someone who has dabbled in an artistic pursuit this makes a lot of sense to me. I'm sure everyone has heard the use of terms "rising action" or certainly "climax" when the action reaches its boiling point.
If I was to apply this in football terms that would be about near the end of the game. This is only me, but I would only allow coaches’ challenges after the three minute warning. At this point the viewer is fully invested in the game. Any delay will only add to the suspense of the game whilst ensuring glaring omissions at the most importune time are caught, satisfying the other crowd.