I thought the catch was good but as has been pointed out, there has to be conclusive evidence to change the call. Congrats to the Stamps for not giving up and making it entertaining for the fans.
Is it just me or does the field in Toronto look like it was put together by Dr. Frankenstein.
I did not see the game tonight, only ros replay and that is clearly an incomplete pass, and anyone who thinks otherwise has his head stuffed up their mule, and anyone who thinks the East division wont be heard from come GC time also has their head stuck in a mule.
Well, Pigseye's too drunk off the Stamps losing to look at the replay objectively I certainly don't see how that's clearly an incomplete pass ...
When I think of a ball bobbling around and not being controlled as a guy goes to ground, I don't think of it being clutched against his chest with both hands.
There have been catches - which have been called catches - where the receiver has had MUCH less control than Johnson did.
And another thing, what WAS the call on the field? One ref called it complete, another called it incomplete and a third called it a fumble. Obviously according to Ireland, after the fact, the call on the field was that it was incomplete - but I really don't see how the refs could call THAT an incomplete pass the first time they see it, at full speed. A fumble, MAYBE (apart from the fact that he was already well down by contact).
Also, video review should be an attempt to find conclusive evidence to overturn the call - and if it can't be found, you can't overturn the call. To that end, I don't see how 30 seconds is enough time to exhaust every possibility.
It was poorly done by the refs, and hopefully the CFL does something about it.
It seems this year that the "possession" call has been a bone of contention similar to the new blocking rules on kick returns.
I watched the first half of the Hamilton/BC game before leaving for the Argo game. There was a non-catch (in the refs opinion) by one of the BC receivers. He caught the ball cradled it in his arm took two steps and then had it stripped when tackled. Suitor thought it was a catch but added the officials have been consistent with those possession calls all year. To me both calls should have been a catch, but under somebody's imposed rules(George Black's ?)they're not. The CFL rules committee should be instructed by the owners to loosen up...because the league needs all the offense it can get right now. There has been too many boring games this year, ruined by over zealous referees...but they are only calling what they are told to.
The other replay angle shows the no-catch a lot clearer, but you can see it in this one as well. Look at the white stripe of the ball as his back hits the ground. It moves away from his forearm. Had it been in control, and his arm had been moving with the ball as was suggested by another poster, the stripe woould not have moved in relation to his forearm.
Well I am on side with Ro here! And this is a good discussion but really meaning less. Regardless of what we all think the game is over and the Argos are tied with the Als. I do think it is time ole Jake look for a new hobby this one is to tough for him now. But like I said in the Stampeder section. The Stamps now get ready for BC. The play that actually kicked the Stamps was the intercept for a touchdown. But that is life.
The problem is that it never stopped moving. To demonstrate posession, you don't have to kinda sorta have control, you have to have complete control of the ball. Had the ball stopped moving for a full second before coming out, then maybe there could be a case for posession, but the ball never did stop moving. It doesn't matter how slight the movement is, it was moving. Also IMO, and I know enough that I am not going to change your mind, and you certainly are not going to change mine.
He was in control, the only time the ball moved was after he hit the ground. If hitting the ground can't cause a fumble, how can it cause and incomplete pass? The play should be over once he hit the ground, the ball came out after he hit, so it should be a complete pass.
Just goes to show that even with replay, the refs can blow the call.
Posession on a catch isn't the same as on a fumble. The ground can cause an incomplete pass. You have to maintain control of the ball throughout the landing process, for lack of a better term.
The call on the field was an incomplete pass, thus they needed indisputable evidence to overturn the call.
Also if he did have control of the ball he wouldn't have lost the ball. When he goes down the ball moves in his arms, if a player has control the ball doesn't move.
so then what you are saying that if ever the ball comes lose when hitting the ground it sould be concidered either incomplete or a fumble because if he lost the ball he did not have controll
That is not always true. I have seen many times where it is ruled complete and many time it is ruled incomplete. It does all boil down to control of the ball and in this case I feel he had control.
depends on whether or not he was touched, and if we are talking about a catch or running with the ball. On a catch, you have to demonstrate control of the ball through contact with the ground, until you get control of your body (that's the way I've had it explained to me by a minor league ref in the past). I'm not sure if it is spelled out clearly just how long you have to maintain control, but I know for a fact that it is more than just contact with the ground. Basically the only two results in this case can be completed pass or incomplete pass, unless the receiver goes down with no contact and loses the ball while trying to get up.
The reason it is different on a running play is because the runner already has posession of the ball, and when you have posession, the play is over as soon as your knee touches the ground after contact from an opponent.
While in midair a receiver of either team who has firm control of the ball, but loses possession of the ball when that player's feet or other part of the body hits the ground, with or without contact by any opponent.