zebras at it again

You be the judge! Zebra (can see him right at "BC" lettering) has Speedy catch and BC ST player right in front of him. They are pathetic.

I remember that play well. I couldn't believe they didn't call no yards as it was (or seemed) so obvious.

They seem to be able to catch and call a player at 4 yards, 35 inches but have trouble at 4 yards or less :?

I thought it should have been no yards as well. Apply Pythagorean Theorem to this (where's PiCat when you need him?), the BC player is 3 yards up, so he would need to be 4 yards to the side to be 5 yards away. Doesn't look like he is.


I'm honestly impressed - Pythagoream Theorem! :smiley: I might have tried a plain old circle with a 5 yd radius. This looks like good stuff. :thup: One area that I agree completely with Kent, the 5 yard rule is practically impossible to call accurately at regular game speeds. Will always be a judgement thing - like spotting the ball.

Well my son and I took the game in from the player side 2 rows from the top. 50 yard line courtesy of entering a contest while watching the Argo preseason online. (thanks Cats!!). My wife and friend sat in our seasons seats.
Too much info BUT to my original thought we both were quite shocked at the lack of a call on that play. And my point being the untrained spectators VERY far from the play both got it. Zebra looking at the play and supposedly trained to look for such things missed it.
The other call i was bothered by and did not see a replay was the lack of a roughing call on a play where the BC defender from what appeared to be out of bounds rifled Speedy into the advertising in the first quarter. It appeared to be a clear roughing call.

With the angle of the picture, I couldn't figure out how to draw a circle here without some serious math. Kent's right.

Plus I needed to prove to my kids that, yes, the Pythagorean Theorem could come in handy after finishing school. :smiley:

Proud supplier of CFL referees since 1953.

Love it! Football and Engineering.

You can challenge no yards now.
You can also challenge pass interference, but when we had an extra challenge left at 3:05 left in the game, we chose to just let a close call go.

You provided me with my first good laugh of the day.....very good!!!!!!!

I just might save this as a wallpaper for my computer at home.....

Seriously though, haven't we seen this crew before???

I'm sure up in the booth they have access to the replays. But there was nothing available for us to see on the screens. I wonder if that might play a factor as Austin (as well as the rest of us) can't see anything for himself in order to make that challenge.

Maybe the ref forgot his calculator and wasn't able to figure out the square root of 25

Yes, but Banks gained about 15 yards on the return anyway so challenging would have made no difference.

5 yard no yards is now tacked on... isn't 15?

Nope. 15 yarder is applied from the point of the catch.

Not sure why not, but no it isn't.

But even if it were applied to the yardage gained, is 15 yards by itself really worth challenging? Still first down either way.

If the ball hits the ground first it's a5 yard penalty.

If the player catches it, it's 15

The point is that the 5 yard penalty is applied from either the point the ball was first touched or the point the ball was marked down, whichever is further upfield, but the 15 yard penalty is marked off only from the point the ball was first touched. So in this case, with a 15 yard return, it wouldn't have mattered if the penalty had been called.

Just watching the BC at Edm game and I cannot believe the absurd interference calls made by the review booth. Edm challenge on an incomplete pass in the end zone was overturned by booth and there was very little or no interference on play. Next possession by BC and an incomplete pass was challenged and there was clear interference. Booth ruled the play stands and no intereference. What a complete joke! The review booth is totally useless, as has been articulated many times. GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY.