Ticats at Bombers GDT

[deepsixemtoboyd]

12 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Replay shows the tip of the ball *might* have touched the turf as it slips through receivers mitts. A decent challenge by Bombers but video review is not sufficiently conclusive to overturn the call of an incomplete pass. Looks like CC prob got this one right. See 9 mins 14 seconds here: 

 

Yeah, you may have a point… Except that they didn’t rule an incomplete pass on the original on field call. They ruled a complete pass. It definitely was not that. As you say, it slipped through the receiver’s hands. That much is clear in the video. As such, it was either an interception or an incomplete pass.

So, if the bombers challenged the ruling of down by contact, I think the video review conclusively showed that the receiver never had possession of the ball. Hence the call on the field should’ve been overturned. 

Unless I am missing something? Which, unfortunately, does happen from time to time. 🙂

Edited August 25 by deepsixemtoboyd

[Super Duper Negatron]

23 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Replay shows the tip of the ball *might* have touched the turf as it slips through receivers mitts. A decent challenge by Bombers but video review is not sufficiently conclusive to overturn the call of an incomplete pass. Looks like CC prob got this one right. See 9 mins 14 seconds here: 

 

Except it was called a complete pass 

[Doublezero]

13 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Yeah, you may have a point… Except that they didn’t rule an incomplete pass on the original on field call. They ruled a complete pass. It definitely was not that. As you say, it slipped through the receiver’s hands. That much is clear in the video. As such, it was either an interception or an incomplete pass.

So, if the bombers challenged the ruling of down by contact, I think the video review conclusively showed that the receiver never had possession of the ball. Hence the call on the field should’ve been overturned. 

Unless I am missing something? Which, unfortunately, does happen from time to time. 🙂

I forgot it was ruled a completed pass. But all I'm saying is that the video we have shows the tip of the ball *may* have touched the turf (at 9 mins 14 sec) as it slipped through the receivers grip. Although this is how it appears, this also could be confirmation bias. In other words we see what we want to see. But if ball did touch the turf, as we both agree, the pass would be incomplete. Don't see how it could be an interception since the play is dead as soon as ball touches turf - before BA had possession. Again, while it appears tip of ball *may* have hit the turf - there's a good argument it's not conclusive and so the on-field official made the correct call in real time.

[17to85]

4 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

I forgot it was ruled a completed pass. But all I'm saying is that the video we have shows the tip of the ball *may* have touched the turf (at 9 mins 14 sec) as it slipped through the receivers grip. Although this is how it appears, this also could be confirmation bias. In other words we see what we want to see. But if ball did touch the turf, as we both agree, the pass would be incomplete. Don't see how it could be an interception since the play is dead as soon as ball touches turf - before BA had possession. Again, while it appears tip of ball *may* have hit the turf - there's a good argument it's not conclusive and so the on-field official made the correct call in real time.

How not? The Hamilton receiver never had possession of that ball... and since it didn't hit the turf the only possible explanation is that Alexander caught the ball therefor an interception. 

[rebusrankin]

17 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

I forgot it was ruled a completed pass. But all I'm saying is that the video we have shows the tip of the ball *may* have touched the turf (at 9 mins 14 sec) as it slipped through the receivers grip. Although this is how it appears, this also could be confirmation bias. In other words we see what we want to see. But if ball did touch the turf, as we both agree, the pass would be incomplete. Don't see how it could be an interception since the play is dead as soon as ball touches turf - before BA had possession. Again, while it appears tip of ball *may* have hit the turf - there's a good argument it's not conclusive and so the on-field official made the correct call in real time.

White never clearly has possession of the ball thus its not a catch which was the ruling on the field. When reviewed this is clear. When reviewed it appears he never has control and Alexander ends up with it and it never hits the ground. Clear interception. Ref screwed up on the field and CC messed it up again which is common and a real issue.

[17to85]

White never caught the ball so the ruling was wrong... it's either incomplete or, the correct call, an INT. There was no simultaneous catch or any of that nonsense. White missed the catch and Alexander had possession. 

[BomberBall.]

20 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

How not? The Hamilton receiver never had possession of that ball... and since it didn't hit the turf the only possible explanation is that Alexander caught the ball therefor an interception. 

Yeah, I don’t see how that can be ruled a completion.  Receiver never, and I mean never, had possession of the ball and it ends up on BA’s chest.  If it doesn’t touch the ground, it’s a pick, if you think it does, it’s incomplete.  In no way is it a Hamilton reception.

[HardCoreBlue]

16 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

White never clearly has possession of the ball thus its not a catch which was the ruling on the field. When reviewed this is clear. When reviewed it appears he never has control and Alexander ends up with it and it never hits the ground. Clear interception. Ref screwed up on the field and CC messed it up again which is common and a real issue.

In this case I don’t blame the field judge. It was a very quick bang bang play. But as I’ve said this is exactly why they introduced a coaching challenge into the game. But there is obviously something very amiss with what is happening in the Command Control which is baffling cuz it ain’t that complicated most times. Technology if used appropriately is a good thing.

Edited August 25 by HardCoreBlue

[Super Duper Negatron]

This has been said by everyone above already, but I could almost see the argument that it wasn't conclusively an INT if you think it might have hit the ground, but the one thing it was conclusively NOT was a catch.

If clear and obvious is the standard, White clearly and obviously never had control of that ball. The fact that trained officials see it differently is frightening.

[Goalie]

Command centre appears scared to make the correct call. That’s a problem. 

[17to85]

16 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Command centre appears scared to make the correct call. That’s a problem. 

They've buggered up so many calls and got bad press seems like the standard now is just don't over turn anything... which is a bad way to do it to.

 

Get it right or get rid of reviews entirely.

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, Rod Black said:

I’ve been eating sandwiches for two days now. 

Bratwurst man, he's responsible for my bratwurst consumption.

[Deiter Fan]

4 hours ago, Doublezero said:

the call of an incomplete pass

Down by contact, no?

Edit: I see this has been pointed out by everyone else already. Wasn't trying to pile on.

Edited August 25 by Deiter Fan

[TBURGESS]

The real problem is that the so called "correct call" is one thing to one teams fans and something else to the other teams fans. It calls for judgement and that's in the eye of the beholder. 

Was it a pick, a drop, a catch, or down by contact? One could argue any of these scenarios. When it's that kind of play, the CC has decided to simply go with what was called on the field. They will only overturn when it's 'obvious' & that play, though obvious to folks around here wasn't.

[rebusrankin]

43 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The real problem is that the so called "correct call" is one thing to one teams fans and something else to the other teams fans. It calls for judgement and that's in the eye of the beholder. 

Was it a pick, a drop, a catch, or down by contact? One could argue any of these scenarios. When it's that kind of play, the CC has decided to simply go with what was called on the field. They will only overturn when it's 'obvious' & that play, though obvious to folks around here wasn't.

That's BS. On the play you mentioned it was obvious it wasn't a catch. CC messed up as they have numerous times this year.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

They will only overturn when it's 'obvious' & that play, though obvious to folks around here wasn't.

The Ticat never came up with the ball. 

He never caught the ball.

They ruled it a catch and down by contact.

That is wrong.

CC ****** up.

 

The end.

[Deiter Fan]

13 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

The Ticat never came up with the ball. 

He never caught the ball.

They ruled it a catch and down by contact.

That is wrong.

CC ****** up.

 

The end.

This is the part that really bugs me. It was never "clear and obvious" the rec caught the ball by virtue of the fact that Alexander came up with it. I can't see how the ref could have seen a completed pass. If they didn't think Alexander made a INT then only call that should have been made on field with the visual evidence available is an incomplete pass. At the very worst the CC should have been able to suss out that the TiCat never had possession.

[Piggy 1]

1 minute ago, Deiter Fan said:

This is the part that really bugs me. It was never "clear and obvious" the rec caught the ball by virtue of the fact that Alexander came up with it. I can't see how the ref could have seen a completed pass. If they didn't think Alexander made a INT then only call that should have been made on field with the visual evidence available is an incomplete pass. At the very worst the CC should have been able to suss out that the TiCat never had possession.

Me thinks this horse has been sufficiently flogged .....to death.

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

That's BS. On the play you mentioned it was obvious it wasn't a catch. CC messed up as they have numerous times this year.

You're just proving my point.

FTR: I thought it was a pick, but I know that I see things with my blue goggles on. I allow for the idea that others, including the CC, don't necessarily see things the same way as I do. 

[Deiter Fan]

19 minutes ago, Piggy 1 said:

Me thinks this horse has been sufficiently flogged .....to death.

Alright...who forced Piggy to come onto this post and read the comments? Whoever it was...if you continue to impose your will on others rest assured you will be reported to the mods and, hopefully, permanently banned. People have the right to decide for themselves the posts/comments with which they will interact and any force initiated by you flies in the face of the freedoms we expect as Canadians.

[ddanger]

On 2024-08-24 at 12:02 AM, Atomic said:

Wild finish, too bad so many fans missed it to beat the traffic!

It always amazes me when people start getting up in the final minute or two, when the game is on the line and not decided. This game was another example, we get the ball with2 minutes and change, and up they get, determined to beat the traffic. Are they really fans??

[ddanger]

On 2024-08-24 at 5:28 AM, Yourface said:

The problem seems to be that he’s not getting open. You can tell Collaros wants to throw his way and is trying to force it to him, but he’s just not getting open, and as a result he’s having to try to make impossible catches.

With Lawler injured it was Demski that they tried to force the ball to constantly.

I get that they have preferred receivers for certain situations, but I wish we would spread the ball out more. Wouldn't that take some of the coverage away from Lawler &/or Demski.

BTW Wolitarski was flying around on the sidelines, looked like a really good sign of his return. 

[Noeller]

11 minutes ago, ddanger said:

It always amazes me when people start getting up in the final minute or two, when the game is on the line and not decided. This game was another example, we get the ball with2 minutes and change, and up they get, determined to beat the traffic. Are they really fans??

They really aren't.... Those are "Riders fan" types of fans. We only get 9 or 10 home games a year, if we're lucky... Why would you miss a second of one, just to save a bit of time on your drive??? 

Hell, when I was doing morning show in Winkler and had to be at work for 5am, I was a season ticket holder and never missed a second of a game during 2006-07.... Loved the post game show on my drive home every week. 

[HardCoreBlue]

5 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The real problem is that the so called "correct call" is one thing to one teams fans and something else to the other teams fans. It calls for judgement and that's in the eye of the beholder. 

Was it a pick, a drop, a catch, or down by contact? One could argue any of these scenarios. When it's that kind of play, the CC has decided to simply go with what was called on the field. They will only overturn when it's 'obvious' & that play, though obvious to folks around here wasn't.

This is a very confusing post. After using technology to determine the right call, you just clumped the black and white calls into the grey calls. Doesn't work that way. That’s like clumping the statement orange is a better colour than red with the statement 1 +1 = 2 after verifying their accuracies.

[17to85]

5 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The real problem is that the so called "correct call" is one thing to one teams fans and something else to the other teams fans. It calls for judgement and that's in the eye of the beholder. 

Was it a pick, a drop, a catch, or down by contact? One could argue any of these scenarios. When it's that kind of play, the CC has decided to simply go with what was called on the field. They will only overturn when it's 'obvious' & that play, though obvious to folks around here wasn't.

You think there was any evidence upon review for it to be a reception by the receiver?