Argos at Bombers Chat

[wbbfan]

3 hours ago, Yourface said:

I don’t watch the NFL and I still see a ridiculous amount of complaining about their refs, so I have a hard believing that they are THAT much better than CFL refs.

I don’t watch baseball either but I think the umpire’s job is pretty straightforward. There is not as much grey area in baseball as there is in football, hockey or basketball (IMO probably the hardest sport to officiate). In each of these sports you see an insane amount of complaining about the refs. At times it is warranted, but last weekend against the Argos? Not one bit. The Bombers shot themselves in the foot over and over again and the refs had nothing to do with it.

I can agree that some of the rule changes in the CFL over the years have been unnecessary, and haven’t done any favours for the officials, but the constant complaining about officiating gets tiring. 

 

OK but that seems random in the context of this thread or this game.

Again you have to look at who is talking about nfl refs. They are so far beyond what we have it’s not funny. 
You don’t think there is grey zone in calling balls and strings?! LOL 

i the nba the issue has been selective enforcement and mandates from the league. Not reffing it self for the most part. 
 

3 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Holding: I have long been of the opinion, that only a certain number of holds are called, by choice. It has unofficially become part of QB protection.

Yup. It’s to the point when the flag does finally come out every one is shocked and it’s a stupid advantage when rampant mugging happen on most plays. Like ok don’t even try to block clean any more. If they see a rushers back then push them and ride them into the ground knowing the call won’t come. 
 

3 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I think some here are chatting about the current standard of reffing across the league regardless of who wins or loses. Much different discussion than ‘reffing is why we lost’.

100%. It’s every game. Some games the refs are just mia, others it’s the dirty laundry show. No balance no advantage no consistency. 
 

 

[JCon]

11 hours ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I think some here are chatting about the current standard of reffing across the league regardless of who wins or loses. Much different discussion than ‘reffing is why we lost’.

100%. This sport has a real problem in this country and it's on full display each week. The reffing is horribly embarrassing. 

Pretending this isn't a real problem is very weird. And, it's one of drivers making the CFL unwatchable. 

[Yourface]

7 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Again you have to look at who is talking about nfl refs. They are so far beyond what we have it’s not funny. 
You don’t think there is grey zone in calling balls and strings?! LOL 

i the nba the issue has been selective enforcement and mandates from the league. Not reffing it self for the most part. 

I’m not saying there is no grey zone in baseball, but generally speaking the umpire’s job is pretty straightforward. You have one at each base and they’re only looking at a couple of things. Probably the easiest sport to officiate.

Something tells me you’re letting bias affect your view of the officiating in Bombers games versus the NFL, but I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. Is the NFL even enforcing the new hip-drop tackle rule?

In the NBA the main issue is that it’s a very difficult sport to officiate. There is a natural tendency for referees to engage in game management across most sports. Basketball, hockey and football are no exception.

8 hours ago, 17to85 said:

It's not random... basically every game this year the refs embarrass themselves with ineptitude in some fashion. No one is saying "oh the refs always screw us over", it's more "the refs suck and they and the command centre regularly botch things". Like it's amateur hour in the CFL for reffing. 

Compared to say the NHL where I don't think the refs are inept, they just heavily engage in game management because that's what the NHL wants. I don't believe the CFL refs manage games, they're just useless. 

Except it is random because in this particular game, there was no real display of ineptitude. 

People complain about refs WAY too much, in every sport. Doesn’t matter if it’s because of game management or something else. It gets tiring.

[Sard]

20 hours ago, GCn20 said:

For many, many years when playing vs. the East the Western teams have to overcome the officiating as well. 

Rewatched the 2 plays and it's very clear that on the sack, the defenders hand is right in the middle of Collaros' back so it should have been a horse collar penalty (1:44:00).  On the 3rd and 17 play, they spotted the ball a full yard short of where it was when Collaros' knee hit the ground (1:48:12).  Though the camera angle isn't 100% correct, if anything, the ball is further ahead than what it would look like because of the angle.

 

 

[Yourface]

19 minutes ago, Sard said:

Rewatched the 2 plays and it's very clear that on the sack, the defenders hand is right in the middle of Collaros' back so it should have been a horse collar penalty (1:44:00).  On the 3rd and 17 play, they spotted the ball a full yard short of where it was when Collaros' knee hit the ground (1:48:12).  Though the camera angle isn't 100% correct, if anything, the ball is further ahead than what it would look like because of the angle.

 

 

Oh come on, there is nothing that is « very clear » about either of these plays. Even Collaros would probably tell you that was a clean tackle. Clearly the Bombers thought so too since it wasn’t challenged. Get over it guys. The Bombers sucked ass. That’s the only reason they lost.

[GCn20]

25 minutes ago, Yourface said:

Oh come on, there is nothing that is « very clear » about either of these plays. Even Collaros would probably tell you that was a clean tackle. Clearly the Bombers thought so too since it wasn’t challenged. Get over it guys. The Bombers sucked ass. That’s the only reason they lost.

You are half right. There is no use complaining about that tackle and no angle shows definitively that he had a mitt full of jersey. You are allowed to have a hand on the back just can't be grabbing anything. We did not lose because we sucked ass though, that's a Rider thing.

[TBURGESS]

The last two posts show what the real problem is. What's very clear to one fan isn't to another. 

Refs make their calls in real time. It's a sub-second decision based on a single point of view. The fact that they aren't over turned very often, shows that they are doing a pretty damn good job. 

If you have to say that the camera angle isn't right to prove your right, then you're wrong, not the refs.

[17to85]

27 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

If you have to say that the camera angle isn't right to prove your right, then you're wrong, not the refs.

This is a dumb statement... part of the refs job is to be in a position to see things from the right perspective.  There's enough of them on the field. 

My biggest problem isn't that officials on field make mistakes or miss things. It's a fast game with a lot going on, that happens. But as it has been since they brought in video review, the command centre makes baffling calls. So if you can't get the call right after review why even have review?

[Sard]

49 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The last two posts show what the real problem is. What's very clear to one fan isn't to another. 

Refs make their calls in real time. It's a sub-second decision based on a single point of view. The fact that they aren't over turned very often, shows that they are doing a pretty damn good job. 

If you have to say that the camera angle isn't right to prove your right, then you're wrong, not the refs.

You misunderstand my comment about the camera angle.  What I'm saying is that the camera angle that they have showed that the ball was clearly 1 yard further up field from where they spotted it when his knee touched.  The fact that the camera angle is where it is, indicates that the ball was even a little further ahead than that, so the spot of the ball was at least a yard short of where he got it, but it should have been spotted a full yard further up field based on the angle that they do have.

[TBURGESS]

58 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

This is a dumb statement... part of the refs job is to be in a position to see things from the right perspective.  There's enough of them on the field. 

My biggest problem isn't that officials on field make mistakes or miss things. It's a fast game with a lot going on, that happens. But as it has been since they brought in video review, the command centre makes baffling calls. So if you can't get the call right after review why even have review?

No one is going to be in the perfect position to make the 'right' call every time. That's a totally unrealistic expectation. Even if you had 24 refs, each one watching a single player, you wouldn't have the perfect angle for every play. 

The command center is better than nothing. They do a great job of binary calls, like in or out, catch or no catch. It's the rules that call for the ref to make a judgement in real time that are questionable. Is the jersey tug enough for PI? Is the push off enough for DPI? Is it a pick or a rub? No command center might have cost us a Grey Cup when Dinwiddie's pass was 'picked'. No one wants to go back. 

Looking at where the ball was when the knee touched out of bounds... For the command center to be accurate, they'd need to have two sync'd cameras. One on the sideline to show the exact sub-second the knee touched and one directly in line with the ball to see where it was when the knee touched. Obviously, that's a totally unrealistic expectation. Guessing, based on the camera angles they had, isn't 'clear and obvious' so the call wasn't overturned. If it had been called a first down, it wouldn't have been overturned either. That's the way the command center is supposed to work.

[Doublezero]

I could not find anything in the CFL rule book on exactly where to spot the ball when a player in possession dives out of bounds. It would be good if TSN got Al Bradbury on air to spell it out for us. Generally, (when a player dives or is airborne) you'll see officials spot the ball at the point where the ball initially crosses the plane of the sideline. Nothing to do with where the payers body lands out of bounds. That seems to be the accepted practice. So, although Collaros's forward momentum makes it appear that while airborne he carried the ball beyond the 10-yard marker he doesn't get the benefit of that because the on-field official - slightly behind the play but who still had a pretty good view - judged that the ball initially crossed the sideline plane earlier. As others have said, obviously command centre didn't see enough contrary evidence to overturn.

Edited 12 hours ago by Doublezero

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Oh yay. Another bye week after a loss- this was inevitable.

[JCon]

SECTION 9 — OUT OF BOUNDS

Article 1 — Definitions

The ball is Out of Bounds when it touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines. The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/conduct-of-the-game/out-of-bounds/

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 hours ago, Yourface said:

People complain about refs WAY too much, in every sport. Doesn’t matter if it’s because of game management or something else. It gets tiring.

People complaining about People complaining about refs WAY too much- It gets tiring.

2 hours ago, Yourface said:

The Bombers sucked ass. That’s the only reason they lost.

This is a dumb and unserious take- you can say the Bombers squandered many chances at winning this game., but to completely discount other variables is silly. 

[Doublezero]

5 minutes ago, JCon said:

SECTION 9 — OUT OF BOUNDS

Article 1 — Definitions

The ball is Out of Bounds when it touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines. The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/conduct-of-the-game/out-of-bounds/

Yes, I saw that. But it does not address the question of where the ball is spotted when a player dives out of bounds with momentum That is a grey area and does not appear to be uniformly applied.

Edited 11 hours ago by Doublezero

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Doublezero said:

Yes, I saw that. But it does not address where the question of where the ball is spotted when a player dives out of bounds with momentum That is a grey area and does not appear to be uniformly applied.

I agree that is not uniformly applied but that's consistent with CFL reffing. Nothing is consistently applied. 

But it does state CLEARLY "touches". 

Ah, crap, I probably just triggered the local attorney, CBA and rules expert. Good luck people. 

[blue85gold]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

I agree that is not uniformly applied but that's consistent with CFL reffing. Nothing is consistently applied. 

But it does state CLEARLY "touches". 

Seems pretty clear that the ball is not out of bounds until it or the player holding it touches out of bounds. So the ball should have been spotted where it was when ZC landed out of bounds. 

[Yourface]

11 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

People complaining about People complaining about refs WAY too much- It gets tiring.

This is a dumb and unserious take- you can say the Bombers squandered many chances at winning this game., but to completely discount other variables is silly.

The world would be a much better place if we all tried to be a little more objective.

It is not a dumb take. If the Bombers played even slightly better, they would have won. End of story. The refs had nothing to do with the outcome, and not a single one of us has the evidence to show that any of the calls made should have been overturned.

[JCon]

Just now, Yourface said:

The world would be a much better place if we all tried to be a little more objective.

It is not a dumb take. If the Bombers played even slightly better, they would have won. End of story. The refs had nothing to do with the outcome, and not a single one of us has the evidence to show that any of the calls made should have been overturned.

I think you're the only one arguing a point about them winning the game. I don't think the outcome would have changed. The reffing is just plain horrible in this league. Pointing out the errors is not unobjective. 

[17to85]

23 minutes ago, Doublezero said:

Yes, I saw that. But it does not address the question of where the ball is spotted when a player dives out of bounds with momentum That is a grey area and does not appear to be uniformly applied.

The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

 

Pretty straight forward actually. Player in the air the ball is out wherever the player is deemed to be down... so question is, you spot at the players knee or where the ball is? Cause that's the entire issue with spotting the ball. Sometimes it's the ball when a player reaches, but sometimes it's where the player goes down.

Consistency from officials.

To a man everyone here has said the offense was dog **** and Castillo sucked... that doesn't mean we can't also say the refs sucked too.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, Yourface said:

The world would be a much better place if we all tried to be a little more objective.

Sure.

2 minutes ago, Yourface said:

It is not a dumb take. If the Bombers played even slightly better, they would have won. End of story. The refs had nothing to do with the outcome, and not a single one of us has the evidence to show that any of the calls made should have been overturned.

Sure- one yard extra for a touch down instead of a ToD would have squared away that game, or two made and not missed field goals- sure sealed away the game. 

But saying the refs had NOTHING to do with the outcome... that is insane. 

The key is to outplay the capacity of the officials ability to affect the outcome. Refs are going to **** the bed on many calls (for both sides), it's silly to not recognize the officials as a facet of the outcome of games. 

[Yourface]

9 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

 

Pretty straight forward actually. Player in the air the ball is out wherever the player is deemed to be down... so question is, you spot at the players knee or where the ball is? Cause that's the entire issue with spotting the ball. Sometimes it's the ball when a player reaches, but sometimes it's where the player goes down.

Consistency from officials.

To a man everyone here has said the offense was dog **** and Castillo sucked... that doesn't mean we can't also say the refs sucked too.

The refs were NOT bad though. People just think this way because one crucial call didn’t go our way. Realistically it could have gone either way. If they deemed it a first down in real time, it would not have been overturned by the command center either. That’s the way it goes.

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by Yourface

[Yourface]

26 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

Sure.

Sure- one yard extra for a touch down instead of a ToD would have squared away that game, or two made and not missed field goals- sure sealed away the game. 

But saying the refs had NOTHING to do with the outcome... that is insane. 

The key is to outplay the capacity of the officials ability to affect the outcome. Refs are going to **** the bed on many calls (for both sides), it's silly to not recognize the officials as a facet of the outcome of games. 

Well you’re just being disingenuous at this point. Of course I realize that the refs can have an impact. What we hope for is that the refs don’t go out of their way to make calls that affect the outcome of a game, which they did a decent job of against the Argos.

[17to85]

1 hour ago, Yourface said:

The refs were NOT bad though. People just think this way because one crucial call didn’t go our way. Realistically it could have gone either way. If they deemed it a first down in real time, it would not have been overturned by the command center either. That’s the way it goes.

 

 

I disagree,  they were pretty bad all game as is usual in the cfl, people are only talking about the spot of the ball on 3rd and 17 because it was the last play thar mattered in the game.

[Yourface]

3 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I disagree,  they were pretty bad all game as is usual in the cfl, people are only talking about the spot of the ball on 3rd and 17 because it was the last play thar mattered in the game.

Lmao now you’re lying to yourself. You know who was trashing the officiating two weeks ago after the Bombers win against Hamilton? Tiger-Cats fans of course. It’s always the fans of the losing team trashing the refs, on every game day in every sport and it’s ridiculous. There is zero objectivity coming from you or most people on this board seemingly.