2024 West Final - Lead Up Chatter

[wbbfan]

8 minutes ago, captaincanuck12 said:

The command centre incompetence is unfortunately a bigger story this year.  Ever since they allowed that clear non-catch from McSpitty Williams against the Bombers, I have had no faith in them.  Have no freaking idea how they could fix it either.

Fix it by micing the cc booth and letting them break down the replay as well as tsn. Don’t let them hide behind anonymity. Also grading official performances (including cc) and releasing them after each game (like mlb). Then simplify what they can and can’t review on their own and with a challenge. Finally, don’t have the CC exist to support the refs. Their primary job should be getting the call right not limiting embarrassment for refs. 
 For a bonus point, add a couple camera specifically for the end zone, side line and line of scrimmage. Nothing crazy, some thing parallel to the lines from each end. 
 Also give teams an official review per time out, and cap each review at say 2 minutes outside of the last 3. Last 3 let em have 3 minutes. 
 

Imagine what the league could do with a couple mid tier hobbyist drones, the line wire cam etc? 

[Booch]

17 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Fix it by micing the cc booth and letting them break down the replay as well as tsn. Don’t let them hide behind anonymity. Also grading official performances (including cc) and releasing them after each game (like mlb). Then simplify what they can and can’t review on their own and with a challenge. Finally, don’t have the CC exist to support the refs. Their primary job should be getting the call right not limiting embarrassment for refs. 
 For a bonus point, add a couple camera specifically for the end zone, side line and line of scrimmage. Nothing crazy, some thing parallel to the lines from each end. 
 Also give teams an official review per time out, and cap each review at say 2 minutes outside of the last 3. Last 3 let em have 3 minutes. 
 

Imagine what the league could do with a couple mid tier hobbyist drones, the line wire cam etc? 

I think that needs to be done...real time footage of the discussion and reasoning for their decision...thats the only way we will see accountability, and likely the correct call more times than not....there is no accountability as it stands now...and a lot of the decisions are result of it

I would also not even consider the risk of embarrassing the ref's either...that may just be the kick in the ass some of them need to do their job right...or get punted

[BomberBall.]

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

Yeah I'm not sure how the hell they ruled that incomplete. He was clearly in bounds. And no one saw the ball touch the ground (because it didn't). The refs just ****** that call up big time. And anything that close, should be looked at by the command centre. Just like when they overturned a call earlier this year because of illegal formation. That still pisses me off!!!

This is what drives fans nuts.  If it was ruled an interception, it would’ve been automatically reviewed, but if it’s maybe an interception and not ruled as such, it’s not?  That needs to change.  And what the hell is the criteria for the CC to buzz down and intervene?  They jump in on a random, pointless illegal motion that doesn’t really affect a play, but don’t feel it’s necessary when a turnover is missed?  Come on.

[Booch]

7 minutes ago, BomberBall. said:

This is what drives fans nuts.  If it was ruled an interception, it would’ve been automatically reviewed, but if it’s maybe an interception and not ruled as such, it’s not?  That needs to change.  And what the hell is the criteria for the CC to buzz down and intervene?  They jump in on a random, pointless illegal motion that doesn’t really affect a play, but don’t feel it’s necessary when a turnover is missed?  Come on.

was the start of the game...My guess the incompetent goofs were not even in their chairs yet watching...and probably didnt even see it live

[GCn20]

4 minutes ago, BomberBall. said:

This is what drives fans nuts.  If it was ruled an interception, it would’ve been automatically reviewed, but if it’s maybe an interception and not ruled as such, it’s not?  That needs to change.  And what the hell is the criteria for the CC to buzz down and intervene?  They jump in on a random, pointless illegal motion that doesn’t really affect a play, but don’t feel it’s necessary when a turnover is missed?  Come on.

On a clear and obvious mistake, other than penalties, the CC should be able to phone down and correct the call.  I wouldn't want them bogging stuff down that requires multiple angles and 5 minutes to analyze but the interception was clear. obvious and could be determined as so very quickly beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1 minute ago, Booch said:

was the start of the game...My guess the incompetent goofs were not even in their chairs yet watching...and probably didnt even see it live

I can't imagine what transpired to not rule that an interception both by the on-field refs and upstairs. There was zero reason to even dispute that it may not be an interception. It was as clean as could be.

1 hour ago, Booch said:

I think that needs to be done...real time footage of the discussion and reasoning for their decision...thats the only way we will see accountability, and likely the correct call more times than not....there is no accountability as it stands now...and a lot of the decisions are result of it

I would also not even consider the risk of embarrassing the ref's either...that may just be the kick in the ass some of them need to do their job right...or get punted

The refs should be downright embarrassed already for bungling a potential turnover call that egregiously. CC getting it right doesn't embarrass them more. The proof of their incompetence is there either way.

[17to85]

They should start by doing away with any and all automatically reviews. That is just a crutch the on field refs use to avoid making the hard calls. If they have the ability to call down on anything it just leads to stuff like this potential int being missed as well because in reality you can probably find an infraction on any given play so they can't review it all. 

 

I understand the desire to get it right.... but getting it right starts with the onfield officials. 

[GCn20]

8 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

They should start by doing away with any and all automatically reviews. That is just a crutch the on field refs use to avoid making the hard calls. If they have the ability to call down on anything it just leads to stuff like this potential int being missed as well because in reality you can probably find an infraction on any given play so they can't review it all. 

 

I understand the desire to get it right.... but getting it right starts with the onfield officials. 

I agree to some of that. The ability to make ticky tack BS calls shouldn't be reviewable or forgive my English call downable. Turnovers/potential turnovers, scoring plays, receptions/incompletions should all be something they can do as well as getting line infractions correct. Other than that, no need.

I do have to wonder about the availability of replays by TSN on that INT as well, because MOS didn't challenge what would have been the easiest challenge win of his career.

Edited Tuesday at 03:45 PM by GCn20

[Fatty Liver]

58 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

On a clear and obvious mistake, other than penalties, the CC should be able to phone down and correct the call.  I wouldn't want them bogging stuff down that requires multiple angles and 5 minutes to analyze but the interception was clear. obvious and could be determined as so very quickly beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I can't imagine what transpired to not rule that an interception both by the on-field refs and upstairs. There was zero reason to even dispute that it may not be an interception. It was as clean as could be.

Obviously the interception wasn't clear and obvious to the 2 officials who determined the call on the spot in real time without the benefit of slow motion and multiple replays.  Unless you believe the officials were colluding against the Bombers???  The only thing that was obvious on first impression, is that it was a close call that could go either way.

[TBURGESS]

The ball was still moving so it wasn't a pick while his foot was in bounds. As it was a possible turnover, it would have been automatically reviewed. Folks may not like the conclusion but that doesn't make it the wrong call. 

Montreal fans are likely complaining about the pick being taken away from them, when our receiver clearly initiated contact with their DB to draw an illegal contact penalty. Note that illegal contact is not a challengeable call so they got it right.

[Super Duper Negatron]

4 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

As it was a possible turnover, it would have been automatically reviewed

I don't think this is true

[JCon]

10 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

I don't think this is true

Definitely would not. The rules expert is wrong again (and again and again and again...). 

Article 2 — Automatic review triggers (Potential for game to be paused)

When the game is paused for an auto-review, the list of standard reviewable aspects will be reviewed in relation to the below scenarios and additions.

• A play where any score has been ruled on the field.
• A play where a potential score occurred but was not ruled, e.g. A ball carrier ruled out of bounds near the goal-line, or an incomplete pass ruling at the back of the endzone.
• A turnover (Fumble lost or Interception) has been ruled on the field.

Perhaps it's time to stick to just being wrong about the CBA. 

[GCn20]

14 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The ball was still moving so it wasn't a pick while his foot was in bounds. As it was a possible turnover, it would have been automatically reviewed. Folks may not like the conclusion but that doesn't make it the wrong call. 

Montreal fans are likely complaining about the pick being taken away from them, when our receiver clearly initiated contact with their DB to draw an illegal contact penalty. Note that illegal contact is not a challengeable call so they got it right.

OMG I can't even believe you are arguing that it wasn't a blown call. Just SMH....it isn't even remotely debateable. I'm sorry TB but this kind of post is just absolutely why everyone shakes their head at your outlook on this forum. You are so hell bent on being a contrarian you can't see the forest through the trees.

[Bigblue204]

1 hour ago, Fatty Liver said:

Obviously the interception wasn't clear and obvious to the 2 officials who determined the call on the spot in real time without the benefit of slow motion and multiple replays.  Unless you believe the officials were colluding against the Bombers???  The only thing that was obvious on first impression, is that it was a close call that could go either way.

That's where I'm confused. The ball never touched the ground. And he didn't step out. So they saw neither of those things happen. But decided to rule it incomplete instead of a turnover which would ha e allowed the CC to take a look. Even if the CC ruled it wasn't a Pic....it would have been the right decision to call it a turnover on the field.

[GCn20]

19 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

I don't think this is true

Absolutely not and I'm not even sure why he thought it would be as we have seen this exact scenario play out time and time again in many games since video review has been introduced. If ruled an incompletion it requires a coaches challenge to be reviewed.

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

That's where I'm confused. The ball never touched the ground. And he didn't step out. So they saw neither of those things happen. But decided to rule it incomplete instead of a turnover which would ha e allowed the CC to take a look. Even if the CC ruled it wasn't a Pic....it would have been the right decision to call it a turnover on the field.

Particularly when it was absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt a turnover. Not sure what the officials were even looking at? He high pointed the ball, got both feet down 2 yards from the sideline and never once so much as bobbled the ball. A 100% clean reception. Ball hits hands, feet touch down WELL WITHIN the boundaries of play, and clean possession is maintained the entire time. TURNOVER.

Edited Tuesday at 05:46 PM by GCn20

[17to85]

22 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Montreal fans are likely complaining about the pick being taken away from them, when our receiver clearly initiated contact with their DB to draw an illegal contact penalty. Note that illegal contact is not a challengeable call so they got it right.

Was the pick not taken away because it was an incomplete pass? Ie. The db trapped it on the ground? Or am I crazy

[GCn20]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

Was the pick not taken away because it was an incomplete pass? Ie. The db trapped it on the ground? Or am I crazy

You are not crazy, anyone debating the ball didn't roll around on the ground is crazy. That was an easy overturn, and easy for the official to miss as well.

[Super Duper Negatron]

27 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Was the pick not taken away because it was an incomplete pass? Ie. The db trapped it on the ground? Or am I crazy

Unless he is talking about a different play, it was indeed ruled incomplete.

[Fatty Liver]

27 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

You are not crazy, anyone debating the ball didn't roll around on the ground is crazy. That was an easy overturn, and easy for the official to miss as well.

Yes but without the benefit of the replay I don't think anyone, including the refs. realised the ball hit the turf. The difference is the refs. let that one play out and CC corrected the call, whereas with the Ford interception he rolled out of bounds and the refs. were forced to decide immediately whether he had possession or not, ror sure if they ruled interception it would have stood.  The obstacle has become overturning calls made on the field, huge priority to sort this out and re-set in the off-season.

9 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Unless he is talking about a different play, it was indeed ruled incomplete.

Only after CC over-turned the call.

[blue85gold]

41 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Was the pick not taken away because it was an incomplete pass? Ie. The db trapped it on the ground? Or am I crazy

There were 2 ints initially ruled for the Als. One was overturned because it was incomplete. One was overturned on an illegal contact penalty. 

[Super Duper Negatron]

3 minutes ago, blue85gold said:

There were 2 ints initially ruled for the Als. One was overturned because it was incomplete. One was overturned on an illegal contact penalty. 

Do you remember at what time the latter one was?

[blue85gold]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The ball was still moving so it wasn't a pick while his foot was in bounds. As it was a possible turnover, it would have been automatically reviewed. Folks may not like the conclusion but that doesn't make it the wrong call. 

Montreal fans are likely complaining about the pick being taken away from them, when our receiver clearly initiated contact with their DB to draw an illegal contact penalty. Note that illegal contact is not a challengeable call so they got it right.

Don't know why I'm bothering but come on man. 

Starting at 5:49, Ford has the ball pinned in his belly. He never drops it. It's not moving, he's holding it against his body. 

 

[TBURGESS]

38 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Was the pick not taken away because it was an incomplete pass? Ie. The db trapped it on the ground? Or am I crazy

That's the other pick that hit the ground. The first pick was taken away because of the penalty on them. 

 

53 minutes ago, JCon said:

Article 2 — Automatic review triggers (Potential for game to be paused)

When the game is paused for an auto-review, the list of standard reviewable aspects will be reviewed in relation to the below scenarios and additions.

• A play where any score has been ruled on the field.
• A play where a potential score occurred but was not ruled, e.g. A ball carrier ruled out of bounds near the goal-line, or an incomplete pass ruling at the back of the endzone.
• A turnover (Fumble lost or Interception) has been ruled on the field.

My bad. I looked at the online resource: https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/instant-replay/command-centre-reviews/ which says: 

Quote

SECTION 4 — THE LIST OF STANDARD REVIEWABLE ASPECTS

The standard reviewable situations include:

• Whether a score was made or not
• Possession of the ball (fumbles and catches)
• Touching of the ball
• Ball spots and down with contact
• Administrative rulings such as the clock
• Whether players are onside with respect to a kicked ball
• Whether a pass travels forward or backward
• Whether a pass was touched or completed behind the line of scrimmage

As the actual rules say: A turnover (Fumble lost or Interception) has been ruled on the field. The play would not be automatically reviewed. 

[blue85gold]

29 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Do you remember at what time the latter one was?

Don't remember but it was that deep shot to Demski I think up the middle.

[Nolby]

Anyone think BC might at all give Sask a tough time in the WSF? They sure as hell didn't show it a couple weeks ago, but with the Cup in BC's back yard and being the playoffs, never know.

The reason I wonder, and this is just my thoughts, Rick Campbell may be canned if they bomb hard vs Sask. BC brought back Rourke, butchered the way they handled that, brought Betts back, all to get a home playoff game.

The only home game they'd have left now is being in the Cup, start Adams and have Rourke at #2. They've got tons to lose, Id at least expect a much more competitive game this time around than 2 weeks ago.

[Noeller]

2 minutes ago, Nolby said:

Anyone think BC might at all give Sask a tough time in the WSF? They sure as hell didn't show it a couple weeks ago, but with the Cup in BC's back yard and being the playoffs, never know.

The reason I wonder, and this is just my thoughts, Rick Campbell may be canned if they bomb hard vs Sask. BC brought back Rourke, butchered the way they handled that, brought Betts back, all to get a home playoff game.

The only home game they'd have left now is being in the Cup, start Adams and have Rourke at #2. They've got tons to lose, Id at least expect a much more competitive game this time around than 2 weeks ago.

If the game was in BC Place, I'd say BC wins for sure. Being outdoors at Fort Hew West, it's a toss up just because I don't trust VAJ in slightly inclement weather...