Was it in?

[holoman]

 

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have.  I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong.  Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up.  Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after.  Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties  I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in.  Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up.  But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?

 

In my opinion, it wasn't in.  In these type of situations it might be good for officials to huddle before coming to a conclusion.  The ref immediately signaled a TD.  If that was due to assuming he was in, or he saw something completely different, we won't know, but i"m glad it didn't ruin the outcome. 

[kelownabomberfan]

In my opinion, it wasn't in.  In these type of situations it might be good for officials to huddle before coming to a conclusion.  The ref immediately signaled a TD.  If that was due to assuming he was in, or he saw something completely different, we won't know, but i"m glad it didn't ruin the outcome.

For me it's in the same camp as the missed call on the Demski safety in week one. The refs blew the call, but thankfully it didn't result in the game being decided because of it.

[mbrg]

 

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have.  I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong.  Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up.  Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after.  Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties  I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in.  Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up.  But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?

 

 

I didn't think it was a quick review.  There was definitely a break in the action then.

 

The ref saying "the play is under review" is redundant anyways, all turnovers and all scoring plays are reviewed.  Some refs make that announcement when the review is not an obvious rubber stamp situation, but it was never necessary to mention it.  It only benefited people who don't know the rules anyways.

 

Speaking of things refs do, I don't remember a single time they brought the chains onto the field for a measurement.  I know they're trying to speed things up, but there was at least one spot that I thought deserved the chain gang - they just eyeballed it.

[JuranBoldenRules]

Watching that play live and now on replay a few times, the one thing I can guarantee is that the side judge had no idea where the ball was.  Sutton was walking into the endzone and the official anticipated it, not that Randle would fly in and drill him out of bounds.

 

I haven't seen an angle where I thought the ball was anywhere near the goal-line.  Sutton's right side ends up turned away from the goal-line parallel to it.

 

The purpose of replay should just be to get the call right.  Forget the irrefutable evidence crap.  Given how often the officials are wrong or flat out lazy in terms of being in position to make the right call, why does their call count for more than the replay official?

[SPuDS]

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

 

Yeah, that's a great handle.

The system worked like it was designed: on-field official called it in, no conclusive evidence that it didn't get in, command center upheld the decision. Maybe it was a bad call, the only way we'll know is to go back in time and point a camera right down the 1 yard line, because from the tsn handheld perspective there's no way to be sure where the ball was. And it didn't cost us the game anyway. No harm, no foul.

My point was that even though it didn't cost us the game it could have.  I just wanted other peoples opinions as to whether or not they felt it was in and what other options they can do to get the call right if they were wrong.  Even if this wasn't a Bomber game I would have brought it up.  Its just odd they didn't say they were reviewing it (even though they usually do) and seemingly just went to the pt after.  Maybe they had a perfect camera view we didn't see and it was a quick review. Maybe they just said F it and gave them the TD to move the game along as they just finished burning 20min back and fourth with penalties  I'm just pointing out the one angle that we are able to see and even with the skewed camera angle it doesn't look in.  Don't get me wrong I'm happy with the outcome and hate to be bringing it up.  But would a stationary camera on the goal line help in these situations?

 

 

I didn't think it was a quick review.  There was definitely a break in the action then.

 

The ref saying "the play is under review" is redundant anyways, all turnovers and all scoring plays are reviewed.  Some refs make that announcement when the review is not an obvious rubber stamp situation, but it was never necessary to mention it.  It only benefited people who don't know the rules anyways.

 

Speaking of things refs do, I don't remember a single time they brought the chains onto the field for a measurement.  I know they're trying to speed things up, but there was at least one spot that I thought deserved the chain gang - they just eyeballed it.

 

 

I hate this too.  Could be very impactful on the outcome of a game.  Often bringing out the chains helps them get the spot right when they are moving the ball to the hashmark from where the play ended, and that is huge in a game of inches.

[kelownabomberfan]

and that is huge in a game of inches.

hmmmm....football is a game of inches...that could catch on!

[Tracker]

and that is huge in a game of inches.

hmmmm....football is a game of inches...that could catch on!

Get with the times- its "a game of centimeters" now.

[wbbfan]

Was it in? Im not sure. What i did like is how many times we stopped them in the red zone on that drive. We really showed some tenacity and a glimmer of the bend but dont break notion .

[Rich]

 

 

and that is huge in a game of inches.

hmmmm....football is a game of inches...that could catch on!

 

Get with the times- its "a game of centimeters" now.

 

 

9.14 metres for a first down?

[johnzo]

The purpose of replay should just be to get the call right. Forget the irrefutable evidence crap. Given how often the officials are wrong or flat out lazy in terms of being in position to make the right call, why does their call count for more than the replay official?

Should a replay official be allowed to rule something a touchdown if they don't actually see the ball cross the line, but they guess it did?

It seems weird to let the replay official guess at the real outcome of a play if it's uncertain. If replay is uncertain, I want them to just go with the call on the field and move on.

[17to85]

Let's just ditch the replay already. It's making the refs lazy, they rely on it to catch mistakes and that hurts the over all quality of officiating. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

The purpose of replay should just be to get the call right. Forget the irrefutable evidence crap. Given how often the officials are wrong or flat out lazy in terms of being in position to make the right call, why does their call count for more than the replay official?

Should a replay official be allowed to rule something a touchdown if they don't actually see the ball cross the line, but they guess it did?

It seems weird to let the replay official guess at the real outcome of a play if it's uncertain. If replay is uncertain, I want them to just go with the call on the field and move on.

 

 

No, but IMO the standard is too high for the replay official to actually make the right call.  Replay is useless for the most part.  I don't want the officials on the field guessing either.

[Mr Dee]

Replay is mostly for the fans, and personally, I enjoy it. It can also be a valuable tool for officials, not to second guess...but to get it right.

Replay is mostly for the fans, and personally, I enjoy it. It can also be a valuable tool for officials, not to second guess...but to get it right.

[DR. CFL]

Spilled milk...don't cry.

[Fatty Liver]

Watching that play live and now on replay a few times, the one thing I can guarantee is that the side judge had no idea where the ball was.  Sutton was walking into the endzone and the official anticipated it, not that Randle would fly in and drill him out of bounds.

 

I haven't seen an angle where I thought the ball was anywhere near the goal-line.  Sutton's right side ends up turned away from the goal-line parallel to it.

 

The purpose of replay should just be to get the call right.  Forget the irrefutable evidence crap.  Given how often the officials are wrong or flat out lazy in terms of being in position to make the right call, why does their call count for more than the replay official?

Put a chip in the ball, grid wire the field and they can layoff the chain gang and take the ball placement decisions out of the refs. hands. 

[Bomber_fanaddict]

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

[KptKrunch]

Interesting, I was wondering why they wouldn't have done this years ago. Especially in hockey. The entire puck has to cross the line so you put a metal filiment around the edge of the puck. Embed it as part of the rubber. 

 

A laser wouldn't work in football though it's not as cut and dry as that. As mentioned, we'd have the same issue as a hand, foot, or helmet could set it off as well.

 

Also, most TD's are reviewed via a 'catch' (as in did the receiver catch the ball , trap it, maintain possession, etc) which are all judgment calls on the field and can be (usually) easily proven on replay, the 'laser' would have nothing to do with it. 

 

I think the right call was made. I don't think based on the angle the ball crossed the line. IMO better than a laser, have a camera embedded on  a string high above the goal posts that follows the ball, plus one embedded on each pylon, and two on the goal posts themselves. That should give us plenty of angles to view. 

[17to85]

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

[voodoochylde]

 

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

 

 

FIFA has a few different "approved" goal line systems and I'm sure they'd be easily (relatively speak) adopted to football .. that said, you'd likely see it in the NFL long before it was adopted by the CFL .. interesting little overview of how that stuff works:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/world-cup-goalline-technology-football-brazil-2014

[17to85]

 

 

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

 

 

FIFA has a few different "approved" goal line systems and I'm sure they'd be easily (relatively speak) adopted to football .. that said, you'd likely see it in the NFL long before it was adopted by the CFL .. interesting little overview of how that stuff works:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/world-cup-goalline-technology-football-brazil-2014

 

Most of those are still camera based and won't work as well in football, and one of the magnetic ones requires the frame of the goal to use it. I suspect the cost for the one that might work for football is prohibitively expensive for a league such as the CFL. We just need to stop pretending that there is a solution to take human error out of the officiating and accept that mistakes will be made. I have no evidence to back it up but I would suggest that the quality of officiating is lower since replay was introduced simply because the refs are using replay as a crutch. Doesn't matter if they make a poor judgement, replay will catch it. 

[Bomber_fanaddict]

 

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

 

 

Well aware of how the curling one works.  Been at it for almost 30 years and most of that very competitive  I didn't mean to say that it should be exactly like that but maybe something similar.  Or your right just let it go to the side ref and move on. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

 

 

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

 

 

FIFA has a few different "approved" goal line systems and I'm sure they'd be easily (relatively speak) adopted to football .. that said, you'd likely see it in the NFL long before it was adopted by the CFL .. interesting little overview of how that stuff works:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/world-cup-goalline-technology-football-brazil-2014

 

Most of those are still camera based and won't work as well in football, and one of the magnetic ones requires the frame of the goal to use it. I suspect the cost for the one that might work for football is prohibitively expensive for a league such as the CFL. We just need to stop pretending that there is a solution to take human error out of the officiating and accept that mistakes will be made. I have no evidence to back it up but I would suggest that the quality of officiating is lower since replay was introduced simply because the refs are using replay as a crutch. Doesn't matter if they make a poor judgement, replay will catch it. 

 

 

O'Shea basically said that last night.  The officals will rule it a scoring play to make it an automatic review.  The only problem with that hedge is that the initial call has to be overturned irrefutably.  It's like being assumed guilty for a crime and having to prove your innocence rather than the other way around.

[voodoochylde]

 

 

 

 

How on this day and age we cannot introduce a laser based setup that would definitively show footballs and soccer crossing planes, pucks crossing lines or baseballs in a strike zone is beyond me..

 

Agreed.  I mean they have it in curling with Hog line infractions.  How someone hasn't figured out how to put the technology into other sports yet it strange.  The only thing with something like a laser is you can break it with your foot and not the ball (See the reply ) I can see in hockey, them installing the same technology into the puck as they have in curling and once it crosses a certain line it lights up.  Would take a lot of guess work off the refs.   Not sure how they would do that with a football.  But if there are any inventors out there that want my idea I want a 30% royalty

 

The technology for curling is a bit different as it simply records if the players hand is still on the handle of the rock as it crosses the hog line. Where do you put the sensor in the football? The ball only needs to touch the goal line for it to be in, you would have to make the entire football able to become a sensor and that seems like a near impossible task. 

 

The solution to me is to accept that there will be human error in the officiating and just deal with it. Ditch all the reviews and just let the refs do their job and hold them to a standard

 

 

FIFA has a few different "approved" goal line systems and I'm sure they'd be easily (relatively speak) adopted to football .. that said, you'd likely see it in the NFL long before it was adopted by the CFL .. interesting little overview of how that stuff works:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/16/world-cup-goalline-technology-football-brazil-2014

 

Most of those are still camera based and won't work as well in football, and one of the magnetic ones requires the frame of the goal to use it. I suspect the cost for the one that might work for football is prohibitively expensive for a league such as the CFL. We just need to stop pretending that there is a solution to take human error out of the officiating and accept that mistakes will be made. I have no evidence to back it up but I would suggest that the quality of officiating is lower since replay was introduced simply because the refs are using replay as a crutch. Doesn't matter if they make a poor judgement, replay will catch it. 

 

 

It's why I suggested it would likely be adopted by the NFL first (even if it was feasible) .. the cost to develop, test and implement such a system is way outside the realm of what's reasonable for the CFL.

[Mr Dee]

Of course there are different degrees in the quality of officiating, but I disagree that the referees will just take a stab at a call and rely on reviews to 'correct' the call. You have to believe that each official takes their job seriously and want to make the right call. It's a hell of a lot different being on the field of play, in the middle of the action, and making that call based on what you've seen. Nowhere do I see there is enough time to think about it, shrug, and "it's ok, it will be caught on review".