Was it in?

[17to85]

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".

Well in that case it could be "well he was close to the goal line and even kicked the corner marker over, probably good enough to call it in and review it to be sure"  I just don't see how a lot of stuff like that isn't just called and left up to replay. It's just one way for the refs to be lazier. 

[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".

Well in that case it could be "well he was close to the goal line and even kicked the corner marker over, probably good enough to call it in and review it to be sure"  I just don't see how a lot of stuff like that isn't just called and left up to replay. It's just one way for the refs to be lazier.

Yeah, and that's your interpretation.

I don't agree with the lazy part. Inept, maybe.

On that goal line play, the Ref did bail and made a call while off balance. I don't see how he could have seen a portion of the ball crossing the line, but who really knows? Only him.

It's the reverse of what happened to the Bombers a few years ago, against Montreal I believe, where Brink? was obviously over the goal line (his knees were at the goal line) and because they couldn't actually see the ball, it wasn't ruled a TD even though there was no other place for the ball to be.

[Goalie]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end? 

[TBURGESS]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end? 

Yup.  It had nothing to do with the Refs hating the Bombers.

[bearpants]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end?

 

definitely... even at the game, as it happened, I thought it was the right call... it wasn't until I saw the replay on TSN (they didn't show it on the jumbotron) that I questioned it...

[WBBFanWest]

 

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".

Well in that case it could be "well he was close to the goal line and even kicked the corner marker over, probably good enough to call it in and review it to be sure"  I just don't see how a lot of stuff like that isn't just called and left up to replay. It's just one way for the refs to be lazier. 

 

Maybe I'm being naive, but I find it very hard to believe that a pro level official would call something that he didn't see and go "Meh, If I'm wrong, they'll pick it up on the review."  I would hope that if a ref was using the review as a crutch, it would soon become apparent and he'd be an ex-ref.

[Bomber_fanaddict]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end? 

I'm certain it would have been.  Look at the Rider game and Smith not getting the first down on third and short when it was pretty clear he was.  He fumbled the ball but after review said the fumble was after the whistle, however Smith didn't get enough yardage.  Looked pretty clear he had.  Seems to happen in every game I guess.

[TrueBlue4ever]

I see Paul Friesen is amused by the debate about whether or not the Bombers got "jobbed" on this call and put it in today's paper. He went on to say that all the complaining by Bomber fans about the missed non-TD call was not equally matched by an uproar over the Bomber punt block TD where the kicker got contacted and there was no penalty.

While I don't normally get wrapped up in the ongoing Friesen hate-on around here and don't have an axe to grind against his reporting personally, and although I recognize the point that he is trying to make is that as homers we only see things one way, I'd just like to say that if he is going to use the paper to take a shot across the bow at fans then he had better be on solid ground factually.

SO, Paul, if you are reading, and think that because the player who contacted the kicker was NOT the one who blocked the kick [as covered in Rule 7, section 1, article 2b allowing contact if you WERE the one who blocked the kick], that means there should be a penalty and the refs missed that one, look at Rule 5, section 4, article 5b which basically allows contact to the punter by any player once a player of the receiving first touched the ball, so there is no longer any protection afforded the punter who is just another live player who can be blocked.

Hence the reason we aren't equally up in arms over that "missed" call - it wasn't a missed call.

[17to85]

Paul Friesen hasn't cared about understanding the rules of football once in his career, he's not going to start now, 

[SPuDS]

Paul Friesen hasn't cared about understanding the rules of football once in his career, he's not going to start now,

One of the many, MANY glaring reasons for our ongoing dislike and lambasting of our esteemed sports journalists here in Winnipeg..

I mean you have what.. 3 main sports to follow a season? You can't even learn the simple rules for each sport?

Smh. I think some of us missed our callings as I'm pretty positive our level of journalism in relation to the bombers and maybe even jets is of better quality lol

[kelownabomberfan]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end? 

 

The reffing was pretty crappy and one-sided against Calgary last night.  There were a few calls where I just couldn't figure out what the refs were thinking, and they all seemed to against Calgary.

[Brandon]

All i ask from the refs is consistency game to game but... it seems like we ain't even getting that. Heres the million dollar question and the one that i think frustrates a lot of people watching... do you think that call would have been made in the other games this past week-end?

The reffing was pretty crappy and one-sided against Calgary last night. There were a few calls where I just couldn't figure out what the refs were thinking, and they all seemed to against Calgary.

It was atrocious last night.. They were really ticky tack with special teams.

Killam or whatever the Calgary special teams coach name is went full on Doug Berry wolverine rage mode on the refs

[Fatty Liver]

I see Paul Friesen is amused by the debate about whether or not the Bombers got "jobbed" on this call and put it in today's paper. He went on to say that all the complaining by Bomber fans about the missed non-TD call was not equally matched by an uproar over the Bomber punt block TD where the kicker got contacted and there was no penalty.

While I don't normally get wrapped up in the ongoing Friesen hate-on around here and don't have an axe to grind against his reporting personally, and although I recognize the point that he is trying to make is that as homers we only see things one way, I'd just like to say that if he is going to use the paper to take a shot across the bow at fans then he had better be on solid ground factually.

SO, Paul, if you are reading, and think that because the player who contacted the kicker was NOT the one who blocked the kick [as covered in Rule 7, section 1, article 2b allowing contact if you WERE the one who blocked the kick], that means there should be a penalty and the refs missed that one, look at Rule 5, section 4, article 5b which basically allows contact to the punter by any player once a player of the receiving first touched the ball, so there is no longer any protection afforded the punter who is just another live player who can be blocked.

Hence the reason we aren't equally up in arms over that "missed" call - it wasn't a missed call.

 

Does the Editor not proof read his columns???  Unbelievable for a sports writer paid to cover football to make such a public gaffe.  I look forward to his admittance of ignorance and his apology.

[voodoochylde]

Friesen isn't paid to be a sportswriter .. he's paid to be an opinionated mouth piece.

[James]

I see Paul Friesen is amused by the debate about whether or not the Bombers got "jobbed" on this call and put it in today's paper. He went on to say that all the complaining by Bomber fans about the missed non-TD call was not equally matched by an uproar over the Bomber punt block TD where the kicker got contacted and there was no penalty.

While I don't normally get wrapped up in the ongoing Friesen hate-on around here and don't have an axe to grind against his reporting personally, and although I recognize the point that he is trying to make is that as homers we only see things one way, I'd just like to say that if he is going to use the paper to take a shot across the bow at fans then he had better be on solid ground factually.

SO, Paul, if you are reading, and think that because the player who contacted the kicker was NOT the one who blocked the kick [as covered in Rule 7, section 1, article 2b allowing contact if you WERE the one who blocked the kick], that means there should be a penalty and the refs missed that one, look at Rule 5, section 4, article 5b which basically allows contact to the punter by any player once a player of the receiving first touched the ball, so there is no longer any protection afforded the punter who is just another live player who can be blocked.

Hence the reason we aren't equally up in arms over that "missed" call - it wasn't a missed call.

You should put that in the comments section of his article... or tweet it to him and shut that clown up