Revising the "real-time or it didn't happen" theory

[TecnoGenius]

TLDR; Command will still use freeze-frame to review fumbles because they've changed the standard on fumbles to let them play out.

After the (in)famous new command center guidelines about 8 weeks ago, I came up with the "real-time or it didn't happen" (RTOIDH) theory.  It jived with the information that got leaked regarding the guidelines, and jived near-perfectly with what we witnessed in every game after.  I've been able to predict every review outcome with about 95% accuracy since.

The idea was freeze-frame and slow-mo were not going to be considered for most (or all) reviews.  It's been proven in the 90% "upheld rate" on DPI/OPI challenges to this very day.  And was proven on TD reviews by the MTL Alexander OOB (or not) controversy that cost SSK a possible win.

But either the same week, or maybe 1-2 weeks later, command issued a guideline about letting most/all fumble-type plays play out instead of blowing them dead.  That came after several controversial whistle-dead moments occurred which were clearly not dead yet, and much fan uproar.

And almost immediately we started seeing a couple of fumble plays a month be overturned on review, even though the real-time evidence was weak or non-existent.  The first one was a QB getting hit as he was throwing and command clearly using freeze-frame to overturn the call on the field.  Since there was no way you could discern in real-time what actually happened, clearly command was indeed using freeze-frame for their reviews -- at least for fumbles.  But that contradicted my theory.

However, it's clear now that command had to have this exception for fumbles because they were telling the on-field refs to assume the ball was still live and not make on-field determinations (unless clearly plain and obvious).  Instead command was going to step in for every instance and sort it out.

Because they weren't going to trust the on-field refs' eyes and judgement in this one case, even though eyes can work down to the third-of-a-second level, they were forced to make an exception to the new "real-time or it didn't happen" standard.  If they had kept the long-standing standard of letting on-field refs blow plays dead to the best of the refs' judgement, they probably could have been consistent with RTOIDH across the board.  But they didn't, so they didn't.

The EDM@WPG game proved this yet again in the Kenny non-fumble scoop&score to start the game.  They let it play as if it were a fumble then command said he was DBC.  I checked extensively on the computer PVR and it was a non-fumble by 3 frames, or about 1/10th of a second.  And that fully jives with all the other instances of this since the "let it play out" guidelines went out.

So my "real-time or it didn't happen" will now be revised to "real-time or it didn't happen except for fumbles" (RTOIDHEFF?).  But, so far, it still seems to hold true on all other review and challenge types (including other "non-judgement call" types!).

[Sir Blue and Gold]

They don't have a no freeze frame or slow mo directive. They have a clear and obvious directive.

Slow motion and freeze frame are just tools that can be used. On a fumble, they are helpful because it's black and white. Body part down, in control? No fumble. The frame is there or it's not. On pass interference or roughing the passer and when the angles aren't perfect then they are less helpful. The only thing they changed was going back to letting the call stand unless it was clear and obvious which makes sense.

I don't think there's anything more to it than that.

[Pete]

Fumbles have to be an exception. Commentators seem to point out the the ruling on the field is of utmost importance but the fallacy there is there really is no ruling. The refs are simply doing as directed and letting it playout.
The cc then uses all its tools to make the correct call.
 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Fumbles have to be an exception. Commentators seem to point out the the ruling on the field is of utmost importance but the fallacy there is there really is no ruling. The refs are simply doing as directed and letting it playout.
The cc then uses all its tools to make the correct call.
 

Not entirely true because the on-field officials still have to make the original call one way or the other.  It was only because it was a change of possession the play received extra scrutiny from the CC.

[TecnoGenius]

Fumbles have to be an exception. Commentators seem to point out the the ruling on the field is of utmost importance but the fallacy there is there really is no ruling. The refs are simply doing as directed and letting it playout.
The cc then uses all its tools to make the correct call.

This is 100% my point.  Thank you for summing it up in one short paragraph!

If there is "no ruling" then there's no major impediment to overturning, because it's not an overturn, it's simply a delayed ruling.

[TecnoGenius]

They don't have a no freeze frame or slow mo directive. They have a clear and obvious directive.

Slow motion and freeze frame are just tools that can be used. On a fumble, they are helpful because it's black and white. Body part down, in control? No fumble. The frame is there or it's not. On pass interference or roughing the passer and when the angles aren't perfect then they are less helpful. The only thing they changed was going back to letting the call stand unless it was clear and obvious which makes sense.

I don't think there's anything more to it than that.

Except that amongst all the leaks from media & TSN talking heads it has been clearly stated that the plays were only going to be judged in full-speed (which implies no slow-mo).  D.Forde specifically mentions this often, probably because he's been lobbying for that for years and finally got his wish.

I maintain that there are three aspects of the guidelines that are (somewhat) new:

1. clear and obvious (as you said)
2. massive weight given to on-field ref call on DPI/OPI (i.e. overturns are rare)
3. no freeze-frame/slow-mo except on fumbles

The proof I offer of this, besides many CFL people saying so, is that there have been many DPI/OPI that they have upheld since the change where in slow-mo you can clearly see PI being committed (if uncalled; or not committed if called).  However, in real-time you can't tell squat.  Therefore they uphold the on-field call.

The other proof I already mentioned: Alexander's OOB TD, where they clearly didn't give a hoot about his foot in freeze-frame.  In live-time you couldn't determine anything other than he was OOB, therefore they upheld the call (and never apologized for it).

[TecnoGenius]

And spots.  Freeze-frame used on spots.  But that one kind of goes without saying.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Where do you even come up with this stuff? Leaks and Duane Ford? What?

So, the league did release a statement on August 22 about making changes to the review process. You, Duane Ford, and the rest of the world can read it for yourself: https://press.cfl.ca/command-centre-operations-refocus-on-clear-and-obvious-principle

Note that the elimination of freeze frame or slow mo isn't there. The overall idea is that it should be clear and obvious and if it's not, the call on the field will stand. So, basically, common sense. Like I told you before you tried veering off into 4Chan pseudo-world.

[ichabod_crane]

Where do you even come up with this stuff? Leaks and Duane Ford? What?

So, the league did release a statement on August 22 about making changes to the review process. You, Duane Ford, and the rest of the world can read it for yourself: https://press.cfl.ca/command-centre-operations-refocus-on-clear-and-obvious-principle

Note that the elimination of freeze frame or slow mo isn't there. The overall idea is that it should be clear and obvious and if it's not, the call on the field will stand. So, basically, common sense. Like I told you before you tried veering off into 4Chan pseudo-world.

Conspiracy theorist....we did not land on the moon either. All filmed in Stanley Kubrick studio!

[TecnoGenius]

Where do you even come up with this stuff? Leaks and Duane Ford? What?

Uh, because I watch every second of every game and most SC's after a game night, and I watch every presser released on BB.com and often the team we faced that week, as well as every Coaches Show.

If you watch all of that you'll get snippets here and there about things the league has said or is doing (as well as what the guy personally wants like in the case of D.Forde).

So, the league did release a statement on August 22 about making changes to the review process. You, Duane Ford, and the rest of the world can read it for yourself: https://press.cfl.ca/command-centre-operations-refocus-on-clear-and-obvious-principle

Yes, I know about that memo.  That is one of the rare times the league made a public statement/memo.  But every single week they are issuing memos to teams.  As per Stats Junkie, most of those are not public.  However, MOS will often (yes!) leak gists or details from those memos.  (You know, like a "leak" is when people inform you of things you normally don't get to hear about.)

Now find me the public memo about the CFL changing the guidelines to (almost always) "let the play continue" on fumbles/etc... That change was widely reported by many sources, yet I see no official public memo on it.

Just because they issued one vague memo, doesn't mean the other memos, guidelines and weekly team conversations aren't taking place.  In fact, MOS has said publicly like 10 times that he writes the league every week asking for clarification and they write him back giving him all the answers.  None of this requires tin foil to understand.

Note that the elimination of freeze frame or slow mo isn't there. The overall idea is that it should be clear and obvious and if it's not, the call on the field will stand. So, basically, common sense. Like I told you before you tried veering off into 4Chan pseudo-world.

Clear and Obvious can mean anything, including "elimination of freeze frame or slow mo"!  Like everything else related to the CFL rules, it's completely ambiguous and could mean anything.

Most TSN talking heads have said at some point since the memo that the league has taken slow-mo out of reviews.  I'm not making this up.  And everything we've witnessed on DPI non-overturns backs this up.

It doesn't take any conspiracy.  It's nothing but interpreting exactly what the league means and exactly what command is actually doing.

[TecnoGenius]

Not entirely true because the on-field officials still have to make the original call one way or the other.  It was only because it was a change of possession the play received extra scrutiny from the CC.

No they don't.  They changed things so that the refs on-field can ask command for help making the initial call!  It's in the rule-book, and one of the instances where command can pause the game.

Look at the Kenny non-fumble: the refs made no call on the field.  Nothing.  The first thing the refs said after the fumble was "the previous play is under review".  Note that they didn't first say "the call on the field is...".

Then Proulx ends with "upon review by the command center the ball carrier was DWC".  Note: no mention of "upheld" or "overturned".  Because there was no "review" of a called play, only a determination of what the initial call should be!

They've done this a lot in the last 2 seasons, and many people still aren't getting that there is often "no call on the field" at all.  Therefore the high burden to "overturn" does not exist.  They simply can get the initial call correct.

I think the procedure on a fumble is now:

- refs let it play out unless they are 150% sure it's a dead ball

- refs make no call on the field (the fact they let it play out means nothing, because they are required to let it play out)

- refs ask command to determine what happened (per the rules)

- command makes the real (and initial/only!) call "on the field"

- teams still have the opportunity to challenge, though they'd be pretty dumb to since it was already freeze-framed to death by command

P.S. The "refs not making a call on the field" aspect used to drive me nuts because I thought there always had to be a call on the field, but then I read the rule and observed what refs/command was doing and realized there often isn't a call on the field.  Many, many fans on all teams don't understand this and then they get mad when this Kenny-type fumble gets "overturned" even though it's not "clear and obvious" and freeze-frame was clearly employed -- which is contrary to normal review standards!  Everyone needs to understand there are different command interventions with different standards.

P.P.S. Yes, this is kind of crazy and way more complicated than it needs to be, but such is command...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I agree that it appears the refs aren't always signaling calls on the field which is confusing, however, just because they don't signal a call initially, doesn't mean they haven't made one.

For example, on Lawler's toe tap touchdown against Edmonton no official that I could see made a signal for touchdown or incomplete pass initially. What likely occurred is that the refs got together while it was also being reviewed and made a call which would have been announced had the command centre not found the proof that they did (which you'd be hard pressed they could do without freeze frame).  They likely do this for timing reasons and to avoid confusion because since all scoring plays are being reviewed and the refs have huddled to make a call, if they then signal one way or another and then the command centre overturns it a few seconds later, it's probably more confusing.

Additionally, and to be clear, I find is peculiar you feel that the memo the league wrote on the subject is not clear, yet you're willing to place a lot credence to "leaks" (which you still haven't shared or defined) and the off the cuff comments made by Duane Ford, which we have no idea how informed they are and in what context or even the quote you're referring to. That makes no sense to me but I'm happy you have a theory you're pleased with.

[theaardvark]

The "clear and obvious" standard is clear and obvious.

Review is for when the ref's do not have a clear view of the play, and the CC and EITS have multiple camera angles.  determining the moment of fumble or whether a ball hit the ground or was being juggled going out of bounds are bang bang plays that are, at best, a best guess on the field.

If review shows a clear and obvious mistake, it gets called back. If its not clear and obvious, then of course, it is not overturned.

Pretty simple, really.

Super slow mo, stop action or infinite close ups are not part of "clear and obvious".     

See green between the shoe and the line, inbounds.  No green, out.  Pebbles jump where the ball is caught, incomplete.  Knee i the air when the ball comes out, fumble.  Arm going forward, incomplete.  Throw dropped but thrown backwards, fumble.

These are not plays that require minute dissection to resolve, just better/more angles than the half dozen sets of eyes on the field being obscured by 24 players, some of who have their own postal codes.

[TecnoGenius]

I agree that it appears the refs aren't always signaling calls on the field which is confusing, however, just because they don't signal a call initially, doesn't mean they haven't made one.

For example, on Lawler's toe tap touchdown against Edmonton no official that I could see made a signal for touchdown or incomplete pass initially. What likely occurred is that the refs got together while it was also being reviewed and made a call which would have been announced had the command centre not found the proof that they did (which you'd be hard pressed they could do without freeze frame).  They likely do this for timing reasons and to avoid confusion because since all scoring plays are being reviewed and the refs have huddled to make a call, if they then signal one way or another and then the command centre overturns it a few seconds later, it's probably more confusing.

You bring up the "ref huddle/conference" to decide a call.  Yes, this is a thing, but it's more a function of when a ref sees/knows one aspect and another ref knows another.  Like one ref saw Kenny made the sideline catch and had clear possession and never bobbled, while another ref saw his toe tap in-bounds.  Neither knows the proper final call until they confer.

But I maintain the "ref huddle" is separate from the "refs asked command to make the call" situation I outlined.  It's a clear rule in:
Rule 10 Replay
Section 3 Command Centre Reviews
Article 1 Automatic Reviews
The Command Centre will automatically review the following situations:
...
Where officials disagree or are uncertain on how to rule in a play situation.

This implies the refs are not making a ruling, because they frankly have no clue what happened in some instances: no one got a clear view, or happened too fast, or no one saw all aspects required for a play, or whatever.  It also implies the refs are calling up to command, otherwise how would command know they disagreed or were unsure?

So to add in your huddle scenario, we really have 3 scenarios for getting a "call on the field":

1. One ref sees it all and is pretty sure: quick ruling (the normal case)
2. Two+ refs see it all, ref huddle, pretty quick ruling (common)
3. Refs don't see it all, ask command to tell them what the call is, head ref reads out the call

The big problem is they don't really tell us which of the 3 occurred!  But, you can make inferences.  Quick call without a huddle?  Case #1.  Refs huddle then a call on the field is announced without much delay?  Case #2.  No call on the field made and refs stand around fiddling with their headsets & belt control?  Case #3.  (And really case #1 & #2 are the same thing for the purposes of this conversation, because command is not involved in either.)

It would be helpful for frustrated fans if the head ref always announced if something was a call on the field vs calls made by command.  (And they sometimes do, like "the ruling on the field is...".)  Then we could better understand the threshold for "overturns".  The problem stems from fans not understanding that command-issued-initial-calls have basically no threshold (because there is nothing to "overturn"!) whilst on-field calls have a huge threshold to overturn.

To tie this in to my main topic, refs have been told to treat nearly every fumble like case #3.  And because there is no on-field call, command has free reign to call anything they want, using all of their tools, because no ruling has yet been made.  The fact the field refs let it play out does not mean they saw no down-by-contact: it just means they are Pontius Pilate washing their hands of the whole thing beacuse that is what they've been told to do.

[TecnoGenius]

Additionally, and to be clear, I find is peculiar you feel that the memo the league wrote on the subject is not clear

It is clear regarding what it says.  What I'm saying is it's not exhaustive nor comprehensive.  It is vague and brief.  I guarantee you command center received a many-page memo outlining exactly what the public summary is merely hinting at.  We don't have that memo.

yet you're willing to place a lot credence to "leaks" (which you still haven't shared or defined)

Leaks are merely instances where information not in the public memo is relayed to us.  I'm not sure why this is a sticking point for you.  Let's try this:

1. Non-public memos are distributed between the league and command, and the league and teams all the time.  This is a fact, because Stats Junkie told us so in another thread.  If you want to dispute this, take it up with Junkie.  He also told us we are not privy to this information, and further that we should not be because it's internal messaging we have no right to see.

2. People who are privy to the non-public memos will sometimes speak to things in those memos.  I call those comments "leaks".  You can call them something else.  They are insights into information the league has chosen to not make public.  I'm not saying the league has banned such leaks, or even discourages them: but they are glimpses into what is otherwise hidden.

MOS gives us a ton of "leaks" regarding the memos he receives, in pressers and coaches shows.  It's ironic that MOS rarely gives us meat regarding his team and players, but is often quick to share tidbits from the league-to-team memos.  And TSN talking heads clearly have contacts within the league and teams where they can get "scoops" (possibly via hearsay) that they then "leak" out to us.

and the off the cuff comments made by Duane Ford, which we have no idea how informed they are and in what context or even the quote you're referring to.

True, we have no idea if the TSN talking heads and "insiders" have any clue about anything.  Often it seems they don't.  But they clearly often talk about "memos" and "guidelines", and how they are "new" or "a few weeks ago", and then outline some tidbit as they understand it.  (See my next post before replying!)

What I do is use common sense and rules of deduction that if MOS says a thing, and then talking head #1 says the same thing, then Insider #2 says it again, and they do this many weeks in a row, AND said things jive with what I witness in games (calls, reviews, etc.), then I consider it pretty solid that said thing is truth.  Scientific method.  If some statement or command decision later contradicts said truth, then I reevaluate my decision: as I did with this thread regarding slow-mo/FF on fumbles.