EDM @ SSK Sept 16 GDT

[bomb squad]

It's quite possible for an official standing right beside the pile not to catch sight of the ball at all if he's looking for it in the wrong area among the chaos of bodies.  After 4 seconds, the whistle blows and the referee comes to the conclusion that none of the officials could determine exactly what happened on the play. The home viewing audience probably saw more than they did.

I think your right, but that is the first time I can recall seeing that. Is that actually the policy or are you just speculating? They used to just let them battle it out until somebody shows up with it no matter how long it takes and how he got it. The troubling issue for me is they don't or won't explain the call. That is a problem.

[Blue In BC]

I think your right, but that is the first time I can recall seeing that. Is that actually the policy or are you just speculating? They used to just let them battle it out until somebody shows up with it no matter how long it takes and how he got it. The troubling issue for me is they don't or won't explain the call. That is a problem.

Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.

[pjrocksmb]

Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.

Agree

[bomb squad]

Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.

That is not accurate. They never said it was a fumble.

[TBURGESS]

I was expecting something like:The ruling on the field is a fumble recovered by the offence.
We got something like: SKN is challenging that there was a fumble on the play that they recovered.

I ASSUMED that meant they didn't call it a fumble and recovery in the first place.

[Blue In BC]

That is not accurate. They never said it was a fumble.

Yes they did when they announced the result of the challenge. It's not unlike other possible fumbles with no immediate recovery by the defence. It wasn't as clear as whether they also initially determined a fumble live.

That makes it difficult to " recover " a fumble that hasn't been called EXCEPT by challenge. We've covered WHY that wouldn't succeed without definitive proof.

[Blue In BC]

I was expecting something like:The ruling on the field is a fumble recovered by the offence.
We got something like: SKN is challenging that there was a fumble on the play that they recovered.

I ASSUMED that meant they didn't call it a fumble and recovery in the first place.

IDK. It was pretty obvious the ball was out. I can't see the refs not seeing that live. What happened in the scrum was a determination of who did what 1st before the whistle and whether the Riders could be shown to have recovered.

Note that it's not unusual for the defence to end up with the ball after the offence already recovered it and was deemed down by contact. That's just an after the fact possession.

[bomb squad]

Yes they did when they announced the result of the challenge. It's not unlike other possible fumbles with no immediate recovery by the defence. It wasn't as clear as whether they also initially determined a fumble live.

That makes it difficult to " recover " a fumble that hasn't been called EXCEPT by challenge. We've covered WHY that wouldn't succeed without definitive proof.

?After review the ruling on the field stands? is what they said. They did not say at any time that it was a fumble.

[Blue In BC]

?After review the ruling on the field stands? is what they said. They did not say at any time that it was a fumble.

I'm almost positive I heard them say that but I've now deleted the game from my PVR.

However, the immediate reaction by the defence was we recovered a fumble. The challenge was based on a fumble and a fumble recovery.

That says there was a fumble and somebody recovered it. Everybody watching the game saw a fumble. At best you're just trying to split hairs.

How deep a dive do you need to make?

[bomb squad]

I'm almost positive I heard them say that but I've now deleted the game from my PVR.

However, the immediate reaction by the defence was we recovered a fumble. The challenge was based on a fumble and a fumble recovery.

That says there was a fumble and somebody recovered it. Everybody watching the game saw a fumble. At best you're just trying to split hairs.

How deep a dive do you need to make?

I didn't.

[Blue In BC]

I didn't.

Didn't hear or didn't delete? Either way it's moot based on the challenge, the result and everyone in the country seeing the fumble. But I'm curious what they did say and how they said it if you re-watch.

[bomb squad]

Didn't hear or didn't delete? Either way it's moot based on the challenge, the result and everyone in the country seeing the fumble. But I'm curious what they did say and how they said it if you re-watch.

Head referee prior to the review: "Saskatchewan is challenging that Edmonton fumbled the ball and they recovered. The play will be reviewed."

Head referee after the review: "After review, the ruling on the field stands. It's 3rd down."


Does anybody know why my quotation marks come out as question marks after the post is sent and how it can be fixed?

[TecnoGenius]

It's not impossible the Riders do miss a crossover. They still have to play the Bombers once more in Winnipeg. Then they have 2 games against the Stamps and 1 against the Ti Cats and Elks again.

I see SSK winning 0 more games.  They are demoralized, beaten down and lack all momentum.  They've been fielding basically their best line-up (no more injury excuses) and getting beaten by their hated rivals (us) and now the worst team at home (EDM).  If HAM can play 2 more games like they did against us, and especially get a win and spread greater than 17 vs SSK, then there will be no crossover this year.  That means SSK is out of the playoffs.  Their fan base hasn't realized this yet and will go mental.  In a bad way.

[TecnoGenius]

Does anybody know why my quotation marks come out as question marks after the post is sent and how it can be fixed?

Because you're probably on an Apple device and this forum is too old to use UTF-8 that Apple insists on turning on by default.

You have to use standard ASCII quotes (in iOS you can long-press the apostrophe or quote and select the old style straight up and down quotes).  I'm not sure if there's a global way to disable UTF8-by-default in an iOS keyboard, maybe an Apple geek can tell us.

You can fix it by using the "modify" button at the top-right of your post.

[TecnoGenius]

I've changed my mind about this play after reading all you guys/gals wrote, and the official ruling.  And watching the angles on frame-by-frame.  Some things:

1. No oral call was made on the field.  That means the field-call was DBC, 3rd down.  But, when the ball is out like that, refs owe us an oral call on the field.  Normally they would announce this.  However, Dickenson The Lesser challenged so fast maybe he interrupted any potential oral call.  Kroeker was very flustered and screwing up his thoughts when he announced the challenge.

2. Ball definitely out.  I think the refs saw it was out.

3. From the rear view we can see a few things that lead me to believe one of the refs (probably the guy with his head in the pile) saw that Cornelius recovered the ball and was DBC and blew the whistle.  He's the only one that knows what went on.

4. The rear view lets us infer a few things:
a) For EDM, only Cornelius could have recovered, because:
b) He was flanked by two OL who both had their backs to him and had no way to know it was fumbled or reach it with their hands.
c) Cornelius knew it was fumbled and would have been doing gymnastics reaching back to recover, he could have seen the ball and reached back, all very doable long-snapper type gymnastics.
d) The ball was sitting on some guys and then had a rapid drop like someone was pulling it down, faster than gravity would accelerate it (speculating).
e) No SSK players yet knew it was out and no SSK hands were around.  You can tell when they notice it's out as they get very animated reaching for it but Cornelius was already pulling it down

5. If you consider this sequence now, and watch both the live play with the audible whistle and the rear replay, it all makes sense:
a) Sneak about half a yard
b) Fumble
c) Gymnastics recovery begins by Cornelius
d) SSK players see it's out and get animated but Cornelius has pulled it down
e) Pile ref sees Cornelius has it and he's DBC or not advancing
f) Whistle blows
g) SSK steals it from Cornelius because he's in a weak protection position (can't put his weight on the ball)

When I watched live I thought SSK got ripped off, but now I think the above scenario is more likely.  Before I thought the refs missed it was fumbled and just ruled the ol' "not immediately recovered" thing, but that's not what command said.  They said fumbled and recovered by Cornelius.  It all jives if you understand that the guy in the best position to know and recover the fumble was Cornelius himself.

Sankey might have had a chance on it at first but his head was tilted up and he didn't notice until it was a hair too late.

I think the refs should have a) made an oral call on the field, and b) told Dickerson The Lesser that the above is what happened.  They should have told him they saw the fumble and Cornelius recovered.  I bet he thought they didn't see anything, like we all did.  If he knew what they thought happened happened he likely would keep his challenge.  Or he challenges anyway because he's desperate at that point.