The two-point convert for SK in the Labour Day game

[Cool Spot]

Hi, everyone,

I didn't see the game, only listened to it online. I heard via the commentators that there was some question about whether or not SK's two-point convert in OT was a catch or not, but was ruled a catch so I figured at the time it wasn't that close of a call.

This morning, I looked at the highlights of the game. I don't want to be one of those fans who dwells on the past, can't get past a loss, and think that the call went against their own team simply because that's what fans do - they interpret things in their own favor and discount things in the other teams' favor.

But, that 2-point convert doesn't look like a completed pass to me. It definitely looks like the ball touched the turf, and the SK receiver rotated his body to lift it off the ground with his momentum. I didn't think that counted as a completion? I took a series of screenshots and uploaded them.

It looks like the SK player adjusted his grip and the ball came in contact with the ground; I thought that the ball couldn't make contact with the ground at all (i.e., had to remain in the air, or a part of the player's body had to be under the ball at all times, at least until control was established or the play whistled dead). Am I off here?

Apologies for small image size, the size limits on this board are pretty constrained. I have larger ones here:

https://ibb.co/7tGZ7vZ
https://ibb.co/rmRmJZF

[dd]

Definitely looks like a trap to me!! Nice call refs and command centre!, I thought all,scoring plays were reviewed!?! Not!!!

[ModAdmin]

Difficult to fault the on field officials on a bang bang play but the CC should have caught that (ball touching the ground).

[J5V]

Looks like that shouild have been challenged. Could we have challenged?

[Tehedra]

I thought during the live play that it was a trapped ball, however, had we not gave up the single the game would have been over anyways.  Sask played a good game and hopefully we beat them at home.

[TBURGESS]

I thought the nose of the ball touched the ground.

[dd]

Difficult to fault the on field officials on a bang bang play but the CC should have caught that (ball touching the ground).

For sure CC should have caught this. What exactly  is the purpose of a Cc??!!

[bunker]

I thought it was incomplete.  I don't understand why it wasn't reviewed and overturned by the command centre, and I don't understand why O'Shea did not challenge it. Seems like a comedy of errors.

[TecnoGenius]

This morning, I looked at the highlights of the game. I don't want to be one of those fans who dwells on the past

Why not?  What else are we going to talk about for a week?    If we're not talking about last game, then we're just spending the week debating the utility of Jackson or whose is whose injury.  Plenty of people complain about those conversations too!

Me, I love dwelling on the past (surprise!!).

Here's the thing, your original statement is wrong.  The ball can touch the ground and still be complete.  The key part is it has to be in full control and essentially remain motionless relative to the parts of the receiver touching it.  In this case that would be the two hands.

I believe in this instance it was a catch because the ball stayed in exactly the same place relative to his hands.  At the very last tenth of a second before the ball touches the ground he gets that second hand on the top of the ball and seems to keep it there in precisely the same location.  The bottom hand never changes position on the ball at all.

The top hand does become obscured by his body so we cannot tell for sure if it budged a bit.  A big budge would be grounds for overturning.

What I find a bit fishy is TSN only gave us one replay, one angle(?)... when on a goal-line crosser scoring play you think they'd have more shots.  Unless the other shots showed the ball budged and they wanted to hand the win to SSK (good for the city, good for the team, good for the league)?  Dunno.  But fish there weren't more shots.

Think back to the crazy gumby circus catch Lawler did on his first game back a few weeks ago... that would basically be judged the same as what I just described.  It for sure hit the ground, but did his hands remain on the same place on the ball?  Based on the replay angles (of which there were many on that one), I'd say the SSK catch was more of a catch than the Lawler one, which possibly could be overturned (but still difficult).

Also think back to the a playoff game (I think?) a few years ago where Woli caught a similar catch going OOB where one hand had it great, but the other had the ball on the top of his hand, not his palm.  The ball barely budged.  They said no-catch, I think because of the upsidedown hand thing, even though it didn't budge much.  That call still miffs me.

So these types of things go either way, but the key seems to be the static (or not) position of hands on ball, and maybe if the hands are in the "proper" position.  I can live with this SSK call.  The R did an amazing job to get that second hand on it literally 2/10ths of a sec before the ball hits the turf.  Without that it's guaranteed incompletion.  That's not something you see every day.

The reason MOS didn't challenge is he wanted his ref-honesty-device in place for when we were on OT O.  And he figures they already checked everything and were never going to overturn it.  I think he was right on all counts.

Maybe the better question is why Hall loves to give every team these free wide outs all game long, every game.

[bluengold204]

Why not?  What else are we going to talk about for a week?    If we're not talking about last game, then we're just spending the week debating the utility of Jackson or whose is whose injury.  Plenty of people complain about those conversations too!

Me, I love dwelling on the past (surprise!!).

Here's the thing, your original statement is wrong.  The ball can touch the ground and still be complete.  The key part is it has to be in full control and essentially remain motionless relative to the parts of the receiver touching it.  In this case that would be the two hands.

I believe in this instance it was a catch because the ball stayed in exactly the same place relative to his hands.  At the very last tenth of a second before the ball touches the ground he gets that second hand on the top of the ball and seems to keep it there in precisely the same location.  The bottom hand never changes position on the ball at all.

The top hand does become obscured by his body so we cannot tell for sure if it budged a bit.  A big budge would be grounds for overturning.

What I find a bit fishy is TSN only gave us one replay, one angle(?)... when on a goal-line crosser scoring play you think they'd have more shots.  Unless the other shots showed the ball budged and they wanted to hand the win to SSK (good for the city, good for the team, good for the league)?  Dunno.  But fish there weren't more shots.

Think back to the crazy gumby circus catch Lawler did on his first game back a few weeks ago... that would basically be judged the same as what I just described.  It for sure hit the ground, but did his hands remain on the same place on the ball?  Based on the replay angles (of which there were many on that one), I'd say the SSK catch was more of a catch than the Lawler one, which possibly could be overturned (but still difficult).

Also think back to the a playoff game (I think?) a few years ago where Woli caught a similar catch going OOB where one hand had it great, but the other had the ball on the top of his hand, not his palm.  The ball barely budged.  They said no-catch, I think because of the upsidedown hand thing, even though it didn't budge much.  That call still miffs me.

So these types of things go either way, but the key seems to be the static (or not) position of hands on ball, and maybe if the hands are in the "proper" position.  I can live with this SSK call.  The R did an amazing job to get that second hand on it literally 2/10ths of a sec before the ball hits the turf.  Without that it's guaranteed incompletion.  That's not something you see every day.

The reason MOS didn't challenge is he wanted his ref-honesty-device in place for when we were on OT O.  And he figures they already checked everything and were never going to overturn it.  I think he was right on all counts.

Maybe the better question is why Hall loves to give every team these free wide outs all game long, every game.

This might be the first time you've ever been correct.

[bomb squad]

Whether of not it was complete is debatable. But definitely at the very least should have been reviewed. That's my main beef. I don't believe that it was. There was nothing, a slight delay or whatever to indicate that it was. And of course, the TSN guys totally missed it.

[TBURGESS]

All scores are automatically reviewed. This one would have been too.

[blue_gold_84]

This might be the first time you've ever been correct.

Hahahahaha

All scores are automatically reviewed. This one would have been too.

And it wouldn't be the first time the CC got it wrong (2021 West Final anyone?), either.

More bush league nonsense from the CFL.

[Horseman]

I thought the ball was trapped as well.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Riders got every bloody advantage in this game.

Lucky on many levels they won on many levels.

WHAT A BLOODY JOKE!