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

[Nic16]

The refs ignored the Robertson head butt.

CC ignored the fact Robertson should have been disqualified on the spot.

I am not surprised CC did not overturn this scoring play. I doubt they even took more than a second look at it.

[blue_or_die]

The refs ignored the Robertson head butt.

CC ignored the fact Robertson should have been disqualified on the spot.

I am not surprised CC did not overturn this scoring play. I doubt they even took more than a second look at it.

Would have taken away from the story.

[Nic16]

Would have taken away from the story.

Exactly. The NFL CC would have delayed the game to review the play, and the tv broadcast crew would have shown several views while the review was on.

Overturn the play or not, the CC and TSN need to do better!

[blue_gold_84]

Would have taken away from the story.

Won't somebody please think of the story?!

[Blue In BC]

In theory the 2 point would have been reviewed since it was a scoring play. Calling it complete on the field and having concrete views showing it wasn't to overturn the call difficult.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

In theory the 2 point would have been reviewed since it was a scoring play. Calling it complete on the field and having concrete views showing it wasn't to overturn the call difficult.

to me it looked like a trapped ball.....my belief was and still is that the player must have his hands under the ball when contacting the ground.   He did have a secure grasp on it for sure however the ball touched the ground when he went down....unless the rules have changed or my assumptions are incorrect?

[Blue In BC]

to me it looked like a trapped ball.....my belief was and still is that the player must have his hands under the ball when contacting the ground.   He did have a secure grasp on it for sure however the ball touched the ground when he went down....unless the rules have changed or my assumptions are incorrect?

It's a question of whether the player had control or whether the ground " assisted " in making the reception. It appeared he may have had control but it also appeared the nose of the ball touched the ground. Did that assist making the catch? Even as a Bomber fan I'm not sure. I've deleted the game film so I can't take another look. Right or wrong it's over.

[Waffler]

On the coaches show MOS thinks it is a trapped ball but the officials give benefit of the doubt especially in the end zone and let command center sort it out. The command center do not change close calls as this one was.

So I guess now the standard for a score is "close enough".

[Nic16]

On the coaches show MOS thinks it is a trapped ball but the officials give benefit of the doubt especially in the end zone and let command center sort it out. The command center do not change close calls as this one was.

So I guess now the standard for a score is "close enough".

After looking it on film MOS felt it was trapped, but since the refs called it a catch he did not think CC would over turn it. He also said, if the refs had called it incomplete it would not have been overturned.

In this situation, since it was a close play the refs call it complete and then let the CC sort it out. Which IMO it was highly unlikely they took much more than a second glance at it. There was zero indication by the refs that the play would be under review by the CC.

[bomb squad]

On the coaches show MOS thinks it is a trapped ball but the officials give benefit of the doubt especially in the end zone and let command center sort it out. The command center do not change close calls as this one was.

So I guess now the standard for a score is "close enough".

Well...I don't know about that. One that immediately comes to mind is the 2019 Grey Cup game where Bailey's apparent touchdown catch in the endzone was overturned. They took a long look at that one and that was about as close as this one was. I think that if this was a playoff game, they would have taken a closer look at it and maybe overturned it. They seemed to be hurrying things along more than normal. I'm guessing that they are told to in these regular season games that go into OT.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

After looking it on film MOS felt it was trapped, but since the refs called it a catch he did not think CC would over turn it. He also said, if the refs had called it incomplete it would not have been overturned.

In this situation, since it was a close play the refs call it complete and then let the CC sort it out. Which IMO it was highly unlikely they took much more than a second glance at it. There was zero indication by the refs that the play would be under review by the CC.

The CFL needs to clarify this rule and make it very simple, if the ball contacts the ground within the split second of possession, sorry no catch.  It won't be questioned much as we see receivers make these amazing catches along the ground every game without letting the ball touch the ground, it's very easy to disqualify the handful that do and it takes more judgment out of the equation.

[BLUEBOMBER]

Definitely everyone on the BB team didn't play like they wanted to win the game. O'Shea needs to dig deep into his bag of motivational speeches to get his guys to play better or we will lose the Banjo bowl and al ot more games this season.

[TecnoGenius]

to me it looked like a trapped ball.....my belief was and still is that the player must have his hands under the ball when contacting the ground.   He did have a secure grasp on it for sure however the ball touched the ground when he went down....unless the rules have changed or my assumptions are incorrect?

It's been clear for many years that what I said is true: the ball can hit the ground (even a lot!) as long as the R's grasp on it doesn't change.  I'm not sure that's always been the case historically, but for sure that's been the standard for 6+ years.

We don't see it much because it's very hard to do.  You need a grip of steel and some luck for the ball to not shift slightly in your hands.

To be sure I decided to go searching in the rulebook.  There is no specific mention of it.  I searched every instance of "assist" and "ground".  Nothing applied.  Well, there is the stipulation the ball must not touch the ground on a forward pass, but I think they read that as "before possession is gained".

Therefore we have to take a step back and use the definition of possession to decide if possession was gained.  That standard is "having the ball firmly held in hand or hands...".  And by that standard I think the SSK R had possession, at least insofar as we could see.  The "firmly" part is what I've been saying as "the ball not budging".  If the ball doesn't move relative to the hands, it's firmly in possession.

The bomb squad Bailey example and my Woli upsidedown hand example are clear examples where the ball budged and were ruled incomplete.

I also think the CFL's views on this may have been influenced by the NFL over the last decade.  Doesn't the NFL have an explicit rule about this?

The CFL needs to clarify this rule and make it very simple, if the ball contacts the ground within the split second of possession, sorry no catch.  It won't be questioned much as we see receivers make these amazing catches along the ground every game without letting the ball touch the ground, it's very easy to disqualify the handful that do and it takes more judgment out of the equation.

The CFL could add a clarification clause to disambiguate.  Or they could add this actual game and play to the "examples" sections on how command interprets things.  It would make a perfect example.  They have an example in there for when it appears to hit the turf but a hand was underneath, why not add this touched-the-turf example and explicitly state the standard.

And once again, this one play isn't precedent-setting.  They've already allowed a few of hit-the-turf receptions to be completions this year, including the much iffier Lawler one.

I don't think the CFL can or should clarify the rule as any-ground-touch-is-incomplete because
a) that is arguably harder to ref on-field (though arguably easier for command to judge)
b) it defeats the stated goal of "generating more O": we want more completions, not less
c) it ignores precedent and ruling from many years now
d) it may be at odds with the standards the NFL is using, and the trend is to homogenize, not differentiate

[TecnoGenius]

After looking it on film MOS felt it was trapped, but since the refs called it a catch he did not think CC would over turn it. He also said, if the refs had called it incomplete it would not have been overturned.

100% this.  When the play is shielded under the player's body it's usually impossible to overturn.  We just got unlucky the ref didn't decide to call it incomplete on the field, which they could have easily done, as who can tell what really went on in that split tenth of a second.

This is a lot like the 2-rolls-did-not-survive-contact play we saw the other week that I was moaning about.  The player was hiding what was going on with the ball under their body and thus it's very hard to change the ruling.  it might help if we had even more cameras on each potential receiver, but the CFL doesn't have the budget, so we live with what we have.

[Waffler]

100% this.  When the play is shielded under the player's body it's usually impossible to overturn.  We just got unlucky the ref didn't decide to call it incomplete on the field, which they could have easily done, as who can tell what really went on in that split tenth of a second.

According to MOS it is not a matter of luck. They call close plays touchdowns on the field. The onus is on the command center now and he also said they don't change close plays either way. This means more scores count which he implied the league likes. I hold to my original thought that close is good enough now. They call it a score and it won't be changed. That's the new reality.