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

[TecnoGenius]

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.

I didn't see/hear that presser, can you link to the precise one?  Sounds interesting.

I have little doubt you are correct as that jives with the M.O. of the league going back several years now.  Remember the MTL Miracle game where there is still no video proof AH crossed the goal line before his knees were down?

It also absolves the on-field refs from a major screwup that embarrasses them: just pawn the responsibility off to command.  Kind of like on a fumble where it's not obvious if they were DBC first.  Just let it play out and let command deal with it.

[Waffler]

I didn't see/hear that presser, can you link to the precise one?  Sounds interesting.

It was on the coaches show this past Tuesday.
https://podcasts.apple.com/si/podcast/the-blue-bomber-coaches-show-september-5th/id1110429736?i=1000626884847

16:08 mark the question is asked about the 2 point convert.

[TecnoGenius]

It was on the coaches show this past Tuesday.
https://podcasts.apple.com/si/podcast/the-blue-bomber-coaches-show-september-5th/id1110429736?i=1000626884847

16:08 mark the question is asked about the 2 point convert.

Thanks!  You're the time saver king!

I wonder if MOS is speaking here as a coach, or as a member of the CFL rules committee?

I sure wish MOS had spoken to the "firmly held" / "ball can't budge" aspect of turf-hitting catches.  He did specifically say he thought that was a "trap", so I'm guessing he thinks there was a budge.

When there's this much confusion and difference of opinion among refs, command, coaches and fans, that's a pretty big hint there needs to be official rulebook clarification.

[bomb squad]

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.

If O'Shea is correct, it kind of runs counter to whole premise of reviewing all scoring plays in the first place. That was to make sure they got those right. In the replay it appeared as if the ball touched the ground, and the viewers could all see it. The next step is to determine if was or wasn't a legal catch. It was an important call, a complex one, and it should have been given a thorough review. It's that simple. Never mind this "we like scoring" nonsense. You have to uphold the integrity of your review system.

[dd]

CFL officiating has zero credibility. If what MOS suggests is true, then it has zero integrity too. That?s not a good look for the league. Call it for what it is, not what you d like it to be.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

If O'Shea is correct, it kind of runs counter to whole premise of reviewing all scoring plays in the first place. That was to make sure they got those right. In the replay it appeared as if the ball touched the ground, and the viewers could all see it. The next step is to determine if was or wasn't a legal catch. It was an important call, a complex one, and it should have been given a thorough review. It's that simple. Never mind this "we like scoring" nonsense. You have to uphold the integrity of your review system.

I agree, if as O'Shea implied the CC changes their standards depending on the time left in the game and the position on the field they lose all credibility, the rules should be clear, concise and applied the same in every situation.  What else do they take into consideration, home team vs. away?

[blue_gold_84]

CFL officiating has zero credibility. If what MOS suggests is true, then it has zero integrity too. That?s not a good look for the league. Call it for what it is, not what you d like it to be.

Agreed. There is - or should be - absolutely no room for arbitrary behaviour when it comes to implementing and enforcing the rules.

But the league probably won't care as long as its product is profitable.