notahomer wrote:sj-roc wrote:
......As for review of scores, they currently do review all scores IIRC but do they review the play in its entirety from the ref's signal to start the play clock until the whistle blows again or do they merely ascertain the plane was broken by the ball?
Wasn't there some kinda weird review involving the Argos. IIRC, the call was made and reviewed but MIlanovich challenged again and the call was changed somehow. I can't remember the details but I was baffled at the time (according to my girlfriend the baffled part happens regularily
).....
I personally don't understand how a team can challenge a play like Benevides did in the Rider game and then end up getting a penalty out of the play. Is every chop block caught? Obviously not, since no flag was thrown. So, it only gets called because BC challenged another part of the play?
I know the one you're talking about. I was a bit rusty on the details of it myself but I was able to dig up old discussion of it amongst you, myself and Toppy from nearly two years ago,
here (my post in reply to Toppy and some ff. posts) and
here (your post and my reply just under it). I'll recap what's in this discussion, which ought to be correct as this was pretty fresh at the time:
Jarious (as Tor QB at the time) threw an incompletion — one of those plays where it wasn't clear whether his arm was going forward when the ball left his hand — that was initially called on the field as a live fumble (no whistle), so a Wpg defender scooped it up and ran for a TD. The play was automatically reviewed by CC (as all scores were by 2012) as valid but only re: the Wpg TD scoring aspect; nothing about the nature of the turnover was reviewed automatically, according to a remark from TSN's Dave Naylor as cited by TV (so I guess this answers my Q above). Well before Wpg lined up for the convert, SM threw his challenge flag to contest the fumble as an incompletion. Perhaps he was aware that CC would not have been looking at this part of the play, or he just wanted to make doubly sure that he got his day in court, so to speak. The ref granted the challenge and it went the Argos' way. But at the same time — and the ref even announced this in the ruling — SM would NOT be charged with one of his two challenges for having challenged this on-field fumble ruling.
The whole thing just never added up to me. The Wpg TD would have counted had SM not challenged, so why not charge the challenge? Looking back at it now at this remove, I think the ref simply erred in not charging the challenge, but that everything else went properly by the book, for better or for worse (
i.e., one can debate whether the fumble
should have been scrutinised in the automatic CC review, but this was
not part of the protocol at the time, nor do I suppose it is now). At least, this would be the simplest interpretation. Perhaps the ref himself was under the mistaken impression that the fumble should have been examined as part of the automatic CC review?
It's been nearly two years since that Sep 2012 incident but there's evidently still bugs in the system.
Maybe jersey tugging, such as we saw in today's Ham/Mtl today and against Iannuzzi a few weeks back as you mention, simply doesn't count as PI in the eyes of the officials? What other conclusion is there to draw?
Speaking of jersey tugging, there was another part of that Ham/Mtl game where a Ham receiver had his jersey tugged after the catch by a Mtl defender in a tackling attempt, only to have that part of the jersey tear completely away from the receiver. Having seen a dress code violation flag get thrown before (back sometime in the 90s) I was half-expecting one after this.
Sports can be a peculiar thing. When partaking in fiction, like a book or movie, we adopt a "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" for enjoyment's sake. There's a similar force at work in sports: "Willing Suspension of Rationality". If you doubt this, listen to any conversation between rival team fans. You even see it among fans of the same team. Fans argue over who's the better QB or goalie, and selectively cite stats that support their views while ignoring those that don't.
Thankfully woke up when the offenses did. Reilly is a very, very dangerous QB, IMO, but I mean dangerous to himself. The first hook slide I saw him do was so he could keep the clock running late. The guy is a competitor who wants every single inch. Like his attitude but I also want to see him playing. Also, Stamps seems to be an afterthought now in the Esks offence, how is that for a nice problem....HOW DO WE USE STAMPS