Video Replay in Bombers/Stamps game

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
Posts: 22221
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 6:04 pm
Location: Coquitlam, B.C.

Blue In BC wrote:
Dan Russell wrote:Apparently the Bombers are supposed to win this year as they are getting all the calls. :bang: Bud Steen seems to be the best Ref.
That's just a foolish statement. We've had all sorts of calls go against us.

However, it appeared that Stegall didn't make the TD catch in this instance. In live play, I thought he dropped it. In review it looked like he dropped it.

The problem with many of these calls is the " conclusive " element requirement. It seems if there is any doubt, the call is not overturned. I'm going to watch the game again today.

The league needs to clean up video review for 2008. More importantly, they need to determine what is a catch and what is not a catch. In particular what is a TD.

If a RB crosses the goal line it's a TD whether he immediately loses the ball or not. I think there should be the same determination for receivers if they deem a " catch " and not whether he loses it being smacked to the ground.
I agree on the ground causing a catch to become an uncompleted pass, but not just in the endzone, way too many calls had players taking two maybe three steps and the ground jostled the ball loose and they became non catches. As for the video replay, it is clearly a waste of time for me a fan in the stands to sit and wait through taking away from the games momentum, for the results that I am getting. Eliminate the ref from being able to make that call as he wants to support his crews call, get it done in the booth, as we really only want the large plays to be called correctly and that isn't the case right now in the CFL.

Entertainment value = an all time low
User avatar
Shi Zi Mi
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4361
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 6:06 pm
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba

The rule they will most certainly look at is the "bang bang" reception rule.......and for the life of me, I can't see why the officials have difficulty with it.

The spirit of the rule was to remove the decision from the refs (because they weren't competent enough to consistently call it) in regards to receptions where the receiver is in the air making the catch, and before he lands, is contacted/tackled by a defender. Thus "bang bang".....catch/tackle/contact with ground in the same motion within a split second. For some unknown reason the refs have extended that time to include landing on both feet and taking a few steps......why Cowardly George hasn't straightened out his refs on this is truly baffling.

Blue In BC
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 9:32 am
Location: Port Moody, BC

I watched the Stegall replay and the it was clear he dropped the ball. I don't know if that was a view the refs had, but then the question would be why didn't they?

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3795
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

The Josh Boden "fumble" was completely baffling. As soon as the ball came out the whistle blew before anyone could recover it so the call on the field was down by contact. Somehow the refs changed the play to a fumble and then said there was no conclusive video. What I saw on video was one angle showing down by contact and another view being inconclusive. The refs totally blew the call. We need mandatory drug testing for refs!

User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3430
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 7:25 pm
Location: Vancouver Island

If you have one angle that is inconclusive and another that is conclusive how do you then conclude that the inconclusive video evidence overrides the conclusive? Is that not fundamentally illogical?

Edited for spelling!

Post Reply