They do not explain all that went into the decision by CC. If they have full confidence in the system, then they might give a full picture of how things are done in the CC, and how they were done in this particular case. If it does not look good, expect even more of an avalanche of criticism. I read or heard somewhere that the CC had film that did not properly show Harris' lower body. If that is the case, they need better film, and more film.CFL issues explanation for controversial replay review call
Posted on October 8, 2016 by Drew Edwards // 45 Comments
The CFL has issued an explanation for the replay review at the end of the Bombers win over the B.C. Lions on Saturday.
With 35 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter and the Bombers protecting a 37-35 lead, Winnipeg running back Andrew Harris was stripped by B.C. defenders Adam Bighill and Jason Arakgi. The ruling on the field was that Harris was down by contact but the play was automatically reviewed by the command centre. The ruling: no fumble.
“The replay official ruled there was no indisputable visual evidence to change the call made on the field,” said Paulo Senra, director of communications. “It could not be determined from the angles provided if the player had completely lost possession of the ball before the player’s backside had touched the ground.”
That the CFL has moved so quickly to explain the call is unusual. The league generally reviews all controversial decisions the Monday following a weekend of games but the storm surrounding this call has prompted them to respond in a more timely fashion.
The CFL will have to consider if their way of reviewing can be improved, so that fans of either side are not outraged.
With just that explanation, it does seem inadequate. One would need to hear interpretation by the CC of the film everyone saw on TV, where it seemed clear that Harris' butt had not hit the ground before the ball came out.“The replay official ruled there was no indisputable visual evidence to change the call made on the field,” said Paulo Senra, director of communications. “It could not be determined from the angles provided if the player had completely lost possession of the ball before the player’s backside had touched the ground.”
Baz // October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am // Reply
From what I saw of the game the referee blew the play dead on forward progress stopped before he went down and fumbled. Good call and I am a Stamps fan. -- 3downnation poster
zugerfan // October 9, 2016 at 9:47 am // Reply
Let’s go with a new penalty code policy (1) officials should be awarded for calling fewer penalties not punished for not calling more (2) technical penalties that do not materially affect the play should not be called – and if flagged, the head official should pick up the flag if the infraction did not affect the play (3) there should be a presumption against fumble in the case of close calls – and there should be a quick whistle when a ball carrier’s forward progress is stopped – it should be about tackling … not stripping the ball (4) there should be a presumption against pass interference if the defender is going for the ball – let them play (5) end the waggle – it is bush and gives the offence a decisive advantage – it is turning the game into basketball (6) end the no contact after 5 yards rule – impossible to play – impossible to enforce and (7) end both the coach’s challenge and the video replay. -- 3downnation poster
In my view a fumble is the least exciting play in football – while the most exciting play is a pass interception. Fumbles are typically random events. A player can be doing everything right and still fumble if there is helmet on ball contact or he is held up and stripped by three defenders. Given its random nature the consequences of a fumble (loss of possession) are too great – if the idea is reward excellence and punish poor performance. -- 3downnation poster
Martin Shaff // October 9, 2016 at 9:55 am // Reply
When I watched the game, I clearly heard 2 whistles way before the ball came out. No mention of that anywhere. That’s why I thought they ruled Harris down. Gotta think the CFL has all replay angles. But in the end there had to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the call on the field. BC had chances..running a jet play on 3rd and 1 ? Really? Bombers were aware of that play quite obviously. In any event, a wild game. Can’t wait for the rematch this Friday. -- 3downnation poster
