Lionbackers.com

http://3downnation.com/2016/10/08/cfl-i ... view-call/

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.

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.

The CFL will have to consider if their way of reviewing can be improved, so that fans of either side are not outraged.

“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.”

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.

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

While it's not from the horse's mouth Suitor talked to Johnson and was offered an explanation in this podcast.

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040- ... e-1.582620

David wrote: While I think Wally has moved on, I really don't believe his statement to the media is how he really feels (hasn't seen all the angles. Are you kidding me?!? This guy doesn't miss a trick. He even takes a mental note of which fans show up at practice). I'll lay down a week's wages that he was peeling paint with league headquarters behind closed doors, out of earshot of his team.


DH

I agree. Buono is very diplomatic for public consumption. You can bet your last dollar Wally was on the phone to league headquarters following the game and it wasn't calling to wish the Command Centre a Happy Thanksgiving.

No doubt Buono is kicking ass behind the scenes.

The whole excuse about there not being enough evidence to overturn is patently absurd. The whole point of replay is that it provides exactly the evidence you can't see on the field. I can completely forgive the refs on the field for not getting this call right. It was a split second, their angle may have been bad, it happens. The fact that it went to replay and they still got it wrong, when it seems like everyone else saw it for what it was, is inexcusable. Every person in the command centre should be fired, and they need to put quality control measures in to ensure that someone can save the command centre from themselves. I

Honestly, this one is so bad, they might as well just suspend instant replay for the rest of the season until they figure it out. I have yet to see or read even one person defend the call made by the command centre.

I am beyond disappointed in the CFL commissioner for his leadership here, not to mention virtually everything the league has done since he came on board. He's as big a part of the problem as the instant replay team itself.

I can't buy any of the attempts to excuse this for the various reasons given . The whistle blowing the play dead has never been mentioned by any CFL officials so can be discounted . No one is saying anything about the on field officials so take that away too . This is about plain and simple video review and the integrity behind it . All the stuff that gets thrown out by some (no singling anyone here out) such as " bad calls tend to even themselves out" - really ? Where is the evidence that this is the case ?? How does that happen ? Do the officials now look to deny the other team the right call because they blew one? Is some one keeping track ? Who buys that ? What if it's a championship game or a playoff game , how is it evened out?
From watching this scenario over the years many fans feel ripped off by this thing happening over and over . And there are many threads about it , some calling the other whiners and saying I take the high road etc. Well do some say those things because they really believe it or is it maybe wanting to appear as "not a homer" and care more about their own reputation than the truth?
The CFL is losing fans by the droves and as already suggested by one poster in this thread , the new generation is not buying the excuses , they are just turning away when they see this stuff . The whole point of replay is to improve things and the appearance of a lack of integrity behind the scenes is the worst thing to about it. Some may say they don't believe that but very many do .Like wise the "its better to not say what really happened behind the scenes"- that only reinforces the perception about a lack of integrity behind the scenes. Better to come clean , be open and lets have the truth . Maybe some heads need to roll too .

pennw wrote:I can't buy any of the attempts to excuse this for the various reasons given . The whistle blowing the play dead has never been mentioned by any CFL officials so can be discounted . No one is saying anything about the on field officials so take that away too . All the stuff that gets thrown out by some (no singling anyone here out) such as " bad calls tend to even themselves out" - really ? Where is the evidence that this is the case ?? How does that happen ? Do the officials now look to deny the other team the right call because they blew one? Is some one keeping track ? Who buys that ? What if it's a championship game or a playoff game , how is it evened out?

From watching this scenario over the years many fans feel ripped off by this thing happening over and over . And there are many threads about it , some calling the other whiners and saying I take the high road etc. Well do some say those things because they really believe it or is it maybe wanting to appear as "not a homer" and care more about their own reputation than the truth?

The CFL is losing fans by the droves and as already suggested by one poster in this thread ,the new generation is not buying the
excuses , they are just turning away when they see this stuff . The whole point of replay is to improve things and the appearance of a lack of integrity behind the scenes is the worst thing to about it.

Some may say they don't believe that but very many do .Like wise the "its better to not say what really happened behind the scenes"- that only reinforces the perception about a lack of integrity behind the scenes. Better to come clean , be open and lets have the truth . Maybe some heads need to roll too .

Well, this is a topic, as well as a call by the CFL Command Center, that has created a lot of attention right across the CFL.

There are too many red herrings being thrown around in this discussion. Those include whether the whistle had been blown, or should have been blown by the officials, whether there was not indisputable evidence, or whether on-field officials make mistakes, etc.

First of all, those who are very unhappy by the Command Center decision do not consider it the reason we lost the game. There were many reasons we lost the game. We lost the game even just a few seconds before, when we only got Allen one yard on second down or when Rainey was stopped on third down and one, amongst numerous plays in the game.

Secondly, the review of the play by the Command Center was based only on one thing, and that is according to the CFL itself. The decision was only based on whether Harris was down before the football started to come loose.

Thirdly, the focus is on the Command Center and not the officials on the field. Like players, officials have to make snap decisions without the benefit of review to make a different decision. I'm sure that Lulay would not have handed the football to Rainey on third and one and kept it himself with the benefit of review. I'm sure Rainey would have tried to cut inside, if he had been able to review Leggett spinning off the block and lunging his head at Rainey's knee. I'm sure that Jennings would not have thrown the football to Sinkfield in the first half, and have the ball go out of his hands to a Bomber defensive back, with the benefit of review.

I'm sure that Khari Jones would have called a different play than the Arseneaux misdirection motion play inside the red zone or the draw play on second down in the fourth quarter with the benefit of review. I'm guessing that the officials might have made a couple of different calls with the benefit of review. I'm certainly not blaming the officials on the field for the call on the Harris fumble and most on Lionbackers are not.

The difference is that the Command Center had lots of time to look at the play and review it carefully. Its also unacceptble for the Command Center to say there was not indisputable evidence to change the call. The Command Center has made many very close decisions this year, without 'indisputable evidence'. There were more than enough camera angles to determine the Harris fumble so hiding behind camera angles is b.s.

This is simply about " plain and simple video review and the integrity behind it" as penw clearly states it. The CFL Command Center got it wrong - plain and simple.

What is maddening is that they won't admit it. Its kinda like Bill Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and then later saying, when the gig was up, that he didn't consider what he did as 'sexual relations".

Own up to it CFL. Have some courage and some guts. Do the right thing. Say you are sorry and say you will work very hard to make sure there is not another one. We'd accept it a lot, better than just trying to play us like wer'e fools and idiots.

There are so many knowledgeable people from TSN commentators, former CFL players, present CFL players across the league, even former Bomber Milt Stegall, who is saying it was a fumble. They saw the TSN camera angles just like the Command Center did, just like we did.

It was only one play of many plays in the game. It did not lose us the game. Even if we had gotten the football, we might not have scored. We should not have been in the situation to need the fumble call. We realize that.

The CFL still has time to say they blew it and that they will review what happened. That is integrity.

There are two possible explanations: incompetence or bias. And it seems like the latter, given how clearly it was a fumble after looking at the review.

Room for more discussion, but signing off.

We lost. It's over.

Call messed up on the field. Call messed up at Command Centre, in one way or another, or in a number of ways.

Whether a call is missed at the field level, or at Command Centre, the different levels do not matter to this fan. Mistakes still get made, no matter the level of technology.

As noted, there is room for improvement, always. Next game coming up.

Signing off on this issue.

"Not enough indisputable video evidence to overturn an officials on field call" is the gigantic Command Centre cop out. In this case it makes the CC and therefore the CFL look weak and indecisive with a dash of homerism and fear of angering hometown fans.

The Command Centre lacks accountability and credibility and it reflects badly on the league.

ya know, it is easy for us to comment after seeing all kinds of angles replayed at various speeds over lots of time and to be critical. However, how much time do we really want them to take to look at every review in effort to get it as right as possible to everyone's satisfaction. What is obvious to some is not so to others. At least not right away

KnowItAll wrote:ya know, it is easy for us to comment after seeing all kinds of angles replayed at various speeds over lots of time and to be critical. However, how much time do we really want them to take to look at every review in effort to get it as right as possible to everyone's satisfaction. What is obvious to some is not so to others. At least not right away

Apparently you missed the entire discussion above .

pennw wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:ya know, it is easy for us to comment after seeing all kinds of angles replayed at various speeds over lots of time and to be critical. However, how much time do we really want them to take to look at every review in effort to get it as right as possible to everyone's satisfaction. What is obvious to some is not so to others. At least not right away

Apparently you missed the entire discussion above .

apparently you missed my point, but thank you anyhow

KnowItAll wrote:

pennw wrote:

KnowItAll wrote:ya know, it is easy for us to comment after seeing all kinds of angles replayed at various speeds over lots of time and to be critical. However, how much time do we really want them to take to look at every review in effort to get it as right as possible to everyone's satisfaction. What is obvious to some is not so to others. At least not right away

Apparently you missed the entire discussion above .

apparently you missed my point, but thank you anyhow

Just re-read your post and couldn't see anything in it that wasn't completely hashed out already and countered in the previous 3 pages.

DanoT wrote:"Not enough indisputable video evidence to overturn an officials on field call" is the gigantic Command Centre cop out. In this case it makes the CC and therefore the CFL look weak and indecisive with a dash of homerism and fear of angering hometown fans.

The Command Centre lacks accountability and credibility and it reflects badly on the league.

Great take. Bang on.

almo89 wrote:Officials make mistakes and I can accept that. But they had time to review it and clearly see that it was a fumble and they still get it wrong. I don't understand. This just gives more ammo to the bashers to call CFL bush.

Exactly. When the call came down, at that instant I turned to my wife and said: "That's it. I'm done with the CFL" and promptly switched to a college game.

Now, that reaction was of course emotional at that moment...but, if those words can come out of the mouth of a decades long hardcore fan, imagine the fence-sitter types out there. They'll just have another excuse to dismiss the CFL with a wave of the hand and think nothing more about it.