View Full Version : Was it a touchdown?
The Familia
10-22-2004, 11:02 PM
Anyone else catch a clear view if Selucio Stanford was onside when Mike Juhaze punted the ball during mid play, and then Stanford recovered the ball and went for the TD? This is a prime reason why the CFL needs some instant replay. Too many times controversial plays occur without the backup of instant reply. It's 2004, lets implement this system like every other league.
troutman
10-22-2004, 11:07 PM
QR77 says someone from the Stamps has reviewed replay, and Sanford was on-side! CFL could possibly hear appeal.
Even BC Lions people are saying it is on-side.
Rejean31
10-22-2004, 11:10 PM
Post game show on QR77 had some guys going over the tapes and they say Sanford was at least 2 yards on side. Saying he held back on the play, clearly, for that purpose. Oh well, either way, it was a gutsy performance from the guys. If the offense had been clicking in the first half we would have won.
Bertuzzied
10-22-2004, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Rejean31@Oct 23 2004, 05:10 AM
Post game show on QR77 had some guys going over the tapes and they say Sanford was at least 2 yards on side. Saying he held back on the play, clearly, for that purpose. Oh well, either way, it was a gutsy performance from the guys. If the offense had been clicking in the first half we would have won.
the guy who threw the flag was down on the 5 yard line! pathetic! Scott Coe is even more pathetic for not stopping that guy on 3rd and 24.
kudos to dunnigan for calling that play. or was it Khari that called the play?
troutman
10-22-2004, 11:13 PM
First Gelinas was robbed, and now Sanford. Where is the justice for Calgary? ;)
kobasew19
10-22-2004, 11:15 PM
I was just about to ask what the QR77 people said. Stupid TSN, they didn't even show a replay with Stanford and Juhasz (sp) in the same screen. Maybe Global will get some tape for the 11:30 show...
Bertuzzied
10-22-2004, 11:18 PM
to be honest i don't think the stupid refs know the rule so i don't think any of them were looking for the onside guy.
Wouldn't it awesome if they somehow reversed this? <_< hmm i'm still dreaming the flames won the cup in 6.
troutman
10-22-2004, 11:21 PM
According to Sanford, one referee on the field ruled it a touchdown, and then was over-ruled.
kobasew19
10-22-2004, 11:27 PM
did QR77 say anything else?
edit: grammer problem :D
troutman
10-22-2004, 11:32 PM
Dunigan says the ref called a no yards penalty, which is absolutely absurd in the circumstances. Say he will look into appealing the game.
Bertuzzied
10-22-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by troutman@Oct 23 2004, 05:32 AM
Dunigan says the ref called a no yards penalty, which is absolutely absurd in the circumstances.
But thats the right call if Sanford was ahead of the punter, BUT he was 2 yards behind. I think one of the refs got it right but Ireland overruled him. Didn't you see them all yelling at each other down there.
kevman
10-23-2004, 12:10 AM
TSN just showed the play from the sidelines...Touchdown no questions, it's out to the public now lets se what happens...
100% a td - just saw the replay...Sanford was onside by about 2 yards. Thank god instant replay's coming in next year...hopefully the video judges are at least half way competent. Good thing this was a nothing game too.
I doubt Dunigan's appeal will go anywhere...you know that the league won't want to set any kind of precedent there.
Team showed some guts in the 2nd half..and heart. Looking forward to next season!
browna
10-23-2004, 12:13 AM
Absolutely horrible, if thats whats being said.
TSN shows the one angle only, when they have about 5 different cameras.
What is BC doing on coverage, or shouldn't they be expecting that? Even I was expecting that with that last play, since Jones couldn't throw it into the end zone. Guess those player watch too much NFL and were expecting 10 laterals.
It looked like a ref power trip for sure...the guy has to throw the flag because he's not watching who's onside or who's not, being down by the ball...its other refs behind the play that should be paying attention to whos behind the ball when its kicked.
Thank goodness for instant replay next year.
Good effort again by the Stamps...as hard on them as we've been there have been 3 or 4 games this year where one big play or one bad call goes the other way, and they get a win, not a loss.
By the way, love the CFL rules that allow onside kicks like that.
kevman
10-23-2004, 12:15 AM
The biggest shame is plays like this only work once in a blue moon and it weant all for not tonight. I have to aggree, goto love thos CFL rules!
JiriHrdina
10-23-2004, 12:19 AM
Officiating in the CFL is a joke and will continue and an embarassement to the entire league. One just hopes that the blown calls manage to even out over the course of the season. Let's face it - the Stamps probably got the benefit of a bad call in their last meeting on their final touchdown. Lions get the benefit of a bad call tonight. So it evens out in my view. But still - what a joke.
CaptainCrunch
10-23-2004, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Oct 23 2004, 06:19 AM
Officiating in the CFL is a joke and will continue and an embarassement to the entire league. One just hopes that the blown calls manage to even out over the course of the season. Let's face it - the Stamps probably got the benefit of a bad call in their last meeting on their final touchdown. Lions get the benefit of a bad call tonight. So it evens out in my view. But still - what a joke.
Actually in the last game it evened out. Souza got in on the sneak a play earlier but the penalty was offside B.C. and ref canceled the touchdown which was the wrong call. Again
The CFL has to find younger officials then the 80 year old incompetant geezers that are working the games now.
What a joke, a spectacular play that could have helped the Stamps in thier marketing is wiped out by the worst officials in professional sports.
AvengeR
10-23-2004, 01:04 PM
I am not that upset becasue the replay showed that the Stamps won the game, and a plus is that we get the number 1 draft pick as a result of the loss in the standings.
What i am upset at is that Dunigan told the officials before that last play that they might try an onside kick. so the refs should have been anticipating it. The standing might not show it, but they won and can end the season winning 3 straight games. I can't wait for next season.
calgaryred
10-23-2004, 01:11 PM
I have heard behind closed doors that the CFl is really upset with the refrees this year and that's a big reason why they are putting more money behind training these guys to do a better job.
Deelow
10-23-2004, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by calgaryred@Oct 23 2004, 07:11 PM
I have heard behind closed doors that the CFl is really upset with the refrees this year and that's a big reason why they are putting more money behind training these guys to do a better job.
They should put more money behind paying them so they all don't have to keep full time jobs to make ends meet.
JiriHrdina
10-23-2004, 02:54 PM
In the Sun today they mention the fact that Dunnigan even gave the refs a heads up before the play that they would be trying an on-side kick. Pretty stupid that even with this knowledge they blew the call.
But AvengeR is right - long-term this was probably better for the Stamps to ensure the first pick. Which this year means a lot with that Canadian RB putting up insane numbers (his name escapes me).
AvengeR
10-23-2004, 03:41 PM
That Rb is from Hamilton, so if the Ticats want him badly, we could try to pry Hitchcock from them.
troutman
10-23-2004, 05:27 PM
Did anyone else think BC's second TD was questionable? I thought Cutolo was still juggling the ball as he went out of the back of the end zone.
Originally posted by troutman@Oct 23 2004, 05:27 PM
Did anyone else think BC's second TD was questionable? I thought Cutolo was still juggling the ball as he went out of the back of the end zone.
Yup...he may have had 1 foot in bounds while juggling it...but I'm not too sure about that.
Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 23 2004, 05:18 AM
to be honest i don't think the stupid refs know the rule so i don't think any of them were looking for the onside guy.
Wouldn't it awesome if they somehow reversed this? <_< hmm i'm still dreaming the flames won the cup in 6.
you're not dreaming.
they did.
Originally posted by JiriHrdina@Oct 23 2004, 08:54 PM
In the Sun today they mention the fact that Dunnigan even gave the refs a heads up before the play that they would be trying an on-side kick. Pretty stupid that even with this knowledge they blew the call.
But AvengeR is right - long-term this was probably better for the Stamps to ensure the first pick. Which this year means a lot with that Canadian RB putting up insane numbers (his name escapes me).
Neil Lumsden's son.
i think he plays at mcmaster which is where ti-cats coach is from IIRC...
Originally posted by calf@Oct 23 2004, 06:12 AM
100% a td - just saw the replay...Sanford was onside by about 2 yards. Thank god instant replay's coming in next year...hopefully the video judges are at least half way competent. Good thing this was a nothing game too.
I doubt Dunigan's appeal will go anywhere...you know that the league won't want to set any kind of precedent there.
Team showed some guts in the 2nd half..and heart. Looking forward to next season!
Even when they get the video replay...some joker in TO tells us that they "tivo'd" it and it wasn't a goal. oh wait. stamps forum... i mean...it was a touchdown! hehheh
flames_1987
10-24-2004, 09:33 AM
In the Hearld today they show the pic, and its fully conclusive. My pro line ticket had the stamps winning, and then some for sure NFL teams. Not that bad of a payoff, if all those NFL teams win today I'm gonna lose it even more.
O well, we defintley have something to look forward to next year!!
pope04
10-24-2004, 10:10 AM
TD or not, I loved the fire in Dunigan's eye after the game. I listened to Mark Stephen's interview with him on QR, and he was livid. I think this bodes well for next season - 2005 will be awesome.
in my sports watching (extensive) and playing (extremely limited hehheh) career, i have learned never ever to underestimate a slighted or angry team...
which, as '04 says...only bodes well for the future.
Originally posted by Bertuzzied@Oct 23 2004, 05:12 AM
the guy who threw the flag was down on the 5 yard line! pathetic! Scott Coe is even more pathetic for not stopping that guy on 3rd and 24.
kudos to dunnigan for calling that play. or was it Khari that called the play?
In defense of this official, the flag should be thrown in ALL cases. After the play is dead, the officials get together to discuss. If it was rules correctly, then there would have been "no infraction on the play". Whether the player was on-side is not his call. The umpire or line judges should have made the call.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.