Discussion in 'Calgary Stampeders Talk' started by Stamps Rule, Nov 30, 2014.
Al Cameron posted this:
Did Al Cameron miss the part where there were a number of brutal holdings on that play that went unnoticed by the refs?
The worst part of the block (which was for sure a block in the back) was that if #44 left him alone #14 would've cleaned it up and Banks would've been gone anyhow. Terrible situation to take a flag.
Just look at the video and there are three clips in the frame that could have been called #27 and #45 and #44 then a hold on number 43 so either way this return should have been called back.
Was it a block from behind? Yep. That means a flag should have been, (and was correctly), thrown.
The ref's job is not to determine if a penalty will have an effect on the outcome of the play. Hearing some people argue that McCartney wouldn't have been able to get to Banks, so it shouldn't have been a penalty is laughable.
It's really no different than the offensive pass interference call against Hamilton during the second half when a Ti-cats completion for a first down was called back after a downfield blocking penalty was called on the opposite side of the field (which meant it had no effect on the completion itself).
When the flag flew, the ball hadn't even left Collaros' arm, and it was thrown because (whether or not it had a bearing on Hamilton's success on the play), you can't block that far down the field on a defender before the ball has been released.
Whatever else happened on the play, it's a penalty every time it's caught.
As it should be.
That's why the rules are in the book.
And for that very reason, there is no case to be made that the clipping call at the end of the game yesterday should have been treated any differently.
Here's an interesting still image from the play. No yards could've been called there as well.
Hamilton #27 holding!
Don't think you could flag that as a hold on a kick return. Engaging from the side is allowed.
Even if he grabs and turns him?
No blockers are allowed to turn the opponent.
To call that a hold on #27 it's outside the spirit of the rule.
The block by #45 is closer to holding but he engaged from the side prior to the Stampeder player dropping his shoulder and therefore wouldn't be called in most cases.
This is why being a football official is a nearly impossible task. The two officials near the play have to access if it's no yards by Calgary's #45 and #24; then access the blocks by Hamilton's #45, #27 and finally #44 all in a split second of game action.
Potentially Calgary's #26 could've also been called for a clip when he shoves the Ticat from behind but again it'd be outside the spirit of the rule. So 5 or 6 decisions by officials had to be made in a split second.
Really the key moment on this play is when McCartney gets past Hamilton's #44 prior to the ball being recovered by Banks and in retaliation #44 decides he MUST make a play there.
Disagree, a hold could have been called later in the play. He impeded the tackler from getting to the ball carrier.
He knew better than to put his hand on his back. Feel bad for the young man that did it, but I am only left with Calgary as the Grey Cup Champions to console me. I'll take that.
Whats to decide? The refs determine the play not fans! It was an illegal block which is called many times over the season.
In the CFL, there is a flag on nearly every punting play. This one just happened to cost the Tiger-Cats the Grey Cup, that's all.
It was an unquestionable penalty. The refs did their job.
The unsportsmanlike penalty on Buddy Jackson was more questionable.
Someone should tweet back at Al Cameron what we've discussed here
I think Al's been in the curling rink too long.