Prepare for the video...

It probably should have been a safety, too.

I think it should have been 1st and ten from the one... but either that of a safety would have been acceptable answers How they came up with a third option is so CFL

How the hell wasn’t it a safety? Proulx’s explanation told me is that the ball carrier entered the end zone on his own momentum, so that’s why it was one point. Huh???

I could see giving the safety, to me he was running along the goalline, and whether the ball is on or behind the goalline is a matter of centimeters, so either call is acceptable for safety or scrimmage at the one The single was BS, he went back on his own volition not inherent momentum.

Yeah the momentum thing such a subjective decision and I agree…it *should* have gone the other way and “make it a tight game” seems to be the only reason it didn’t.

Safety and it's game over Reviewing the tape, I'm more convinced he had least had the goalline when contact was made, so it should have been from the one. How they got to where they did is mystifying.

I think the command centre was like, how can we keep this a game... ie reward the Bombers, while making it look like we're not. At the very least this is why we should get the CC audio to hear the decision making process. Not play telephone via Andre Proulx

Telephone with Andre Proulx is the home game we all want. Talk about a booby prize.

The ball was clearly in the end zone (remember the goal line itself is in goal). The momentum question was a lot closer but they always tend to rule to the benefit of the ball carrier, whether on these or on questions of forward progress.

Don't think it was that clear, he was at least half out of it when he was hit

In fact, after taking a couple steps in, but prior to contact, he took three consecutive steps outside the endzone. Not by much, but both feet were on green. Even with the ball cradled in his back arm, you only really need the tip out on contact

I went and looked at it on the youtube highlights. It was closer than I remembered, and not the best angles there, but what matters is where the ball is, and he was carrying it on the endzone side. A better angle could prove me wrong but I still don't think the ball got out.

This guy posted the whole thing. He took two steps in, three steps out, then contact and driven well into the endzone. I'm willing to say it's not conclusive... I err on the side that he was out, but it certainly wasn't a "clear" safety. bsky.app/profile/jm53...

Ok, seeing that, I’m will to accept that “forward progress” had the ball carrier out of the endzone and the tackle pushed him back in. One foot was clearly outside the EZ. The ball? Maybe. It’s close enough to cancel the riot.

I want to start a YouTube channel called Football Supreme Court where I look at weird plays like this and go over the potential rulings in detail. I don't have the skills or the resources to actually do it, but other than that

I'm aware it's a rule... I'm just utterly mystified how they read it that way. We was doddling back and caught the bounce at the three.

Me too , I thought safety then WTF. That’s why I checked the rule. Still not convinced it was the right call.

Yeah, at the 1 would have been fine too. I don't see how the momentum carried him in.

Yeah upon further review, I get the reason for “momentum” to affect the 2 pt thing. But “momentum” was a very generous ruling for Wpg. He was purposefully running to gain space. I still say 2pts.

I guess it did end up resulting in the oddly rare convert return for a convert lol

Game tying rouge in Canadian college football

I'll die on the hill that it should've been a safety.