WBBFanWest

It's not how many yards you make, it;s how many points you score.. 46 yards is bad but the issue is that he failed to give us the points that would have won the game, even with 46 yards offence.

Personally, I get why he feels that way and that he feels that Edmonton didn't treat him well. I just wish that he'd have kept that opinion between himself and his teammates until after the game. Why give Edmonton any extra motivation?

That's where you (and others) and me (and others) disagree. First, It wouldn't have been thrown for 'just because', because that implies I'm throwing a challenge flag for no other reason than the simple fact of throwing it. Not true in this case. There would have been reasons (debatable yes but still reasons), other than just wanting to ensure it was a catch, for which I have mentioned in previous posts. Second, calling it a 'dumb idea' suggests very few, if any, believe that throwing the challenge flag at that moment with those circumstances would have been a good thing. Not true in this case. It seems more than a few (and some probably a lot smarter than me) equal to your side of the debate believe it would have been the appropriate thing to do.. Third, the beauty of hindsight is when a similar scenario presents itself again (and by your own admission, a perfect time to throw it), you can now apply that learning, maximizing (not guaranteeing) a successful result based based on experience. The reason that I call it a dumb idea is simple. In my understanding, you throw a challenge flag when you believe that the officials have made an challengeable error. To have that belief, you need some evidence in that moment that the official is wrong. O'Shea has said he had none. There is no other good reason that I'm aware of to throw one, so if you are throwing it without evidence, that's just dumb. And as to your point about a similar scenario presenting itself, there are big plays or circus catches occurring every game. You can't challenge every one of them, just because. You need evidence and that is what O'Shea, in my opinion, needs to focus on. Go find the replay guy, kick his butt and tell him that he better start doing his job before he (O'Shea) loses his. Anyway, I think I've said all I need to on this one, so let's just do the "agree to disagree" thing and move on, shall we?

I was one of those who maintained that throwing a challenge flag "just because" was a dumb idea and I stand by that. Listening to the coaches show, I hear a HC that is running scared right now and is beginning to doubt himself. Sure, in hindsight, it would have been a perfect time to throw the flag, knowing what he knows now. The problem is that he didn't know it then. To me he's starting to sound more like a guy who's focused on trying to hang on to his job, and less like a guy who's confident enough to stand by his decision and justify it. I'm hoping that he gets on whoever he has to in the organization to make sure that he's given timely, accurate information when he needs it because for me, that was the real issue with this situation.

You're referring, of course, to the famous "Etch-a-sketch" defense. Doesn't work all that well, it turns out.

Surely there has to be film of this official turning and revealing his uniform number? That would pretty well settle it.

You don't cut a QB until you know that you have another one ready to go. That means that he's not going anywhere until Willy is back and ready to play. O'Shea strikes me as the cautious sort who wouldn't want to be in a position where if Nichols went down, he'd be forced to start a raw rookie and have another one as backup. I suppose that if Willy's not coming back this season, they might let Brohm go once we've been eliminated (again, sigh...) from the playoffs and start looking at the younger guys

For me the issue is the way the bad call was made. This was not one of those real time split-second decisions that referees have to make. When a ref sees it one way and the video shows it another, I really don't have a problem with a mistake being made. When you think about it, we ask referees to do a really tough job, one where mistakes are going to happen every game. This however, was something completely different. This was a total brain cramp and was really inexcusable. You indicate that the guy was good on the line and then seconds later, you forget? That's not just bad, that's negligent stupidity. That's "you have to face the media and apologize" level incompetence. Remember that umpire, Jim Joyce, who made the bad call at the end of a Tigers - Indians game in 2010 that cost a young pitcher a perfect game? It was a bad call, but unlike this one, was made in real time. Joyce had the grace to man up and apologize publicly to the pitcher and the media for his actions. No "Our referee made a mistake, we'll deal with it privately" release from the League officials. Yes we need to be better as a team and overcome stuff. The referees also need to get better and one of the ways you do that is through accountability, especially when someone makes an error as egregious as this one.

Just out of curiosity, what does that mean exactly? No tape? or the replay clearly shows good play but the challenge flag still comes out? Because if it's the latter, I've seen it on occasion. That's what I was getting at and I have to say that I've never seen a coach throw the flag on a play that was clearly "good" or in a situation that he had no evidence to base his decision on. Actually, it would make zero sense to do that so I would have to seriously question the acumen of a coach that would waste a flag, and a timeout on such a pointless exercise. If your guys need a stoppage, call a time out. If you don't have a timeout, signal for a leg cramp. The dumbest thing a coach could do would be to waste a challenge flag and then, a couple of plays or series later, suddenly have good reason to use it. Where I'm from we call that dumb coaching. The point I'm making is that because O'Shea had no evidence that the catch wasn't a catch, no video, no players screaming to throw the flag, he would not be smart to do so, as some people on here seem to suggest. Again, there are things that O'Shea does that I question, but calling him out for not throwing a flag when he didn't have any evidence to support throwing it is just plain dumb. And for the more sensitive folks out there, please make note of the fact that I'm calling the opinion, not the poster, dumb.

Can anyone show me where a HC has thrown a challenge flag with no evidence whatsoever?

I'm not aware of a CFL head coach throwing a challenge flag in order to "buy time for their D to regroup", nor am I aware of challenge flags being thrown simply because, "its a huge play that changed the game ". The only time I'm aware of that a HC throws a challenge flag is when he has good reason to believe that a decision by the officials was wrong, which O'Shea has already said that he didn't have. Care to list some examples of either of the situations you outlined?

I don't know, you'd have to ask him and yes I am serious. It's late in the game, my opposition just made a circus catch that I didn't get a view on yet, my opposition is all of a sudden running hurry up to get on the ball quick when they should be taking their time so I need to slow things down now, what's at my disposal? Time out or challenge flag. I choose the challenge flag because the bonus is there's a chance it could be overturned based on Calgary not wanting it reviewed. Little bit more than a whim.You'll probably find that very few professional level coaches use "the force" to make critical decisions. I'm thinking that they rely a lot more on evidence, which O'Shea didn't have available to him at that particular moment. The other way to look at it was he made a decision, without any evidence, to let the play go. If he didn't have time to compile that evidence (Calgary rushing to the ball), you simply let it go? No, you use your options to have time to collect that evidence especially being how critical that play was and the time we had left in the game. Yes I risk losing a timeout, the flip side is I risk letting Calgary move up the field on a non legit play. Doesn't the team have multiple people watching? I find it hard to believe no one saw even the possibility of a non catch? I think everyone was mystified by the circus catch. It was very obvious on reply. Id expect someone somewhere to raise an eyebrow at game speed since it's their bread and butter Have you not read the entirety of the thread? And in real speed it looked like a good catch. It wasn't until after the Stamps ran their next play that TSN showed a definitive replay that looked like the ball hit the ground. And those two idiots (Black & Suitor) were still sporting chubbies over the non catch. One of the best reasons I can think of for NOT watching the game in high def.

I already qualified that with one of my posts above so thanks for the judgement. And your point about things going hundred miles per hour provides more evidence that if things were going to fast for our head coach (i.e., Calgary running up to the ball after the catch, no word from the spotter, no replay available, no word yea or nay from a player) you need to slow the game down at that point. How? With a challenge flag. Moreover, the logic I'm hearing here from some people is if you have no word from your sources (see my info in parenthesis above) and the opposition is wanting to hurry up to get the next play off, you simply let it happen because your info hasn't come in yet from a play you don't know yet if it was legit. It was at a crucial point in the game, I don't have my info to make a decision, I throw the challenge flag with the risk of losing a timeout. And this is why you'll never be a professional head coach. Seriously, you can find fault with O'Shea for a lot of things, but not throwing the challenge flag because he "thought that they were hurrying up when they shouldn't" is beyond silly. I guess you've never heard of a team speeding up to take advantage of momentum, because they thing that they've got the opposition on their heels? I have.

As disappointed as I am with those two calls, they don't compare with our offence giving Calgary the entire 3rd quarter and most of the 4th too. In fact, I got a really bad feeling when Stoudermire misplayed the opening kick off in the 3rd and we quickly went 2 and out. They looked flat and they played that way for a long time. So those calls by the refs did not help us, but when you only play about 30 or so good minutes of a 60 minute game, bad things are likely going to happen. And no, there was no "fix" on those calls, just people wearing stripes that made mistakes. Crap happens. Good teams find a way to rise above it. We almost did

Well, the verdict is in and my son said that he really liked the game and thought that the stadium was great. He even wore the Bomber hat. Another soul will wear the blue and gold and feast on disappointment and tears. I don't know if I should be happy or not, but at least I'll have someone to share the driving with!

I don't know, you'd have to ask him and yes I am serious. It's late in the game, my opposition just made a circus catch that I didn't get a view on yet, my opposition is all of a sudden running hurry up to get on the ball quick when they should be taking their time so I need to slow things down now, what's at my disposal? Time out or challenge flag. I choose the challenge flag because the bonus is there's a chance it could be overturned based on Calgary not wanting it reviewed. Little bit more than a whim. You'll probably find that very few professional level coaches use "the force" to make critical decisions. I'm thinking that they rely a lot more on evidence, which O'Shea didn't have available to him at that particular moment.

The main difference concerning Canadians playing in the NFL or NHL is that positions are awarded on the basis of skill and skill alone, versus the CFL which awards positions based on skill and on nationality (ratio). Therefore if a Canadian can demonstrate that he has the skills to do the job in thr NHL or NFL, and there is not an available American that can do it better, the job is theirs. It helps that the determination of skill is completely subjective and therefore, very difficult to argue against. Easy to do in hockey, not so easy in the NFL.

Well, considering the extra costs in travelling down to the US for the entire league, the issue of US vs Canadian currency, and the fact that the foray into the states wasn't exactly a long term boon for the league, colour me extremely, extremely skeptical that the CFL would even remotely entertain the idea.

#freeISO I remember the good old days when we spent most of our time making fun of the Riders and Regina. Good times... good times... Oh, and yay me - 500th post!

I don't know if the league needs longer contracts. a 2 year minimum for rookies would work if the team maintained their rights for a minimum of five years, or as has been said, has the right to match for the first five years. That way, they can go a chase the dream and if it doesn't work out, they're back where they belong, so to speak. It really isn't something that should concern the PA at all.

I'll be there too and, like I said in my rant thread, I'll be bringing my son for his first CFL game. I'm praying that it's at least watchable and not a blow out by the 3rd quarter. Told him that if he played his cards right I'd buy him a Bomber hat. I'd hate to have him say, "Thanks, but no thanks."

I am neither for nor against Dragon. You might say that I'm Dragon neutral. Having said that, Mr. Dragon, you do realize that he reports rumors, but that's because he leaves the reporting of facts to the reporters, while he looks for scoops. Pretty hard to "scoop" a Bomber media release, right? I think it's fair to say that he doesn't just hear something and then broadcast it. It does seem that he'll only talk about stuff that has either multiple sources or is from someone who would be in a position to know what they are talking about. It seems to me that when he reports on these rumors, he turns out to be right a lot more often that random chance would allow for.

Agreed. And it's seriously a dumb question to ask. It was a softball question. All O'Shea had to do is give him one of those sideways glances and say something like "Our record is our record". He's refused to play along with questions he thinks are silly in the past. This was one of those times where he should have.

Not sure which is sadder: The play of the Bombers or people who think I was really trying to contact the Bombers.