TBURGESS

Kelly started and excelled in his 2nd year after only having a single start in his first year. He took over the Grey Cup winning team and actually made it better. He's on Toronto, the center of the world. I expect he will get MOP.

1. Like that the coaches found a way to exploit the rule. Can't see any good way to 'fix' the rule. Gotta go 10 yards means blocked punts have to go 10 yards past the LOS before that kicking team recovers to keep the ball. Right now it's just past the LOS which is why the dribble kick works. 2. If Zach struggles, we leave him in to right the ship. Dru did well against Calgary who only won 6 games & who didn't pressure him all game long, but that's not a likely WF scenario. 3. I doubt that either Brown or Steveler will be on the Bombers next year.

It's been in the rules for years. If we'd done it, you'd be on about how smart MOS is for knowing the rule and exploiting it.

People want to change the rules because a team did it twice in one year? What a crock.

It's a great play that ueses the rules as written. Nothing at all the matter with it. Any team could do it.

I agree. Realistically, it's Ottawa, Hamilton, or Regina and any of those teams could decide to just keep their vet QB instead. Shultz & Evans both have way more experience which means they are less risky to move forward to #1.

Arbuckle got a ton of chances and never lived up to his 'potential'. He's the perfect example of why you don't give a young QB a starting job with a bunch of money. You give them a chance to compete for the starting job, a lowish base salary with a bunch of bonuses for being THE guy. I disagree that Dru would be the best QB on most of those teams.

I don't think any team gives Brown a starting job or starting salary. Ottawa could dump Mazoli, sign Brown to compete for the starting job and use the savings to upgrade the rest of the team. Riders could dump Harris, sign Brown to compete for the starting job and use the savings to upgrade their O line. Montreal could dump Faj-jj... etc. Hamilton could dump BLM... etc. Edmonton will continue with Ford as he gave them hope this year. Stamps will continue with Maier as he got better in the 2nd half of the season. IMO, the most likely spot is Ottawa where Dru would get the most money and have the easiest route to starting.

If the 3 of you could have said that a month ago, we'd all have been better off.

Lots of young QB's look good on great teams but can't lead a team of their own. Take Arbuckle for example. He was going to be the next big QB then fizzled out when he was forced to do it on significantly worse teams. If I'm a team in need of a starting QB, I'm not pinning my hopes on a guy like Brown. I'm hedging my bets and bringing in two young backups and letting them both compete for the starting job.

We only know what Dru looks like on a great team with a great O line, Receivers and Running Back. We & the other teams have no idea if he can do it on a lesser team.

Of course it doesn't. No one said it did.

Everyone is going to run on the Lions. The key to beating them is to stop their deep ball offence.

Losing your top 2 QB's is a real excuse. No team is going to do well having to start their 3rd string QB. Just ask Ottawa or Hamilton this year.

This year, the West is the weaker division. Montreal & Hamilton have more wins than Regina and Calgary. Ottawa & Edmonton have the same number of wins as each other. I'd like the CFL to go back to every team playing every other team twice with the 2 extra games played against your own division.

If Tor beats Skn & BC beats Cgy, then we get to decide on if Cgy or Skn gets the last playoff spot.

We only need to win 1 game to clinch the west because we have the tie break against BC.

The battle of the undeserving teams was just what I thought it would be. If Toronto beats the Riders next week, then Calgary can get in with one more win.

How I imagine it looks in some members places when I post anything.

Literally, no one is saying that you can extend the ball after you are marked out. You're right in that instance. (I've also reffed). Furthest point forward. It doesn't matter if it's the ball or the foot. Amend from: Marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. to Marked at the furthest point forward when the foot goes out. Doesn't really change anything in the case of the play we're talking about, the ball was clearly ahead of the foot so it is the furthest point forward. If Adams was out before he extended the ball then it's still where the ball was when he went out. If Adams didn't extend the ball until after he was out then the mark was good. I've seen zero evidence that his foot was out before he extended. Booch says he has, but can't or won't share that evidence & he says you can see it on the replay that I posted, which no one can because the right leg is behind Bighill's head. Best you can say is that you guess his foot was out behind Bighill's head. It's a Red Herring argument anyway. It's not where you mark the ball when you go out. It's where was the ball when Adams stepped out or touched the line.

A foot out = End of Play. Marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. Sideline's don't have any special marking rules, it's always marked where the ball is, never where the foot is

It's simple, but you've got it wrong. The placement is always where the ball is, not where the foot is when the player is down, or out, or in the endzone. You can't advance the ball after you or the ball are down or out. If the ball goes out first, it's where the ball is. If the foot goes out first, it's still where the ball is.

When the foot goes out, the play is dead, but it's not marked where the foot went out. It's marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. Extend the ball before the foot goes out, it's where the extension of the ball is. Extend the ball after the foot goes out, you don't get the extension, it's still where the ball was when the foot touches the out of bounds. I took a quick look at the rule book and I didn't find anything definitive regarding marking the ball at the foot when going out of bounds or where the ball is when the foot goes out of bounds. Think of TD's on the sidelines. Player dives while his foot is in the field of play. Ball goes over the line = TD. Player dives, when his foot has touched the sideline = no TD. Neither case needs the players foot to go over the goal line. In both cases, the ball is marked where the ball is when the player touches the sidelines, not where the foot touches. Lets say the VAJ dove instead of pushed the ball forward. If he stepped on the out of bounds line before he dove, he wouldn't get the field advantage of the dive. If he started the dive before he touched the boundary, then he gets where he lands, assuming a head first dive.

The ball placement is where the ball is when the foot goes out, not where the foot is when the foot goes out. Example: TD's. Lots of time the knee is down in the field of play, while the ball is over the goal line. That's a TD every time. You can't see the right foot on the TV feed. Does the all 24 have an angle that shows both the foot and ball?

Disagree. No way to see where his foot actually went out of bounds (Behind Bighill's head) on any vid that I've seen. His foot goes out of bounds somewhere between 9:41 & 9:42 of: https://www.cfl.ca/2023/10/07/recap-winnipeg-34-bc-26/ I thought it should have been a first in real time and that we'd lost the game. The attached video shows that is should have been at least 1/2 yard closer to a first than the refs gave him, but not a first. Being as they missed the first by 3 inches or less, they'd have made the first down with a proper mark with 1:50 left on the clock @ the BC 52. That would have meant they drained at least another minute from the clock and we couldn't have stopped them. Even making zero yards, they'd be able to punt the ball on third, which they should have done due to the mark anyway, & we'd have been inside our 20 with about 45 seconds to get the tying FG. One first down and they'd have drained the clock. Maybe you can share a better video that shows your opinion of where the ball should have been spotted?