TBURGESS

I thought the Ray Charles bit was pretty funny.

Why do folks believe they know more than Refs about how to interpret the rules? If it wasn't challenged, then you could say it should have been a penalty, but this one was challenged and it still wasn't a penalty. Obviously the refs interpreted the rule is differently than most of the fans here do. That's not to say that the Refs are perfect. For example the Bighill hit last game was a terrible call. If it had been challenged, I expect it would have been overturned.

Dru Brown had a great game last night against the 0-9 Elks. The 22 home games lost in a row Elks. The 14 losses in a row Elks. The 'we can't win even when we're up by 22' Elks. Too soon to put him on the next great CFL QB train or even the next starting CFL QB train for that matter.

I'm not arguing the 'other side'. I'm giving my opinion on why I don't think it was RTP. Is simply hitting a QB who is on the ground trying to throw the ball automatic RTP? If yes, then change the wording in the rules to reflect that opinion. Maybe change the rule so QB's can't try to throw the ball when they are going down to protect them.

#1 He lands on Collaros, but he doesn't "Contacting the passer in an unnecessary manner, including stuffing him to the ground, violently throwing him to the ground, and landing on him with most of the defender's weight," so point 1 doesn't apply. #2 Hit him in the head, yes. The question is how do you define a blow to the head? Refs on the field & in the office didn't define the hit as a blow to the head. Bomber fans do. It's the best chance to getting a RTP call. #3 Avoiding the hit. "Once the ball is released, defensive players must avoid all unnecessary contact with the passer" could come into play. Could the defensive player have pulled up and not hit Collaros? Calls for speculation & how does a ref decide what's unnecessary in the first place? #4 Collaros wasn't: "is either standing still or fading backwards", so the out of the play portion of the rule doesn't apply. I too would like some consistency. The problem is with the way the rules are written in the first place. What is a Blow above the shoulder? Is it any touch to the helmet? Is it any touch to the helmet as long as the passer doesn't duck their head? Is it only a massive hit, IE an actual blow to the head? Is it a hit that injures the player? The CFL needs to figure this out so simple glancing hits don't get called. What is unnecessary? Any hit after the throw? A step then a hit? A push or a shove? Anything more than a touch? Right now its whatever the refs decide it is on any given play. When I looked at the hit in full speed, I thought it was a bang bang play with very little if any time for the defender to react. I thought it was a good no call. When Collaros got hurt, I knew that everyone around here would think it was a terrible non call. When MOS challenged it, I thought he might get the overturn because Collaros got hurt & because the slow motion replay's made it look way later than it actually was. When I posted my opinion, I knew that folks would get upset.

I don't think it was RTP. Collaros was throwing the ball. The hit was borderline late, but nothing that usually gets called. The defender didn't lead with his head. There was no helmet to helmet contact. It wasn't called in real time. It wasn't called in review. The result doesn't turn the hit into a penalty.

Brady O

I don't think it's Condell's fault. It's the level of QB'ing in Hamilton. When broke down BLM is the best you've got, your OC isn't going to look good.

I wondered what the over under of lasting a whole game was when we got Collaros. Amazing what he has accomplished since then. Best QB in the league.

Hey Ottawa, when you're 2nd and 2 in FG range, just run the freakin ball. Twice if you have to. Don't have the backup QB throw the deep ball. That's where the redblacks lost the game.

No end was the right call that should have been made sooner, not after the play.

No sure how you got that idea. Dinwiddie was furious at the mistakes that his team made, especially right at the end of the half. Kelly was injured & may be out until after their next bye.

The 10 point shift on Toronto Mistakes at the end of the half were the difference in the game. The difference of going into the locker room tied at 13 instead of 17-7 was huge. Losing Kelly was a big difference maker too as Dukes doesn't look ready for prime time.

1. Collaros - Give him time and he'll kill you. 2. Lawler - 200 Yards, say no more. 3. Bighill - All over the field & he didn't deserve the penalty he took. HH: Burtenshaw - Love to see the big guy returning kicks

That's the first time this year that we've looked like the dominant team we've been for the last couple of years. Shredding BC's defence by simply using an extra O lineman and going deep all the time. Who'd have thunk it? They dominated the first game. We dominated the second game. I can't wait to see the third game.

We'll need to play the best game we've played so far this year to beat BC.

Wolitarski

BC's on a short week, we're coming off a bye. BC's on their 2nd string QB, we're the healthiest we've been all season. We've got home field advantage. If we don't win this one, then we have to admit that BC's the better team and that the road to the Grey Cup goes through Vancouver in the west.

BC has one of, if not the best, defence in the league. Toronto's the only team that's been able to score big points against them and that was mostly due to VAJ turning the ball over and over and over again.

Lapo's pretty good... RIGHT. He has an interesting take... RIGHT. He knows what he's talking about... RIGHT. It's incredibly annoying to hear right at the end of each sentence... RIGHT.

Bo's body is telling him to retire. I hope he listens.

Strev wasn't healthy. No vet QB was available other than Collaros. The last 3 games of 2019, the defence gave up 24, 37, & 28 points respectively. In the playoffs they gave up 14, 13 & 12. You think they'd do that with a rookie QB. To use the stats from the games that Collaros started, you need to make the following assumptions: 1. Rookie QB can win the last game of the season like Collars did, otherwise we don't play Calgary in the cold in the first round. 2. Rookie QB makes some plays that gives the team the unwavering belief that they can win, like Collaros' spinarrama TD. 3. (The worst one and why it's not valid at all) The games would look exactly the same and have the same stats no matter if Collaros or Rookie QB play.

You admit that we wouldn't win with a rookie QB starting, but foolishly won't admit that Collaros was the difference maker. Riddle me this... Why did the defence which had won 1 of the last 5 games of the year without Collaros, suddenly went on a 4 game winning streak as we started Collaros?

Bull stuff. The CFL is a QB driven league and Collaros is the best QB in the league. Without Collaros the Bomber O doesn't put up 20 points and the defense is on the field a lot longer & we don't win any games.

The whole argument is hypothetical on both sides. Stats don't tell the whole story. For example a 5 yard offensive play is a nothing burger stats wise, but it may be a TD or continue a drive at a major point in the game or extend a drive or help to drain the clock. Maybe it's a QB threading the needle. Maybe it's a receiver making a spectacular catch. Maybe it's a tipped ball at the LOS that still gets caught. All things being equal, a great defensive game will be over shadowed by bad QB play. For example: The Dinwiddie GC.