TBURGESS

If it's close, you don't blow the whistle. Players play to the whistle, so they are in no more danger than they would be in any play. It's ridiculous to say that the extra 2 or 3 seconds put players in danger.

That's called getting the call wrong. All they had to do was let the play continue, which refs do all the time, and let the CC sort it out. That would have given the ball to the Stamps who deserved it & would have reduced our score by 3. It's not the first time the refs have done the 'I toght I ta an incomplete pass' and given the ball to the wrong team. It's a refs mistake every time it happens.

Lions lost O'Conner, TJ Hill, & Whitehead last night + Rourke last week. Still ended up within 7 of the Riders.

BC crosses over, gets Rourke back & plays us in the Grey Cup.

The quick whistle was the whole problem. Let the play continue and then sort it out afterwards. Refs do that all the time. The call was correct after the challenge. No immediate recovery = no ball to the Stamps.

Please stop being creepy, talking about my wiener. As magnificent as it is, I'm certain you've never laid eyes on it..

I've watched longer than you and I can tell you that the refs wrong calls decide a lot more games in 40 years than you can count on one hand. Last night they got a fumble wrong (That's a fact, not conjecture or a 'what if' argument). It allowed us to keep the ball instead of giving it to the Stamps & allowed us to get 3 un-earned points. That's the definition of an instance when the refs made the wrong call that possibly changed the outcome of the game because we won by 2. If their QB had fumbled and they'd kept the ball, you know that most folks around here would be rightly whining about it. There's nothing stupider or more aggravating than fans blaming the refs for calls that go against the team, like the RTP, then saying you can't blame the refs for calls that go against the other team. You can blame the refs for both or neither, but anything else is just stupid.

Except that the RTP call wasn't bogus. Mike Freakin' O'Shea said the refs told him that's the way it's being called. I know you hate me, but you should agree with MOS.

It cost them the chance to win the game. 1st on the 50 is a way higher chance of getting into FG territory than punting the ball away. If the Ref's hadn't mistakenly whistled the ball dead earlier in the game, they'd have been ahead by one, not down by 2. I like my chances of being ahead by 1, the clock running, with a first down at the 50, and 2:30 on the clock. It's two first downs from draining the clock or kicking a FG to go up by 4.

We wouldn't have done that without the chincy holding call on the 3rd down.

Head or neck is the rule as is any blow above the passer's shoulder. So, no it's not a black and white rule infraction. That being said, protecting the QB is one of the main concerns of the CFL and they will go outside the black and white rules to accomplish it. Precedent says they wouldn't over turn it.

Not me. Giving up the singles to get the 40 yard line was the right move IMO.

Ooops

Demski - Must love playing the Stamps McCrae - That TD catch was Burn-em-esc Woli - Real effort guy HH: Dun-in-again - Always makes the game entertaining.

Don't blame the refs, they were mostly on our side. The RTP was called the way it has been for the last couple of years. Hit the QB in the head or shoulders, get a penalty. It doesn't matter if he made contact with the ball. That's a punting rule. It doesn't matter if he was in the air. That isn't in the rule book. What matters is that he hit the QB in the shoulders. The Refs got that one right IMO. They got the quick whistle wrong tho. That gave us the ball back and 3 points we didn't deserve. As we won by 2, it was one of the most important plays of the game. I agree with Matty. The Refs also got the illegal block on the 3rd down wrong. It was a game changing, chintzy call on a 3rd down. Instead of first down Calgary, we got the ball back to drain the clock. That being said, what a great game. Back and forth. Lots of lead changes. Two good teams battling to the last minute. What more can a fan ask for?

This is not the three-peat we're looking for.

What a silly thing to fine a player for. This isn't the No Fun League.

I don't, but that doesn't = easier 2nd half. My avatar is working then. What If's doesn't = an argument & I'm not saying the Riders are great, just better than most of the teams we played in the 1st half of the season. & I think pretty much everyone is wrong.

That's not an answer, that's a cop out.

The question is: Is it easier to play 10 straight weeks, 3 of them against +.500 teams or is it easier to play 8 games, with 2 byes, 6 of them against +.500 teams or are they equally hard/easy? If things keep up as they have so far, the last 2 BC games will go a long way to deciding who is first thru third.

You're almost there. 3-0 against good teams means we've played good teams 3 times, which is what I've been saying all along. I place less value on 10 straight weeks than I do on 3 out of 10 weeks playing against a +.500 team. I've answered the EDIT question a bunch of times already. Go back and read my posts again if you want.

We've absolutely played down to the level of the poor teams and played our best against the other two top teams. That doesn't change the fact that most of the teams we've played have been bottom tier teams or that we play more mid & top tier teams in the 2nd half. (Tier 1 - Bombers, Lions & Stamps, Tier 2 - Riders & Argos, Tier 3 - The rest.) I disagree with your theory that it's hard to 'get up' for bad teams making it harder to win against them. If that was true, then bad teams would win more often because the other teams didn't 'get up' for them, turning them into better teams. It's simpler than that, bad teams are easier to beat because they're bad. We've mostly played bad teams so far and we're mostly playing better teams going forward. What's not to believe about that? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that they aren't good teams. Lets double the wins to 2-6, non of those teams make the playoffs. Why can can see that the Riders have played bad teams, but you can't see that Bombers have too? This is exactly the same argument that I'm making.

You're trying to change the discussion to things I'm not saying for $500 GeeBrr. The only point is that we're playing better teams in the 2nd half than we did in the first half. Explain to me how it's harder to play 1, 2 and 3 win teams than it is to play 5 thru 7 win teams.

I'm not trying to delegitimatize anyone. I'm not saying that 10 straight weeks isn't physically draining. I'm not changing the goalposts. I'm not saying 9-1 doesn't make us the top team in the league. I'm not comparing us to any other team or their schedules. I am saying that the level of competition in the first 10 weeks is lower than the level of competition going forward, because we only played 3 games against +.500 teams in the first 10 games and we play 6 of our next 8 against +.500 teams (As it stands at this moment). I know folks around here hate the Riders, but you've got to admit they're better than most of the teams we played in the first half of the season.

BC, Calgary, Sask are all above .500. That's 6 games against teams above .500 out of 8. All of them are so called 4 point games. Stickem.. Yup, it's nice to have the bye weeks, but the level of competition is higher from this point forward.