TBURGESS

Sucker punching someone is way worse than talking smack, even if it is about their Mommy.

Sadly no.

Yet another you are right but.... posts.

Calgary has the best QB situation in the league by far. Maier backed up by BLM. It makes them the only team where an injury to the starting QB wouldn't make much if any difference. Every other team is one hit away from QB disaster.

That's what happens when a bend don't break defence has a bad day. It becomes a bend and break defence. Nothing to see here unless it happens again next game, then we'd have a problem.

1. Schoen - ROY and it's not even close now 2. Demski - Great TD 3. Brady O - Ran hard HH O'Leary-Orange - Big game for the big guy

Official call: (12:48) T. CORNELIUS Run QB Sneak (0 yds), T. CORNELIUS Fumble forced by D. SANKEY, Recovered by T. CORNELIUS at S1 (0 yds), Tackle: D. SANKEY, PLAY REVIEWED (Coach): Call Stands, CHALLENGE: Saskatchewan challenged for a fumble recovery. I'm not sure how Cornelius recovers a ball that was behind him, but that means you are right & I'm wrong. It was called a fumble and recovery by the Elks. Flame away folks.

It's not trolling or inciting or ranting or nonsense to say the right team should get the ball. It's completely logical.

Player safety? Sure, the extra 2 seconds on 2 or 3 plays a month are a player safety issue. Talk about a blowingly stupid thing to say. The reality is that the right team should always get the ball. If Refs on the field get it wrong, then the CC should be able to give the ball to the right team. 'No clear recovery' doesn't come into effect until after the whistle has blown. So, yes, the whistle is a big part of the problem. If they don't whistle until their has been a clear recovery, then the right team gets the ball, which is the only fair way to do things. You like to whatabout other plays instead of dealing with the play the Refs got wrong in the first place. I'm not talking about other plays and you know it. FTR: The Riders had chances to overcome the bad call, but that doesn't change the fact that their was a bad call that gave the wrong team 7 undeserved points. I say the rule is wrong because the wrong team gets the ball & it can be fixed without changes by simply waiting for the ball to be recovered. Last night the Elks got 7 points they didn't deserve because the refs got the call wrong & won by 2. In our Stamps game, we got 3 points we didn't deserve from a wrong call by the refs & won by 2. That's 2 games in the last month or so that have been won in a large part by a bad call by the refs giving the ball to the wrong team that couldn't be fixed by the CC.

You could, but it's easier to simply hold the whistle until the fumble is recovered. Still has nothing to do with the play in question.

I didn't like that ruling either.

Elks fumble on the 1. Refs get the call wrong. Riders recover after the whistle. CC can't change the possession. Elks get the ball back, get a TD they don't deserve and win by 2. I said it before and I'll say it again... The CFL needs to fix the fumble rules.

https://3downnation.com/2022/09/15/all-nine-cfl-teams-ranked-injuries/ Montreal Alouettes — 69 man games lost (5.8 per game) B.C. Lions — 90 man games lost (8.2 per game) Winnipeg Blue Bombers — 122 man games lost (9.4 per game) The rest are in the article. We're #3.

But who doesn’t wanna know when Estonian joined the European Union?!?

Any way to get rid of the "Today In History" that started showing up today?

I don't like folks pulling the race card when they get pulled over in the middle of the night for a sober check. I'm about as white as a person can be, and they've pulled me over for the check more than once.

You don't have to touch the pylon. It's breaking the plane of the goal line. That plane extends past the field of play. As long as the player was in bounds when he jumped and the ball goes past the plane before he touches the ground again, it's a TD.

1. Collaros - Brilliant play yet again 2. The Jeffs - Dominant again 3. Bailey - Best game of the year by far HH - Gotta go with Sara

Man the Lions looked bad last night. Stupid calls like the 3rd down gamble and going for TD's on 3rd down didn't help them. Pipkin isn't the answer. Good thing they traded for Adams.

Good riddance. The Riders should have cut Marino after the Masoli hit. Being a cheap shot artist doesn't equal a penalty tho.

The refs didn't miss it. The CC didn't miss it. MOS said as much. In the last game the Refs missed it. The CC didn't miss it, but they couldn't give the ball back to the right team. This week in another game, there was a maybe fumble. The Refs didn't blow it dead until after it was picked up. CC took a look and called it down by contact. That's the way it should have been done last week. As I pointed out the last time. None of the 3 things happened, therefore it's not UR. Not sure where you're getting the UR section from, but here's the rule from the 2022 rule book w is the only one that could be applied.

Folks want it to be illegal, cuz Collaros got smoked by Moreno, so they're saying it's this rule or that rule. I'm saying it's not this rule or that rule, what else you got? FTR: The only part of the UR rule that could be applied is: (w) Any other act of roughness or unfair play, provided it is not considered excessive enough to warrant disqualification. It wasn't enough in the Refs opinion to warrant a penalty. I was more than enough in Bombers fans opinions that it was enough to warrant a penalty. As for the OPI, I said right off the bat it was a penalty and that it wasn't going to be overturned. I also said, on the other site, that Rose embellished it like a soccer player, which I've got no problem with.

(t) Blindside Blocking (see Rule 7, Section 2, Article 13 Article 13 – Blindside Blocking - Delivering a forcible block to an opponent while moving back towards their own dead ball line anywhere on the field. It wasn't a block. It wasn't convoluted. It's black and white in the rules. FTR: There is no Blindside without blocking in the rule book.

Collaros wasn't out of the play or thrown to the ground. Therefore 1 & 3 don't apply. Collaros was doing a blind turn to the outside of the field to continue the play. If he didn't anticipate contact, that's on him. If 1, 2 & 3 don't apply, then the first statement doesn't apply because of the WHO IS: at the end of the line. He was blindsided, but blindsiding is a blocking penalty and he wasn't blocking anyone.

Why do we have to argue intent all the time? Intent isn't in the rule book. What happened in the play matters. Collaros isn't a passer, so none of the passing rules apply. Collaros made a blind turn to the outside of the field and ran into Marino, who clocked him. Cheap shot? You bet! Fine coming? I certainly hope so. When 2 refs and the CC say there isn't enough to call a penalty, the most likely answer is that the professional refs know the rules better than the fans, not that all 3 of them got it wrong.