Tiger-Cats @ Riders

[Mark F]

36 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Our two wins against the Riders are looking better every week. 

They're a much better team now, than they were at the beginning of the season. Because of the dislike of Jones, and Sask, people can't admit that.

[LeBird]

This thing of interpretation is starting to make the league look like sandbox football. Different teachers, different rules. Those two challenges on the same play bordered on ridiculous. I don't think the refs had any effect on the outcome of our game but if that is the product we are trying to sell in an attempt to get more fans good luck with that.  They tried to cover up the incompetence of the refs by having replays to correct their errors. But the replays are done by other incompetent people. They wanted to stop the holding by DB's by introducing the IC. Now an incidental contact 30 yards from the play gets called. I would assume the league had no confidence in the ability of the refs so took their ability to use  discretion. 

 

 

[pigseye]

10 hours ago, bustamente said:

Never seen that call before but he did tilt the ball and move it forward ever so slightly, also Austin if he contacted the official should of been thrown out of the game.

That was funny, Austin swatted at him like a parent scolding a child.

[LeBird]

24 minutes ago, Mark F said:

They're a much better team now, than they were at the beginning of the season. Because of the dislike of Jones, and Sask, people can't admit that.

Hamilton were without the RB and were down to mostly Fantuz. Saskatchewan are a better team but did not beat much yesterday

[TBURGESS]

Moving the ball on 3rd and inches? All centers do it. Refs let them except for once or twice a decade, but they decide to call it when the games on the line and it becomes a game changer? 

Challenges are getting worse and worse as the year goes on. Illegal contact gets called away from the play and it doesn't matter if the receiver or the DB are the ones who initiate contact. PI gets called even if you can't see it at full speed.

Looking at this weekend, I can't see a single challenge that overturned an obvious mistake. Coaches throw the flag 'just to see' if they can find something to overturn good plays or to extend drives. The only thing that challenges are good for IMO is to determine if it's a catch or not and if the player is in or out of bounds and those don't need to be coaches challenges.

[17to85]

Hamilton has some real problems. Their D used to be an absolute terror a year or two ago now they look like a bunch of ***** cats. What happened? They get figured out?

[Mr Dee]

Quote

Looking at this weekend, I can't see a single challenge that overturned an obvious mistake.

O'Shea challenged a ball that obviously had hit the ground when McDaniel caught it with his hand. That was a mistake corrected. 

 

[TBURGESS]

5 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

O'Shea challenged a ball that obviously had hit the ground when McDaniel caught it with his hand. That was a mistake corrected. 

Sure, it was a corrected mistake, but it certainly wasn't an obvious one and it didn't make any difference to the game. Dickenson just used a challenge to get the first down back.

BTW: That was a catch/no catch situation which could have been challenged from the 'eye in the sky' to get it right.

Edited September 25, 2016 by TBURGESS
Catch or no catch.

[Mr Dee]

It was obvious to some of us. It was a mistake that was corrected by a challenge. That was the point. The results and subsequent actions by Dickenson has no bearing on a legitimate challenge.

[TrueBlue4ever]

7 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

That is procedure, just like pointing is, once you are set you can't move. Period. 

I didn't say it wasn't an incorrect call, following the letter of the rules. I said it was a mickey mouse call. Cheap. That kind of pre-snap movement happens so often and is let go, and they call it on 3rd and inches in the 4th quarter of a one score game? 

By the letter of the law, there is no contact allowed after 5 yards for receivers and DBs. Following the letter of the law, there should be 15-20 illegal contact fouls called every game, and called on receivers as much as DBs, yet now they allow "hand-fighting" (sometimes). It is a penalty for an o-lineman to hold, yet it is said that there is holding on every play. So why no flag on every play. Because refs should know that the "flow" of the game is key too. Other sports (rugby, soccer) will "play the advantage" on a foul and let the play go if it isn't an egregious foul that changes the entire set up of the play. Football allows that too. The timing and interpretation of that call was ridiculous, the QB would still had to have taken the snap and got past the first down marker, not sure how having the ball a millimetre forward (if it was) changes that scenario and gives the Ticats an unfair advantage.

[TBURGESS]

36 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

Edited September 25, 2016 by TBURGESS
Didn't post properly

[TBURGESS]

38 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

It was obvious to some of us. It was a mistake that was corrected by a challenge. That was the point. The results and subsequent actions by Dickenson has no bearing on a legitimate challenge.

The ref, who was the closest to the ball, saw it as a catch. It took slow mo and enhanced video to over turn it. I guess your definition of obvious is different than mine.

I'm not saying it wasn't a legitimate challenge. I'm saying it wasn't an obvious challenge and it didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game, except to slow it down. I don't think the game would suffer at all if we removed the challenge system from the coaches. The refs back in Toronto are already looking at every turn over, TD and if players are in or out. It's not that much more to look at the non-obvious catches too.

[Mr Dee]

 

Quote

I guess your definition of obvious is different than mine.

Obviously.

[LeBird]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Sure, it was a corrected mistake, but it certainly wasn't an obvious one and it didn't make any difference to the game. Dickenson just used a challenge to get the first down back.

BTW: That was a catch/no catch situation which could have been challenged from the 'eye in the sky' to get it right.

Per CFL, the Eye in the Sky can not rule on any play that is challengeable.  Just as well, then you would get the coach challenging a Eye in the Sky ruling.  

[TBURGESS]

39 minutes ago, LeBird said:

Per CFL, the Eye in the Sky can not rule on any play that is challengeable.  Just as well, then you would get the coach challenging a Eye in the Sky ruling.  

That's kind of the point. Give it to the 'Eye in the Sky' and take it away from the coaches.

[rebusrankin]

Amazing the Riders are on a two game streak. Hope they knock off Toronto in a few weeks.

[Jacquie]

delete

Edited September 25, 2016 by Jacquie

[Fatty Liver]

On 2016-09-25 at 7:29 AM, pigseye said:

That was funny, Austin swatted at him like a parent scolding a child.

This is going to be an all-time classic, Austin's double and triple takes are priceless.

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[Tracker]

20 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

Amazing the Riders are on a two game streak. Hope they knock off Toronto in a few weeks.

The prospect of the Riders beating the Argos fills me with mixed feelings- like seeing your car being driven off a cliff by your mother-in-law.

[HardCoreBlue]

On 9/25/2016 at 8:28 AM, LeBird said:

This thing of interpretation is starting to make the league look like sandbox football. Different teachers, different rules. Those two challenges on the same play bordered on ridiculous. I don't think the refs had any effect on the outcome of our game but if that is the product we are trying to sell in an attempt to get more fans good luck with that.  They tried to cover up the incompetence of the refs by having replays to correct their errors. But the replays are done by other incompetent people. They wanted to stop the holding by DB's by introducing the IC. Now an incidental contact 30 yards from the play gets called. I would assume the league had no confidence in the ability of the refs so took their ability to use  discretion. 

 

 

That's a great point which isn't discussed enough when it comes to the use of technology versus us humans in sport.

[Mike]

The one I thought was stupid was the downfield blocking call on a block that was thrown on a guy who never would've been participating in the play anyways.

This BS needs to get cut out of the game ASAP

[TBURGESS]

6 minutes ago, Mike said:

The one I thought was stupid was the downfield blocking call on a block that was thrown on a guy who never would've been participating in the play anyways.

This BS needs to get cut out of the game ASAP

So it's OK to cheat as long as it's away from the play?

[Mike]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

So it's OK to cheat as long as it's away from the play?

Sure, that's what I'm saying.

If a ref catches it, great. Then by all means call it. But challenging it is ridiculous.

[Mark F]

29 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

This is going to be an all-time classic, Austin's double and triple takes are priceless.

It's an instant classic. Thanks for that one! (someone might have speeded it up a bit but that's ok)

Edited September 26, 2016 by Mark F

[Mark F]

23 minutes ago, tracker said:

The prospect of the Riders beating the Argos fills me with mixed feelings- like seeing your car being driven off a cliff by your mother-in-law.

what kind of car do  you have?