Lions @ Bombers Post Game Discussion

[Steve Fanitage]

I get that it is our nature to focus in on one play because it was late in the game and the refs were involved, however the reality is football is won and lost over 60 minutes.

What caused BC to lose this game was a series of events. Maybe their downfall was Jonathan Jennings inability to protect the football, or their team not showing up until down 24-3 and not playing 4 quarters, or their players and coaches being so unprepared as to fall for 2 fakes on the same drive, or their insane decision to run east-west on third and one and the game on the line. 

The refs and the breaks will always play a big part and maybe the Bombers got one. But looking at this game over 60 mins, there are many reasons why the Bombers came out ahead. Great game that could have went either way but full credit for the win. 

 

[Doublezero]

19 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

The rule and ruling are separate issues.

Take the emotion out of the call.

Its quite simple. There was a ruling on the field. There was insufficient evidence to overturn the ruling. The call on the field stands. If it was ruled a fumble..the same command decision would have been handed down. Insufficient evidence to overturn.

S**t happens.

Yes. But the ruling on the field was: no fumble. So why was it reviewed at all? If the rule is that all turnovers are automatically reviewed, what would prompt a review of a non-turnover?

Edited October 10, 2016 by Doublezero

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Doublezero said:

Yes. But the ruling on the field was: no fumble. So why was it reviewed at all? If the rule is that all turnovers are automatically reviewed, what would prompt a review of a non-turnover?

Booth review can be prompted for any reason at that point in the game.

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, Doublezero said:

Yes. But the ruling on the field was: no fumble. So why was it reviewed at all? If the rule is that all turnovers are automatically reviewed, what would prompt a review of a non-turnover?

I believe it works either way... any "possible" turnover triggers a review.

[Doublezero]

5 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I believe it works either way... any "possible" turnover triggers a review.

k thanks.

[Doublezero]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

Booth review can be prompted for any reason at that point in the game.

k thanks.

[deepsixemtoboyd]

On 2016-10-09 at 9:34 AM, Doublezero said:

Milt and Matty often tip their hand showing pro-Bombers bias. They were just demonstrating a bit of even-handedness by calling a fumble a fumble.

Yeah, fair enough. I think what seems strange though - as White Out points out - is all the apparent outrage and use of superlative language (i.e. "BC got burned, man!") by MIlt/Matty etc. I mean, the time of the game clearly magnifies the situation but, my gawd man, Arceneaux draws an absolutely critical illegal contact late in the game (on Heath) which directly results in 7 instead of 3 and the panel has nothing to say about that?! I was at the game and so admit I only saw the replay on the big screen but it certainly looked like Manny just fell. And, as White Out points out, there are judgement calls like this every game. The one against Leggett at the end of the first half against Edm - i.e. yeah, you know, the one that should have been offensive PI against the Edm player - was a total game changer. These things have a way of evening out and the so-called "fumble" by Harris was less blatant (a total 50/50 type situation) than MANY of the examples cited. So, really, let's at least lose all the righteous indignation on the part of the panel on behalf of poor maligned BC...

[deepsixemtoboyd]

41 minutes ago, Steve Fanitage said:

I get that it is our nature to focus in on one play because it was late in the game and the refs were involved, however the reality is football is won and lost over 60 minutes.

What caused BC to lose this game was a series of events. Maybe their downfall was Jonathan Jennings inability to protect the football, or their team not showing up until down 24-3 and not playing 4 quarters, or their players and coaches being so unprepared as to fall for 2 fakes on the same drive, or their insane decision to run east-west on third and one and the game on the line. 

The refs and the breaks will always play a big part and maybe the Bombers got one. But looking at this game over 60 mins, there are many reasons why the Bombers came out ahead. Great game that could have went either way but full credit for the win. 

 

Great post, Steve. Nice and even-handed and clearly utilizing the rational part of your brain. Not something us football fans are often good at! Sincerely, helpful to "pull back the lens" and get some perspective on the bigger picture. Furthermore, to build on your point, BOTH teams caught apparent breaks from the ref at several points throughout the game. The illegal contact and sideline "catch" by Arceneaux both could have easily gone the other way too.

[Fatty Liver]

8 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

Yeah, fair enough. I think what seems strange though - as White Out points out - is all the apparent outrage and use of superlative language (i.e. "BC got burned, man!") by MIlt/Matty etc. I mean, the time of the game clearly magnifies the situation but, my gawd man, Arceneaux draws an absolutely critical illegal contact late in the game (on Heath) which directly results in 7 instead of 3 and the panel has nothing to say about that?! I was at the game and so admit I only saw the replay on the big screen but it certainly looked like Manny just fell. And, as White Out points out, there are judgement calls like this every game. The one against Leggett at the end of the first half against Edm - i.e. yeah, you know, the one that should have been offensive PI against the Edm player - was a total game changer. These things have a way of evening out and the so-called "fumble" by Harris was less blatant (a total 50/50 type situation) than MANY of the examples cited. So, really, let's at least lose all the righteous indignation on the part of the panel on behalf of poor maligned BC...

Also that Manny reception along the sidelines in the 4th Q was not a reception.  O'Shea was livid but didn't have any challenges left.

[Stickem]

I was particularly peed off with the way that all of the panel had the same take...Not even a smidgen of doubt in their mind and it was definitely a fumble...Feeding that b.s. to the masses and not a peep that ....'well maybe it wasn't a fumble...Right from Rod bozo Black on down there was no other way to see it...Yet the juggling act- non catch (as far as I was concerned) by Arceneaux was never even brought up...Bogus and slanted and I hope they take the orange glasses off for the next one. 

[Fatty Liver]

1 minute ago, Stickem said:

I was particularly peed off with the way that all of the panel had the same take...Not even a smidgen of doubt in their mind and it was definitely a fumble...Feeding that b.s. to the masses and not a peep that ....'well maybe it wasn't a fumble...Right from Rod bozo Black on down there was no other way to see it...Yet the juggling act- non catch (as far as I was concerned) by Arceneaux was never even brought up...Bogus and slanted and I hope they take the orange glasses off for the next one. 

Everyone is focusing on the top half of Harris's body on the fumble, it's the lower half that could not clearly be seen that dictates whether he is down or not.  He certainly wasn't perfectly horizontal when he went down.  No doubt, there is doubt.

[Dragon37]

1 hour ago, ddanger said:

I know they could call holding on almost every play but man they missed some really flagrant ones against BC.  There's a guy who sits behind us every game that yells :" HOLDING!!" constantly....was glad he wasn't there because I'd be deaf(er).

It bothers me how much they will not call holding, especially when the quarterback is deemed really good. Montreal used to get away with a ton of holding when AC was QB and I would guess that that has changed considerably since his departure. I guarantee that there is a play saving holding when the ball is held by the QB past 5 seconds or they start scrambling. 

IMHO it doesn't make for better linemen or football when they are constantly allowed to hold.

[deepsixemtoboyd]

On 2016-10-09 at 10:30 AM, TBURGESS said:

We aren't long overdue for a break. It's the second time in 6 weeks that we've won on a disputed call in the last minute. 

I agree with this. We all tend to see things through lenses that suit our needs! Having said that, the Bombers don't catch any more (or less) breaks on average than any other CFL squad. Yes, for the second time in 6 weeks, a disputed call went in our favour. And for the third or fourth time in two weeks, other critical disputed calls also went in favour of the opposition (PI against Leggett (instead of against Coehoorn) vs Edm, phantom block from behind with no bearing on the play wipes out Fogg's return TD - for the 4th time this season, no less! (vs Edm) - phantom illegal contact against Heath sets up BC late in game for TD, Arceneaux doesn't survive contact with ground, ruled catch). So, not "long overdue for break" for sure, instead just exactly as much as due for a break as anyone else.

Edited October 10, 2016 by deepsixemtoboyd
I mispelled a word

[JuranBoldenRules]

Lions got gifted 7 points on a brutal PI on Arcenaux on a 2nd and long (FG attempt became TD) and a ridiculous missed call on that long catch on the sideline by Arcenaux that allowed them to attempt a field goal.  I think the shitty officiating evened out even if you believe Harris lost control of that ball before his can hit the turf (which is really bang-bang IMO, not just that the ball moved, but that it was out of his control).

[Plaxico]

On 10/9/2016 at 0:25 AM, Dragon37 said:

Knee touched ball came out right call. Called immediately on the field and confirmed by command centre. I don't care what twatter-verse has to say. IMHO they got away with several holds, two PIs, etc so boohoo. 

??? Knee touched?

[GimliJetsMan]

13 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I'd say 1971. Wingback (now called slot) Bob Kraemer threw 2 that year, I believe. He was the Bisons qb when they won back to back Vanier Cups in 1969 & 70.

Wow, Thanks. Very cool to see it happen.

[Jacquie]

15 hours ago, iso_55 said:

I'd say 1971. Wingback (now called slot) Bob Kraemer threw 2 that year, I believe. He was the Bisons qb when they won back to back Vanier Cups in 1969 & 70.

You have a great memory for Bomber history but according to Stats Junkie at TEP, you are slightly out... He's posted that Kraemer did it in 1971 and 1972.

He has some other interesting info in this thread:

http://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=47491.msg1328847#msg1328847

Edited October 10, 2016 by Jacquie

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

On that Fumble play- Normand was face masked hardcore- isn't that an automatic 10 or 15? Therefore everything about the fumble is a moot point, no?

We would have had 1st and 10 and could have run out the clock.

 

But in saying that... Zebras really ****** that one up.

[Brandon]

4 hours ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

On that Fumble play- Normand was face masked hardcore- isn't that an automatic 10 or 15? Therefore everything about the fumble is a moot point, no?

We would have had 1st and 10 and could have run out the clock.

 

But in saying that... Zebras really ****** that one up.

He was face masked big time....  it was right in front of Harris also... I was surprised that they made no mention of it at all during all the replays they showed. 

[Guest J5V]

8 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

It bothers me how much they will not call holding, especially when the quarterback is deemed really good. Montreal used to get away with a ton of holding when AC was QB and I would guess that that has changed considerably since his departure. I guarantee that there is a play saving holding when the ball is held by the QB past 5 seconds or they start scrambling. 

IMHO it doesn't make for better linemen or football when they are constantly allowed to hold.

I agree and this holding thing has long been a peeve of mine. If they call the holding then Olines will have to play straight up and Dlines will be more involved in the play. A win-win situation for all CFL fans AFAIC. Unless there is some sort of unofficial mandate from the CFL to let the holding go so as to protect QBs from possible injury.

What I hate about it is that a team with a great Dline can be nullified by a team that is allowed to hold. Our Swaggerville team was such a team and whenever we played BC or Calgary it was always a wash because we could never get to their QB due to all the holding. A few years ago it was the Riders that constantly held and almost never got called for it. Certain teams at certain times just seem to get that privilege. 

[bearpants]

On 10/10/2016 at 10:53 AM, Mr Dee said:

The rule and ruling are separate issues.

Take the emotion out of the call.

Its quite simple. There was a ruling on the field. There was insufficient evidence to overturn the ruling. The call on the field stands. If it was ruled a fumble..the same command decision would have been handed down. Insufficient evidence to overturn.

S**t happens.

Yeah I agree... I said to anyone who I talked to that our luck was not the review... but rather that they called him down on the play... had they called it a fumble on the field, it likely would've stood after review....

[Fatty Liver]

6 minutes ago, bearpants said:

Yeah I agree... I said to anyone who I talked to that our luck was not the review... but rather that they called him down on the play... had they called it a fumble on the field, it likely would've stood after review....

The ref. who blew the whistle interpreted the event as it happened, he wasn't just passing gas through his whistle.  The whistle was blown because forward progress had been halted, whether Harris was down or not.

[Stickem]

11 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

The ref. who blew the whistle interpreted the event as it happened, he wasn't just passing gas through his whistle.  The whistle was blown because forward progress had been halted, whether Harris was down or not.

IF he was, I'm not going anywhere near that whistle....Progress halted...play dead no matter what happens after that...pretty simple unless you want to discuss exactly when that whistle went.....you know the one that could have had gas pass through it...(sorry bannatyne, but for some reason that struck me as funny and I now half to clean the coffee off of my keyboard)...lol

[Atomic]

There is no screen capture out there that shows Harris's butt touching the ground therefore it is impossible to determine when he was down and therefore it is impossible to know whether he was down when the ball came out.  Inconclusive.  It's really that simple.

[Tracker]

28 minutes ago, Atomic said:

There is no screen capture out there that shows Harris's butt touching the ground therefore it is impossible to determine when he was down and therefore it is impossible to know whether he was down when the ball came out.  Inconclusive.  It's really that simple.

Conversely, there is no video recording to prove that his butt was not down, either, so the default decision is that the ref who saw the play and called it made the correct call.