Winnipeg @ Ottawa GDT

[BigBlue]

I don't know the exact stats but we must be leading the league in points against, somerthing well over 30 points per game but somehow we are 4 & 2 .... time for the D to tighten up ... for now: HOORAY!!!!! WE ARE FINDING WAYS TO WIN .... THANKYOU

[bustamente]

1 minute ago, rebusrankin said:

I agree with Mark H. on the holding calls that negated our 4 Q td, disagree on the play by Roc at the end. Did not see it as PI and the ball was out of bounds, no way Ottawa catches the inbounds.

Also on that play there receiver pushed off with both hands which ultimately put him out of bounds.

[Bomber_fanaddict]

Legget with 7 tackles and 2 sacks. Welcome back!

[Bigblue204]

19 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

I agree with Mark H. on the holding calls that negated our 4 Q td, disagree on the play by Roc at the end. Did not see it as PI and the ball was out of bounds, no way Ottawa catches the inbounds.

The first holding call was a bit meh...he wasnt making a play...but it was holding. The second one needed to be called though. And there was no PI....thats called playing football.

[Rod Black]

The game was way smoother with the new reduced challenge rule. IMO. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

11 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

The game was way smoother with the new reduced challenge rule. IMO. 

I agree but they have a few wrinkles to work out.  That's 2x in the past 2 games (I think) Osh has had to waste a challenge on stupid bad calls the ref's should have gotten in the first place.  That PI on Adams was right in front of the ref staring right at the infraction.  I get ref's F'up sometimes but this is showing a complete lack of comprehension as to what their job is

Edited August 5, 2017 by Taynted_Fayth

[Sard]

36 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

I agree but they have a few wrinkles to work out.  That's 2x in the past 2 games (I think) Osh has had to waste a challenge on stupid bad calls the ref's should have gotten in the first place.  That PI on Adams was right in front of the ref staring right at the infraction.  I get ref's F'up sometimes but this is showing a complete lack of comprehension as to what their job is

Absolutely agreed on the Adams non-call that required the wasted challenge, the ref wasn't even 10 yards away, looking right at the 2 players and the Ottawa player elbowed Adams in the face with no call.

The one I also don't get from a few plays earlier is when the receiver fully runs over the defender, how does that penalty go against the defence.  Can't remember who it was, but one of the Ottawa receivers ran right through a Bomber defender basically standing still and they got the illegal contact penalty... made absolutely no sense.

[Mr Dee]

To all the sports writers and pundits who didn't give the Bombers a chance to win...

  Whoop T Doo  boys, whoop T Doo

[B-F-F-C]

I've been watching the CFL for over 40 years and I haven't seen the "hands to the face" penalty called except for the past two seasons and it seems our OL have a difficult time keeping their paws off the helmet of the opposition. 

 

[Noeller]

2 hours ago, B-F-F-C said:

I've been watching the CFL for over 40 years and I haven't seen the "hands to the face" penalty called except for the past two seasons and it seems our OL have a difficult time keeping their paws off the helmet of the opposition. 

 

We've definitely developed a reputation among the refs, so there's no sliding under the radar on those ticky tacky things anymore...

[wpgallday1960]

2 hours ago, B-F-F-C said:

I've been watching the CFL for over 40 years and I haven't seen the "hands to the face" penalty called except for the past two seasons and it seems our OL have a difficult time keeping their paws off the helmet of the opposition. 

 

Not sure about that.  I seem to recall hands to face being called every season I've been watching and I too have watched football for,over 40 years.

[Guest J5V]

10 hours ago, Sard said:

Absolutely agreed on the Adams non-call that required the wasted challenge, the ref wasn't even 10 yards away, looking right at the 2 players and the Ottawa player elbowed Adams in the face with no call.

The one I also don't get from a few plays earlier is when the receiver fully runs over the defender, how does that penalty go against the defence.  Can't remember who it was, but one of the Ottawa receivers ran right through a Bomber defender basically standing still and they got the illegal contact penalty... made absolutely no sense.

Right and Doug Brown commented on it and said the ref has to smarten up and realize it's a Bomber laying on the turf, not the other way around.

[TBURGESS]

Our O line seems to get caught a lot on the hands to the face. Maybe some teams brought it to the attention of the league that we kind like to punch guys in the mouth and now they are looking for it. I thought all the O Line penalties were deserved last night.

I disagree with the term 'wasted challenge'. That's exactly the type of play that challenges were brought in to fix. It wasn't for the ticky tacky, slow motion, several camera angle, away from the play illegal contacts that coaches often used them for. The 1 challenge rule worked great tonight. Both teams got rid of them early and we could just play ball after that.

Edited August 5, 2017 by TBURGESS

[Noeller]

2 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Maybe some teams brought it to the attention of the league that we kind like to punch guys in the mouth and now they are looking for it.

I'd believe this...

[JuranBoldenRules]

Should start calling players for Obj conduct who can't keep their helmets on.  Tighten up your chinstrap.

[Guest J5V]

Just now, Noeller said:

I'd believe this...

I love it! "Hey Mr. ref, sir! That Bomber guy keeps punching me in the mouth every time I rush his QB. It hurts and I don't like it and I don't think it's fair! Wahhhh!"

[Taynted_Fayth]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

Our O line seems to get caught a lot on the hands to the face. Maybe some teams brought it to the attention of the league that we kind like to punch guys in the mouth and now they are looking for it. I thought all the O Line penalties were deserved last night.

I disagree with the term 'wasted challenge'. That's exactly the type of play that challenges were brought in to fix. It wasn't for the ticky tacky, slow motion, several camera angle, away from the play illegal contacts that coaches often used them for. The 1 challenge rule worked great tonight. Both teams got rid of them early and we could just play ball after that.

it is wasted in the sense it shouldn't have to be challenged in the first place. The ref was looking right at the play. How more obvious does it have to get for the ref to do his job properly?  I get challenging things like being down or if the completed pass needed the ground for assistance..etc as those can be bang bang and POV might be skewed, but not plays right in front of the ref who is staring right at the infraction with unobstructed view

[Noeller]

2 minutes ago, J5V said:

I love it! "Hey Mr. ref, sir! That Bomber guy keeps punching me in the mouth every time I rush his QB. It hurts and I don't like it and I don't think it's fair! Wahhhh!"

Not exactly......but I'd definitely be willing to bet teams are sending in tape to the league for review, of guys like Sukh Chungh, who regularly "take liberties" on the field.......once the league sees a pattern of behaviour (as there definitely is with a guy like SC) they'll start watching a lot more closely. I'm sure we've done it to other teams...

[rebusrankin]

1 minute ago, Noeller said:

Not exactly......but I'd definitely be willing to bet teams are sending in tape to the league for review, of guys like Sukh Chungh, who regularly "take liberties" on the field.......once the league sees a pattern of behaviour (as there definitely is with a guy like SC) they'll start watching a lot more closely. I'm sure we've done it to other teams...

Like the Dyson cam TSN had? Funny they never did that for any of the Als like Cox, Philion, Ferri, Sanchez.

[TBURGESS]

6 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

it is wasted in the sense it shouldn't have to be challenged in the first place. The ref was looking right at the play. How more obvious does it have to get for the ref to do his job properly?  I get challenging things like being down or if the completed pass needed the ground for assistance..etc as those can be bang bang and POV might be skewed, but not plays right in front of the ref who is staring right at the infraction with unobstructed view

It was a bad non call that got corrected by a challenge. That's not wasted. That's what challenges are supposed to be for. They are also for in/out and down/not down.

[Mr Dee]

Not wasted in that sense, but rather for having to use it..on a play that probably could have drawn a UR penalty for that forearm to the head. But the ref did get the incomplete call right and he was quite animated about it.

He will be spoken to..

[Booch]

4 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

It was a bad non call that got corrected by a challenge. That's not wasted. That's what challenges are supposed to be for. They are also for in/out and down/not down.

kind of wasted as it was an obvious call that I don't know how the ref missed.

 

That challenge could have been used on the PI in the endzone when the redblack guy tripped on his own feet..no way was that PI

[Atomic]

They said at the beginning of last season that the refs warned teams they would be looking for hands to the face blocks.  Seems our nasty boyz are the ones who get called for it the most.  Whatever, **** the rules, we're the meanest team in the CFL.  Eye gouging, nut punching, body slamming sons of guns, just like Mike O'Shea was.

[M.O.A.B.]

I like the idea of having 1 challenge on each half... but coaches can't carry over the challenge on 1st half (if they didn't use it) on to the 2nd half.

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by M.O.A.B.

[Mike]

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but both hands to the face calls were drawn by Ettore Lattanzio who is like 5 foot 10.

Probably had a lot to do with it.