Labour Day Classic GAMEDAY THREAD

[BigBlueFanatic]

16 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

 

Craig is lucky Osh got pulled away... when our fearless leader gets that fired up... oh yeah there gonna be a beatdown next week 

[ddanger]

On 2019-09-02 at 1:33 PM, JuranBoldenRules said:

Wonder what Rempel's injury is.  I think the league needs to tighten up that rule to say that no one can be lined up over the snapper on kicking plays, but I'm not sure that hit was illegal based on the rule as is, would be illegal at any other level of Canadian football, can't touch the snapper until he moves forward to cover the kick.

the way his head hit the ground i'm going with concussion....after all, I'm a Twitter doctor

[Blueandgold]

4 hours ago, Noeller said:

GIF of Darren Cameron holding Osh back and walking him away from the play made my day.....that's good stuff. i'm now convinced of a win this weekend...

I agree completely. I loved seeing that and hyped me up even more for Saturday (if that’s even possible). 

[ddanger]

23 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

Watch the play again. His head is up and that's what makes it OK to hit him. He got blown up because he was off balance. Not so much an intent to injure as an intent to give an opposing player a big hit, which is the Rider players job. Folks are upset that he got smoked, maybe concussed and didn't return to the game. That doesn't make it an intent to injure or a cheap shot.

There's no rule that says you can't hit a guy away from the play. There's no rule that says you can't hit a guy who isn't going to make the play. The rule doesn't need to change. It already gives the long snapper protection as long as he keeps his head down. Want to stop your long snapper from getting hit? Have another player block the middle. Remple was setting up to block.

Hitting a player who isn't involved in the play is unnecessary roughness....

Remple was definately starting to come up, but I think it can be argued that the Rider player engaged him when he was still coming out of his stance. And accelerated him backwards causing him to land on the back of his head. A dangerous and unnecessary play.

Personally I believe this was a penalty and I expect the league to levy a fine.  

[ddanger]

7 hours ago, gcn11 said:

You are wilfully ignoring half the rule. The rule states that you cannot hit the long snapper while his head is down and he is in a vulnerable position. His head was slightly coming up but he was DEFINITELY still in a vulnerable position. Therefore, this was a text book dirty hit.

exactly

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

It isn't how many steps, so what is it? Can't hit the snapper at all? Nope, that's not the rule. Can't hit him for x seconds? Nope, that's not the rule. Leave them alone until they are completely set up and waiting to block? Nope, that's not the rule either.

The rule is "Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down and they are in a vulnerable position and unable to protect them self". Head wasn't down, so the and's don't matter. If they were or's  then you'd have a good point. Even if the head is up for a 'split second', it's still up.

It's not UR just cuz a player de-cleats another player or just cuz a player gets hurt. If you watched the other games this weekend you saw special teams players getting blown up without any penalties. TSN included some in their highlight package going into the second halfs.

It doesn't matter if a Bomber, Stamp, Rider or any other teams player got hit that way and it doesn't matter which team hit them. The penalty or lack there of, is the same.

You are pouring over the rules and focusing on the "And"- You are not looking at the actual complete wording on the rule.

"Article 4 - Unnecessary Roughness
A player shall be penalized for any act of unnecessary roughness against an opponent, including but not limited to:

Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down and they are in a vulnerable position and unable to protect them self," 

That now reads:

A player shall be penalized for any act of unnecessary roughness against an opponent, including but not limited to:
-Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down
- Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while  they are in a vulnerable position.
-Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self.

What happened to Remple is 100% a penalty by the letter of the rules. You are 100% wrong.

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

You are pouring over the rules and focusing on the "And"- You are not looking at the actual complete wording on the rule.

"Article 4 - Unnecessary Roughness
A player shall be penalized for any act of unnecessary roughness against an opponent, including but not limited to:

Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down and they are in a vulnerable position and unable to protect them self," 

That now reads:

A player shall be penalized for any act of unnecessary roughness against an opponent, including but not limited to:
-Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down
- Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while  they are in a vulnerable position.
-Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self.

What happened to Remple is 100% a penalty by the letter of the rules. You are 100% wrong.

And's matter. There are several letters in Article 4 with and's in them.

The first one is: a. Piling by a player who, in an unnecessarily rough manner, falls upon the ball carrier after the play has been terminated. Any player in possession of the ball, who falls to the ground without contact and is not attempting to advance the ball, may only be touched down and may not be contacted in any other manner...

If the 'and' doesn't matter then there is no reason to add the is not attempting to advance the ball. The and changes the meaning from it's always UR to hit a player who is down to it's UR to hit a player and not trying to advance the ball.

If 'and' means something in case a, it means something in case h.

If the rule is supposed to mean this or that or the other thing, then they'd use OR instead of AND. They could also change it to multiple cases like:

h. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down

i. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they they are in a vulnerable position

j. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self

That would match with g. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head including the long snapper on kicks from scrimmage and convert attempts which is another case that specifically mentions long snappers.

How to you even define what a vulnerable position and what unable to protect them self, means if it's not attached to having their head down? 

Edited September 3, 2019 by TBURGESS

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

And's matter. There are several letters in Article 4 with and's in them.

The first one is: a. Piling by a player who, in an unnecessarily rough manner, falls upon the ball carrier after the play has been terminated. Any player in possession of the ball, who falls to the ground without contact and is not attempting to advance the ball, may only be touched down and may not be contacted in any other manner...

If the 'and' doesn't matter then there is no reason to add the is not attempting to advance the ball. The and changes the meaning from it's always UR to hit a player who is down to it's UR to hit a player and not trying to advance the ball.

If 'and' means something in case a, it means something in case h.

If the rule is supposed to mean this or that or the other thing, then they'd use OR instead of AND. They could also change it to multiple cases like:

h. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down

i. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they they are in a vulnerable position

j. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self

That would match with g. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head including the long snapper on kicks from scrimmage and convert attempts which is another case that specifically mentions long snappers.

How to you even define what a vulnerable position and what unable to protect them self, means if it's not attached to having their head down? 

"I like dill pickles and prime rib"

doesn't necessarily mean "I like dill pickles and prime rib at the same time".

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

And's matter. There are several letters in Article 4 with and's in them.

The first one is: a. Piling by a player who, in an unnecessarily rough manner, falls upon the ball carrier after the play has been terminated. Any player in possession of the ball, who falls to the ground without contact and is not attempting to advance the ball, may only be touched down and may not be contacted in any other manner...

If the 'and' doesn't matter then there is no reason to add the is not attempting to advance the ball. The and changes the meaning from it's always UR to hit a player who is down to it's UR to hit a player and not trying to advance the ball.

If 'and' means something in case a, it means something in case h.

If the rule is supposed to mean this or that or the other thing, then they'd use OR instead of AND. They could also change it to multiple cases like:

h. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down

i. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they they are in a vulnerable position

j. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while they are unable to protect them self

That would match with g. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head including the long snapper on kicks from scrimmage and convert attempts which is another case that specifically mentions long snappers.

How to you even define what a vulnerable position and what unable to protect them self, means if it's not attached to having their head down? 

I have an overwhelming urge to say the word nitpickery.

[DR. CFL]

Is there no belief  here that that play will be reviewed by the CFL.....and action taken if warranted?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

8 minutes ago, DR. CFL said:

Is there no belief  here that that play will be reviewed by the CFL.....and action taken if warranted?

I have no faith in CFL officiating at all. You know "once bitten.." and all

Edited September 4, 2019 by wanna-b-fanboy

[CodyT]

Can somebody tell me what OSH was so fired up about? 

Nice to see that.. LDC even gets stone faced O’Shea going 

[DR. CFL]

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

I have no faith in CFL officiating at all. You know "once bitten.." and all

I appreciate your opinion. I believe football is perhaps the most difficult game to officiate. Developing football officials is a unique challenge. Unlike hockey there are limited opportunities and high level games to develop your skills. I would suggest that most NHL officials have played a high level of hockey, they have that inherent knowledge and experience in the sport. That is obviously not the same in football. Lectures, video review and clinics can only develop officials to a certain degree. Being on the      Field or ice is the ultimate teaching situation.

[Geebrr]

14 minutes ago, DR. CFL said:

I appreciate your opinion. I believe football is perhaps the most difficult game to officiate. Developing football officials is a unique challenge. Unlike hockey there are limited opportunities and high level games to develop your skills. I would suggest that most NHL officials have played a high level of hockey, they have that inherent knowledge and experience in the sport. That is obviously not the same in football. Lectures, video review and clinics can only develop officials to a certain degree. Being on the      Field or ice is the ultimate teaching situation.

I think compared to the other big 4 it may be the easiest (baseball could be possibly easier) 

 

[blueingreenland]

Guys on 620 and 650 radio out here in Saskatchewan kept saying it was a clean hit.

Arash Madani came on and said it was an intentional and dirty hit for which the player should have received a penalty and an ejection. 

Glenn Suitor also said it was a dirty hit   (and he sits in on the rules committee meetings.)

 

[DR. CFL]

2 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

I think compared to the other big 4 it may be the easiest (baseball could be possibly easier) 

 

Sorry, you think football is the easiest?

[Geebrr]

3 minutes ago, DR. CFL said:

Sorry, you think football is the easiest?

Definitely easier than hockey or basketball for sure 

The structure of the game makes it easier inherently 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Geebrr

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

2 minutes ago, blueingreenland said:

Guys on 620 and 650 radio out here in Saskatchewan kept saying it was a clean hit.

Yeah that's par for the course- most riderfans don't own up to anything- classless.

[Geebrr]

3 minutes ago, blueingreenland said:

Guys on 620 and 650 radio out here in Saskatchewan kept saying it was a clean hit.

Arash Madani came on and said it was an intentional and dirty hit for which the player should have received a penalty and an ejection. 

Glenn Suitor also said it was a dirty hit   (and he sits in on the rules committee meetings.)

 

So in summary:

Saskatchewan radio guys are idiots

[17to85]

2 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

So in summary:

Saskatchewan radio guys are idiots

also, water is wet

[Dr Zaius]

2 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

So in summary:

Saskatchewan radio guys are idiots

I've listened to their live feeds driving through and it's legitimately bush league.

Their PBP guys literally cheer and boo during a game. It's sooo behind the times, just like the whole province's culture.

[Geebrr]

Just now, 17to85 said:

also, water is wet

I'd be more surprised if they questioned it.

[Eternal optimist]

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

How to you even define what a vulnerable position

Most barn animals in Saskatchewan, at any time of day.

[blueingreenland]

5 minutes ago, Geebrr said:

So in summary:

Saskatchewan radio guys are idiots

Some of them are. Yes. Derek Taylor had his stint in Manitoba so his glasses are not totally coated with green just yet.

Luc Mullinder is the absolute worst

[Geebrr]

Luc Mullinder is a dope