Redblacks at Back2Back Champs GDT

[TBURGESS]

42 minutes ago, Stickem said:

There seems to be ...let's say, a 'little uneveness' in officiating in the games played so far....Fajardo should have definitely sat for 3 plays....if anything to make sure he hadn't sustained a more serious injury.....The guy was writhing on the ground, for cripes sake, after that late hit  ...The hit on Schoen was definitely a missed call and could have resulted in a serious injury...Those were blatant misses and there were a few more borderline calls missed....I know you can't expect perfection out of the refs. but for cripes sake, missing the obvious is not acceptable

The spotter is specifically looking for concussion symptoms, not writhing on the ground & not to take players off the field to make sure they don't have a serious injury. If I was the Riders staff, I'd have taken him off for a 3 plays to assess the injury, but it's not up to the refs.

The hit on Shoen wasn't a missed call even tho it could have resulted in a serious injury. Targeting isn't in the rule book and you can't decide what's in a players mind especially in the split second real time that a ref needs to make their decisions.

Edited June 14, 2022 by TBURGESS

[BomberfanMKS]

On 2022-06-12 at 12:34 PM, Booch said:

yup...D was solid if not spectacular and got it done when needed....6 points total second half.....stopped that 3rd and 1...got ball back with no points scored on them at end to cement the win...they will only get better as they are....and lights out again when BA and Jeffcoat are back

Despite the stats you really hit the nail on the head - Despite letting Ottawa get some yards the D only gave up 9 points over 3/4 of the game (1 field goal per quarter after the 1st).  It wasn't like our offense was dominating the time of possession to make it easy on the D either.

[ddanger]

12 minutes ago, BomberfanMKS said:

Despite the stats you really hit the nail on the head - Despite letting Ottawa get some yards the D only gave up 9 points over 3/4 of the game (1 field goal per quarter after the 1st).  It wasn't like our offense was dominating the time of possession to make it easy on the D either.

It was a defensive gem. And everybody loves one of those!

[coach17]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The spotter is specifically looking for concussion symptoms, not writhing on the ground & not to take players off the field to make sure they don't have a serious injury. If I was the Riders staff, I'd have taken him off for a 3 plays to assess the injury, but it's not up to the refs.

The hit on Shoen wasn't a missed call even tho it could have resulted in a serious injury. Targeting isn't in the rule book and you can't decide what's in a players mind especially in the split second real time that a ref needs to make their decisions.

Football Operations Series - Week #15 - Blow To The Head - CFL.ca I would strongly disagree. Both the Schoen blow to the head and the Collaris blow to the head was missed should have been called for unnecessary roughness. Please see the attached explanation.

[Bigblue204]

15 minutes ago, coach17 said:

Football Operations Series - Week #15 - Blow To The Head - CFL.ca I would strongly disagree. Both the Schoen blow to the head and the Collaris blow to the head was missed should have been called for unnecessary roughness. Please see the attached explanation.

I think that was more due to it being unnecessary and not a hit to the head....if I'm getting that explanation right. Schoen I could see...but I don't think the Collaros hit was illegal, just unfortunate. It should be illegal....any hit on any player where the head is the 1st point of contact should be a penalty. 


hhhmmmm maybe I'm wrong https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/fouls-and-penalties/major-fouls/ according to artcle 4 - F&G. 

I think it's the words "vulnerable position" that makes both of the hits mentioned legal.

 

1. Using the helmet as the initial or primary point of contact to butt, ram, spear, or deliver a blow to an opponent who is in a vulnerable position, including but not limited to, a passer, a receiver in the act of catching a pass, a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler or a ball carrier on the playing surface not attempting to advance,

   NOTE: The expanded definitions of butt, ram and spear are:

   Butt: When a player suddenly and quickly moves their head to strike an opponent with their helmet or face mask.

   Ram: When a player who is in motion and on their feet uses their helmet as the primary point of contact to deliver a blow to an opponent. If the facemask is the initial point of contact on the opponent, it shall not be a penalty under this rule.

   Spear: When a player uses the top of their helmet as the primary point of contact to deliver a blow to an opponent.

2. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head,

Edited June 14, 2022 by Bigblue204

[Stickem]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The spotter is specifically looking for concussion symptoms, not writhing on the ground & not to take players off the field to make sure they don't have a serious injury. If I was the Riders staff, I'd have taken him off for a 3 plays to assess the injury, but it's not up to the refs.

The hit on Shoen wasn't a missed call even tho it could have resulted in a serious injury. Targeting isn't in the rule book and you can't decide what's in a players mind especially in the split second real time that a ref needs to make their decisions.

If the spotter is looking for concussion symptoms only ....okay BUT they didn't even check him out to see if that was a fact or not......He did get hit in the neck and head area so how the hell do they know it wasn't concussion....Those kinds of injuries can also occur without  a direct head shot....They sure jumped on the Zack hit in a hurry and I will bet it was because of his history with concussion....doesn't mean to say that can't happen to a player 'with little or no history' of said injury....as was the case with Faj....He should have been sat by his coach for sure but when it appears they will not do that (which happened) someone has to step in....Logical guy...the spotter

[Arnold_Palmer]

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

The spotter is specifically looking for concussion symptoms, not writhing on the ground & not to take players off the field to make sure they don't have a serious injury. If I was the Riders staff, I'd have taken him off for a 3 plays to assess the injury, but it's not up to the refs.

The hit on Shoen wasn't a missed call even tho it could have resulted in a serious injury. Targeting isn't in the rule book and you can't decide what's in a players mind especially in the split second real time that a ref needs to make their decisions.

I don’t know why you keep on dying on this hill the defender decided to use his helmet to target a defense less receiver and hit him helmet to helmet, he was already losing control of the ball when the first tackler bumped him, there was no need to target the head, these hits have been called pretty consistently for the last several years in both the NFL and the CFL. Like it or not this isn’t the 80’s or 90’s player safety is important and reckless hits have no part in the game. 

[wbbfan]

23 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

I don’t know why you keep on dying on this hill the defender decided to use his helmet to target a defense less receiver and hit him helmet to helmet, he was already losing control of the ball when the first tackler bumped him, there was no need to target the head, these hits have been called pretty consistently for the last several years in both the NFL and the CFL. Like it or not this isn’t the 80’s or 90’s player safety is important and reckless hits have no part in the game. 

Snafu. He’s the contrarian. If people on the forum say it’s raining he will talk about it being a drought. 

[TBURGESS]

18 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

I don’t know why you keep on dying on this hill the defender decided to use his helmet to target a defense less receiver and hit him helmet to helmet, he was already losing control of the ball when the first tackler bumped him, there was no need to target the head, these hits have been called pretty consistently for the last several years in both the NFL and the CFL. Like it or not this isn’t the 80’s or 90’s player safety is important and reckless hits have no part in the game. 

I don't know why people keep talking about targeting. It's not in the rule book. If you think the rule should be changed to hit a player in the helmet = penalty, then fine. If you think leading with your helmet should be a penalty, I'm with you. If you think it's already a rule then you are wrong.

Defenceless isn't in the rule book. "Vulnerable position" is the closest.

Quote

(f) Using the helmet to butt, ram, spear, or deliver a blow to an opponent who is in a vulnerable position, including but not limited to, a passer, a receiver in the act of catching a pass, a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler or a ball carrier on the playing surface not attempting to advance,

Every ball carrier and every receiver are not in a vulnerable position. Schoen wasn't in the act of catching a pass. He we in the act of fumbling. Collaros wasn't a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler. He was RB trying to gain extra yards. That's why they didn't call those plays as penalties.

[Arnold_Palmer]

1 minute ago, TBURGESS said:

I don't know why people keep talking about targeting. It's not in the rule book. If you think the rule should be changed to hit a player in the helmet = penalty, then fine. If you think leading with your helmet should be a penalty, I'm with you. If you think it's already a rule then you are wrong.

Defenceless isn't in the rule book. "Vulnerable position" is the closest.

Every ball carrier and every receiver are not in a vulnerable position. Schoen wasn't in the act of catching a pass. He we in the act of fumbling. Collaros wasn't a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler. He was RB trying to gain extra yards. That's why they didn't call those plays as penalties.

I’m not talking about Collaros. In fact even though it’s normally called on QB’s I could live with out the penalty because at least he was on the way down and it looked accidental. However the Ottawa defender led with his head, Shoen had his neck exposed looking down as he was lost the ball the the defender decided to light him up, to me that’s a clear and cut 15 yard un necessary roughness penalty at the very least not to mention he’s a punk for leading with his helmet anyways, you’re taught at a young age not to use your head in tackling so I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue about this. 

[TBURGESS]

40 minutes ago, Stickem said:

If the spotter is looking for concussion symptoms only ....okay BUT they didn't even check him out to see if that was a fact or not......He did get hit in the neck and head area so how the hell do they know it wasn't concussion....Those kinds of injuries can also occur without  a direct head shot....They sure jumped on the Zack hit in a hurry and I will bet it was because of his history with concussion....doesn't mean to say that can't happen to a player 'with little or no history' of said injury....as was the case with Faj....He should have been sat by his coach for sure but when it appears they will not do that (which happened) someone has to step in....Logical guy...the spotter

You think that the game should be stopped by the spotter every time a player takes a big hit and winces? I don't. I doubt the spotter stops the game more than a couple of times a year.

[TBURGESS]

2 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

I’m not talking about Collaros. In fact even though it’s normally called on QB’s I could live with out the penalty because at least he was on the way down and it looked accidental. However the Ottawa defender led with his head, Shoen had his neck exposed looking down as he was lost the ball the the defender decided to light him up, to me that’s a clear and cut 15 yard un necessary roughness penalty at the very least not to mention he’s a punk for leading with his helmet anyways, you’re taught at a young age not to use your head in tackling so I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue about this. 

Schoen's head was up because he was fumbling. He'd be able to tuck it in and protect himself if he hadn't fumbled the ball. If you expect a DB to pull up in that case, then you're expecting too much IMO.

I just re-watched the CFL.CA highlight package. The play is around the 4:15 mark. The DB leads with his shoulder. The hit is shoulder to helmet, not helmet to helmet.

[Booch]

many other less severe, and almost accidental hits to a head via a shld, and forearm has been called in my opinion way too often, how this hit where it was total intent to smack the guy in the head was missed is almost laughable....he totally intended to do what he did, and the positin of Schoen, and the fact he was fumbling...or even ctaching the ball is irrelevant....should have been a penalty....plain and simple....

[Arnold_Palmer]

28 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

Schoen's head was up because he was fumbling. He'd be able to tuck it in and protect himself if he hadn't fumbled the ball. If you expect a DB to pull up in that case, then you're expecting too much IMO.

I just re-watched the CFL.CA highlight package. The play is around the 4:15 mark. The DB leads with his shoulder. The hit is shoulder to helmet, not helmet to helmet.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter he was fumbling and in a vulnerable position there was no need to target the head, that’s a 15 yard penalty in today’s game, I’ve seen a lot less called for the exact same thing. Like it or not player safety is a big focus. 

[TBURGESS]

46 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

Ultimately it doesn’t matter he was fumbling and in a vulnerable position there was no need to target the head, that’s a 15 yard penalty in today’s game, I’ve seen a lot less called for the exact same thing. Like it or not player safety is a big focus. 

You keep going back to targeting which isn't part of the rules no matter how many times you repeat it.

If Schoen hadn't caught the ball and then got hit like that, it would most likely have been called as a receiver in a vulnerable position. The fact that he was trying to bring the fumble back in is the reason he got smacked the way he did & the reason it wasn't called.

The play is on the highlight package from two different angles. No mention of any problem with it. They wouldn't do that if it was a botched call.

Fans around here want a penalty any time our players take a vicious hit. They also want no penalty when our players lay a vicious hit on other teams.

[JCon]

Stop wasting your time. If Shoen was in the shower and was hit by a player the same argument would be made by the same person. It's just a waste of time. 

[Blue_Dragoon]

Putting both sides of the argument aside I think we can all agree that if nothing else penalties should be consistently called one way or another.

[Jpan85]

 

[TBURGESS]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

Stop wasting your time. If Shoen was in the shower and was hit by a player the same argument would be made by the same person. It's just a waste of time. 

Damn right I would. You can't call a penalty off the field of play.

[Stickem]

3 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

You think that the game should be stopped by the spotter every time a player takes a big hit and winces? I don't. I doubt the spotter stops the game more than a couple of times a year.

Winces   lol...(a little light on the injury description).....the player was in distress (Faj) and he should've been pulled....AND in any event ...I don't give a rat's ass who calls the guy to the sidelines....spotter or otherwise....the players safety is ultimate and paramount....game interruption be damned

[Booch]

7 minutes ago, Stickem said:

Winces   lol...(a little light on the injury description).....the player was in distress (Faj) and he should've been pulled....AND in any event ...I don't give a rat's ass who calls the guy to the sidelines....spotter or otherwise....the players safety is ultimate and paramount....game interruption be damned

well CFL just issued a statement that they effed up on that Faj one....so guess we all are right that he should have been pulled

and not to beat a horse to death...but just because the verbiage isn't there in the rules, it has been stated by press, media, off and on field officials the past few yrs that certain penalties were called due to "targeting" the head....and it is also basically universally understood in all leagues that if it happens...you will be getting penalized

[Rod Black]

57 minutes ago, Booch said:

well CFL just issued a statement that they effed up on that Faj one....so guess we all are right that he should have been pulled

and not to beat a horse to death...but just because the verbiage isn't there in the rules, it has been stated by press, media, off and on field officials the past few yrs that certain penalties were called due to "targeting" the head....and it is also basically universally understood in all leagues that if it happens...you will be getting penalized

Think Lawrence will get fined? Kind of hoping he does. As should the db that hit Zach. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Rod Black

[Booch]

pretty sure both will.....or should anyway

[Rod Black]

4 hours ago, Jpan85 said:

 

Dunnigan just retweeted with his comment: “ya think”. 

[wbbfan]

4 hours ago, Blue_Dragoon said:

Putting both sides of the argument aside I think we can all agree that if nothing else penalties should be consistently called one way or another.

Honestly that’s all I dream of from our refs. Enforce the rules evenly team to team game to game. 
 

2 hours ago, Rod Black said:

Think Lawrence will get fined? Kind of hoping he does. As should the db that hit Zach. 

at this point why bother. He makes north of 100k. He’s been fined a crap ton and never given more than a slap on the wrist. At some point the league needs to give serious punishment to repeat offenders like him.