Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, BomberBall. said:

I understand what you’re getting at, but can you imagine those meatheads trying to explain their ruling?  It would be hilarious and/or infuriating.

I would love for the CFL to do something like this to hold the officials at least somewhat accountable.  I doubt it will ever happen though.

The cricket reviews are more straightforward, but I would like to hear the command centre's decision-making process. I think that's reasonable. But, yeah, I would anticipate that the TSN announcers would have to decode their chatter to explain what they were seeing. 

Posted

Presenting a typical scenario inside the command centre as a pass interference non-call is challenged:

Reviewer 1: Oh yeah that looks like pass interference to me.

Reviewer 2: Yes it does, I agree.

Reviewer 3: Yep that's pass interference.

1: But is it clear and obvious?

2: We have to keep in mind we're looking at it in slow motion.

3: Right. That's unfair to our officials. In real time, it was close. If it was CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, the officials would have called it! They are pros.

1: I agree. It could be clearer and obviouser.

2: Yes. It looks like pass interference but for me it's not clear and obvious enough.

3: So we're all in agreement. There was pass interference but it was not clear and obvious enough. Therefore the non-call stands. Great work gentlemen.

1, 2, and 3 in unison: We deserve a raise!

Posted
1 minute ago, Atomic said:

Presenting a typical scenario inside the command centre as a pass interference non-call is challenged:

Reviewer 1: Oh yeah that looks like pass interference to me.

Reviewer 2: Yes it does, I agree.

Reviewer 3: Yep that's pass interference.

1: But is it clear and obvious?

2: We have to keep in mind we're looking at it in slow motion.

3: Right. That's unfair to our officials. In real time, it was close. If it was CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, the officials would have called it! They are pros.

1: I agree. It could be clearer and obviouser.

2: Yes. It looks like pass interference but for me it's not clear and obvious enough.

3: So we're all in agreement. There was pass interference but it was not clear and obvious enough. Therefore the non-call stands. Great work gentlemen.

1, 2, and 3 in unison: We deserve a raise!

High fives all around. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Goalie said:

Roughriders Argonauts and Blue Bombers don’t offend. 

thats-offensive-rude.gif

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

Presenting a typical scenario inside the command centre as a pass interference non-call is challenged:

Reviewer 1: Oh yeah that looks like pass interference to me.

Reviewer 2: Yes it does, I agree.

Reviewer 3: Yep that's pass interference.

1: But is it clear and obvious?

2: We have to keep in mind we're looking at it in slow motion.

3: Right. That's unfair to our officials. In real time, it was close. If it was CLEAR AND OBVIOUS, the officials would have called it! They are pros.

1: I agree. It could be clearer and obviouser.

2: Yes. It looks like pass interference but for me it's not clear and obvious enough.

3: So we're all in agreement. There was pass interference but it was not clear and obvious enough. Therefore the non-call stands. Great work gentlemen.

1, 2, and 3 in unison: We deserve a raise!

headfirst-tv-smash.gif

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluto said:

There are plenty of things every day that I would happily classify as woke garbage. This isn't anywhere near it. Even a little bit.

I liked the Eskimos. I liked the name, the history, etc. I was bummed that it had to go. But ultimately, it's a name that hurts certain people who would have been traditionally described as "eskimos" and as far as I've seen, nobody anywhere who would have been traditionally described as an "eskimo" has popped up to say that it is inoffensive, that they love the name and they'd hate to see it go.

So it gets firmly placed into the "this name sucks" category.

Agreed, my comment was tongue in cheek about some folks getting swallowed up by "woke" and the scary times it's sure to bring

Edited by Bigblue204
Posted (edited)

For those that are interested, and it is only 1 person so it's hardly representing the entire population, but if you jump to the 6 minute mark you can hear an actual inuit person say we liked the Eskimos, they were our team because they had our name... anecdotal, yes, not fully representative, sure, but not everyone who 'should' be offended was offended. No doubt you can easily find an inuit person that hated the esks name too, but there you go.

 

Edited by MOBomberFan
Posted
41 minutes ago, Booch said:

 

Interesting to say the least....is this the last we seen of him??

 

Boy that’s some good news! 
 I’m betting he hasn’t finished the counselling because he’s FK’d in the head. 
 

Can’t believe we might actually be rid of Kelly. 
How fast do you think the phone rang in the lions front office when they heard this? 

Posted
Just now, wbbfan said:

Boy that’s some good news! 
 I’m betting he hasn’t finished the counselling because he’s FK’d in the head. 
 

Can’t believe we might actually be rid of Kelly. 
How fast do you think the phone rang in the lions front office when they heard this? 

yup...he prob doesnt want that stipulation...or any ongoing counselling either to be allowed to play....so this yr could be a wash for him...if not totally

T.O would be dumb not to try and pry Vaj out of B.C also...

Posted
19 minutes ago, Booch said:

yup...he prob doesnt want that stipulation...or any ongoing counselling either to be allowed to play....so this yr could be a wash for him...if not totally

T.O would be dumb not to try and pry Vaj out of B.C also...

XFL gonna scoop Kelly up. 

Posted

Not being a union guy (That was my Dad), I had to look it up...

Last chance agreement - a formal, written understanding between an employer and employee, providing a final opportunity for the employee to correct their behavior and retain their job. By outlining specific terms and consequences, this agreement helps to ensure accountability and provides a clear path forward for both parties.

I'm guessing that Kelly doesn't want the league to be able to simply fire him if he doesn't comply with their terms. We don't know what the terms or consequences are in the 'agreement' that wasn't agreed on. Could be it voids his contract, which he certainly wouldn't sign. 

Posted

I mean....it's pro sports and the only pro sport without guaranteed contracts.  If you run foul of the team and league you're always on the chopping block.

Says right in the SPC portion of the CBA that the Commissioner decides who is eligible to play.

I don't see why Kelly can't file a grievance and try it out in arbitration if he feels he's completed the requirements of the initial discipline.

Personally, I'm not sure how his return at all could jive with league policies on respectful workplace.  There's no requirement to give him another chance to **** up.

Posted
1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

Boy that’s some good news! 
 I’m betting he hasn’t finished the counselling because he’s FK’d in the head. 
 

Can’t believe we might actually be rid of Kelly. 
How fast do you think the phone rang in the lions front office when they heard this? 

Why would he undergo counselling when he obviously does not need it (in his mind). He is a victim of an arbitrary and vengeful system.

36 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I mean....it's pro sports and the only pro sport without guaranteed contracts.  If you run foul of the team and league you're always on the chopping block.

Says right in the SPC portion of the CBA that the Commissioner decides who is eligible to play.

I don't see why Kelly can't file a grievance and try it out in arbitration if he feels he's completed the requirements of the initial discipline.

Personally, I'm not sure how his return at all could jive with league policies on respectful workplace.  There's no requirement to give him another chance to **** up.

Apart from the CBA, he could (theoretically) pursue redress in a civil action- but that would take months if not years to be heard.

Posted
1 hour ago, Tracker said:

Why would he undergo counselling when he obviously does not need it (in his mind). He is a victim of an arbitrary and vengeful system.

Apart from the CBA, he could (theoretically) pursue redress in a civil action- but that would take months if not years to be heard.

With support and cooperation of the PA he'd have to exhaust the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the CBA.

Then the PA could pursue a lawsuit on his behalf beyond that.  If the PA drops him at any point in the process he'd be suing them and not the CFL first.

Posted
15 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

I mean....it's pro sports and the only pro sport without guaranteed contracts.  If you run foul of the team and league you're always on the chopping block.

Says right in the SPC portion of the CBA that the Commissioner decides who is eligible to play.

I don't see why Kelly can't file a grievance and try it out in arbitration if he feels he's completed the requirements of the initial discipline.

Personally, I'm not sure how his return at all could jive with league policies on respectful workplace.  There's no requirement to give him another chance to **** up.

Not quite

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...