JCon Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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. BomberBall. and rebusrankin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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! Dr Zaius, JCon, Stickem and 4 others 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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. Piggy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BomberBall. Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 2 minutes ago, JCon said: High fives all around. As fans punch holes in their TVs. JCon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigg jay Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 Not 2024 related but the Bombers released the seating map/pricing for the 2025 GC. Almost identical pricing to what they charged in 2015, with a couple more price points (7 sections vs 5 sections). Noeller, rebusrankin and bb1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCon Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 If you want the STM discount, you must commit to 3 more years. Noeller and bigg jay 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanna-B-Fanboy Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 2 hours ago, Goalie said: Roughriders Argonauts and Blue Bombers don’t offend. 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue204 Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 (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 August 16 by Bigblue204 Piggy 1, JCon, bluto and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOBomberFan Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 (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 August 16 by MOBomberFan Wanna-B-Fanboy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 2 hours ago, JCon said: High fives all around. Why is the rum always gone? Piggy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booch Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 Interesting to say the least....is this the last we seen of him?? wbbfan, Noeller, Bigblue204 and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenrider55 Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 3 minutes ago, Booch said: Interesting to say the least....is this the last we seen of him?? Even if it isn't, can almost guarantee he screws up again... Bigblue204, wbbfan, Booch and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark H. Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 Rights are subject to reasonable limits, including rights in a collective agreement. Sard, wbbfan, WildPath and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbbfan Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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? Bigblue204 and Piggy 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booch Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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... TBURGESS, wbbfan, Piggy 1 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wbbfan Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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. Bigblue204 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBURGESS Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted August 16 Report Share Posted August 16 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. Tracker, Noeller, Piggy 1 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 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. wbbfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblue204 Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 So this is floating around Twitter.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 25 minutes ago, Noeller said: So this is floating around Twitter.... Butthurt Argo fan. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty Liver Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 29 minutes ago, Noeller said: So this is floating around Twitter.... I could see change in the off-season if Ambrosie wants to leave but why now? Only think of note is the completion of the Elks sale. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted August 17 Report Share Posted August 17 Just now, Fatty Liver said: I could see change in the off-season if Ambrosie wants to leave but why now? Only think of note is the completion of the Elks sale. The person who started this rumour literally has an entire feed of posts whining about the CFL and Chad Kelly situation. It's 1000% bullshit Fatty Liver, Noeller and JCon 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now