Blue Bombers Forum
October 22, 2017, 03:41:27 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly - A Little Humility Edition  (Read 2773 times)
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2591


« on: October 07, 2017, 03:35:38 AM »

An uninspired effort, which just goes to show you shouldn't read your own press clippings. Hard to pull out positives from this one, and I'm going to resist the temptation  to itemize every screw up (there are too many) and stick to a few generalities.   

The Good

1.  Denmark had a respectable game IMHO.

2.  We finally got to see where Davis' development is at (see more later)

3.  It was easy getting a seat on the bus for the ride home, as most people had left.

4.  I am still convinced Santos Knox is a keeper.

5.  Medlock seems back to normal.

The Bad

6.  Walker had a tough night.

7.  I thought we missed Westerman tonight.  If you get pressure on Masoli, he just chucks it up at random.  We didn't get enough consistent pressure, and on the several occasions where we did and he chucked it wildly, we were unlucky and unable to lay hands on the ball for the turnover.  Letting Masoli get on a roll is not a good thing.

8.  We didn't use Harris to establish the run early, and Flanders wasn't very effective.  I don't know if they were trying to lighten Andrews load a little or what, but he did not get the touches he needed early.

9.  Its pretty clear we are not likely to win too many games with Davis at this point.  He wasn't godawful, given how green he is, but it was apparent by his second series that we weren't coming back in this one. 

The Ugly


10.  Getting punked on the on-side punt was quite bad, but having it recovered by Brandon Banks made me nauseous.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
thunderNlightning
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1896


« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2017, 03:49:21 AM »

An uninspired effort, which just goes to show you shouldn't read your own press clippings. Hard to pull out positives from this one, and I'm going to resist the temptation  to itemize every screw up (there are too many) and stick to a few generalities.   

The Good

1.  Denmark had a respectable game IMHO.

2.  We finally got to see where Davis' development is at (see more later)

3.  It was easy getting a seat on the bus for the ride home, as most people had left.

4.  I am still convinced Santos Knox is a keeper.

5.  Medlock seems back to normal.

The Bad

6.  Walker had a tough night.

7.  I thought we missed Westerman tonight.  If you get pressure on Masoli, he just chucks it up at random.  We didn't get enough consistent pressure, and on the several occasions where we did and he chucked it wildly, we were unlucky and unable to lay hands on the ball for the turnover.  Letting Masoli get on a roll is not a good thing.

8.  We didn't use Harris to establish the run early, and Flanders wasn't very effective.  I don't know if they were trying to lighten Andrews load a little or what, but he did not get the touches he needed early.

9.  Its pretty clear we are not likely to win too many games with Davis at this point.  He wasn't godawful, given how green he is, but it was apparent by his second series that we weren't coming back in this one. 

The Ugly


10.  Getting punked on the on-side punt was quite bad, but having it recovered by Brandon Banks made me nauseous.


So did alexander, mind you the entire secondary did.

Side note to the Ugly, Injuries to both Nichols, but especially Flanders as we are already brutally thin at receiver.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10259


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2017, 03:57:55 AM »

Good:

We got a chance to see Davis and Wolitarsky

Maurice leggett. He is awesome

I know we aren't supposed to see good in the opponent but hamiltons defense was flying around - Abdullah Kennah (sp?) looked fabulous

Bad:

Officiating was terrible - quick whistle, missed shot on Nichols on the fumble (why didn't we challenge that?)

Fogg on returns - not just tonight but over time he just doesn't have the speed

Defense in general - couldn't get masoli off the field - they chewed up the clock

Heath isn't that good

Ugly:

The overall slowness that we played with - hated it

If we need to run with Davis as our starter - not good
Logged
thunderNlightning
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1896


« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2017, 04:05:18 AM »

Good:

We got a chance to see Davis and Wolitarsky

Maurice leggett. He is awesome

I know we aren't supposed to see good in the opponent but hamiltons defense was flying around - Abdullah Kennah (sp?) looked fabulous

Bad:

Officiating was terrible - quick whistle, missed shot on Nichols on the fumble (why didn't we challenge that?)

Fogg on returns - not just tonight but over time he just doesn't have the speed

Defense in general - couldn't get masoli off the field - they chewed up the clock

Heath isn't that good

Ugly:

The overall slowness that we played with - hated it

If we need to run with Davis as our starter - not good

I have mentioned this before and still believe as well. He really is not that  good outside of his few INT's.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10259


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2017, 05:01:17 AM »

Forgot to add that Langford didn't look very good - I would like to see Givens in there
Logged
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2681


« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2017, 05:08:24 AM »

the good;

It didn't rain, so I stayed dry.

The Bad;

The entire team effort, started flat played and uninspired. A 3 win team dominated us from start to finish

The Ugly;

Played poorly in a losing effort, and suffered injuries to boot.

Logged
blue girl
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2458



« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2017, 05:17:38 AM »

The Good
Moe Leggett
Justin Medlock

The Bad
The officiating

The Ugly
Everything else. I know that teams are going to have bad games once in a while but why do the Bombers seem to have theirs at home?
Logged
Blue72
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 611


« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2017, 05:25:22 AM »

For a team that is so well coached and know what they are suppost to do by now, they stand around the ball after it was kicked on a trick play just to have a Hammy player that was on side jump on it for a big gain.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2017, 05:39:27 AM »

This thread should be renamed:
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly - Can't Blame It On Roc Edition
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116



« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2017, 08:55:35 AM »

The Good
Jovan Santos Knox is a stud. He's going to be a star in this league.
Coates continues to impress

The Bad:
Dom Davis disappointed.
Injuries to Nichols, Corney and Flanders
Wolitarsky's drop that would have led to a first down
Sam Hurl
The secondary

The Ugly:
Bombers coming out flat
The D allowing the Ticats to run the final clock killing 9 minute 100 yard drive
Sergio Castillo injury
Early whistle by the ref on the Langford catch - I let a couple F-bombs go there and offended an old guy sitting in front of me
Langford not paying attention to Nichols pass to him in the end zone, resulting in an interception
Richie Hall's D
Logged
Ridermania
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 434


« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2017, 10:52:13 AM »

Really hope Nichols isn't out too long.

Davis looked just like a young QB, needs playing time, but shows potential.

Bombers depth may be an issue for the next couple of games.
Logged
fansince79
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1971


« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2017, 11:59:18 AM »

Hurl invisible. Again.
We kept Davis around for 3 years, for that? I hope O'Shea doesn't do his usual, I want to be everybody's friend and not take a serious look at starting Lefevour if Nichols can't go.
Brian Walker got torched all game.
Where was the bubble screen to Harris? Ran it a bunch against Edm and Ott.
Really bad crowd turnout for a 10-3 team who've won 5 in a row at home. So much for the notion that people will show up if you win.
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 749



« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2017, 12:19:06 PM »

Good

Leggett - always shows up to play.
Jeffcoat - really establishing himself as a bookend to Westerman.
Getting a solid look at Davis.
Getting an OK look at Wolitarski.
Coats seems to be improving every game and making the most of his opportunities.
Great weather for fall football.

Bad

Santos-Knox - he was getting manhandled a lot and although I like his physicality, his short fuse could have really hurt us a couple of times (I was surprised he didn't get flagged), especially if the game had been closer/meant more. You can't take selfish penalties at this time of year.
Hurl - we really saw the limit of Hurl's athleticism. He's fine plugging gaps and playing the LoS, but he's awful in any type of coverage.
Davis - nice to get a look but he was a deer in headlights a lot of the time. Still needs lots of time/work.
Watching half a game knowing even the WBB had essentially written it off.
Momentum killers - I'm not going to blame the refs because they were close calls (evidenced by no challenges) but the PI on Walker in the first half was pretty bogus IMO (solid jam and aggressive play to the ball with a textbook breakup is not - or should not be - PI), and the 3rd down gamble that looked pretty **** iffy after a huge stop by the WBB (IMO the officials should never call something that close a success, and the burden of proof should be on the offense to clearly make the gain - because they gambled - not on the defense to emphatically stop them). The offside forward pass by Thomas to Leggett on his TD was another. These were all bad luck momentum killers that could have really changed the pace of the game in the WBBs favour.

Ugly

Nichols getting injured. Hopefully it isn't serious.
Randle not respecting Bank's speed on the first TD.
The punt recovery (you can believe that was a huge slap to the face for MOS that he won't soon forget).
Such poor attendance when we were 10-3 on a gorgeous night.

Edit: Although the game was tough to watch, sometimes these instances are good later in a season to keep everyone honest. Blue tinted goggles? Maybe. But I'd wager the tone at practice this week is going to be a lot more serious than if we'd rolled over the Cats, which might be a good thing.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 12:26:44 PM by Blue and Golden Delicious » Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
DarkDays
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 912



« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2017, 12:54:39 PM »

Ugly game.   As Admiral Akbar once proclaimed; "It's a trap! (game)"

I rarely leave early, but as I told my neighbors when they joked about getting out their keys to jangle at me:  "I paid money for this buffet, and the only thing left out there is fried turd."

Good stuff:

The players who showed up, but who always show up and play hard: Mo, Knox Santos, O line, Harris, et al.

The fleaflicker, Adams to Harris, of course.

Bad stuff:

Gonna skip the merely bad stuff.

Ugly stuff:

Perplexing offensive play calls - no real use of Harris until the club was already behind.  If you can't install a run game, because of the fierce Ticat rush, then roll Harris into the flat and build a short pass game.

The D coaches need to study this game, and figure out what to do about a team with a running game and a quick back.  Might happen again this year, y'know.

Sending eight on Mazzoli at any time.  You don't do that.  He's a "hard bodied dog", as they say at the kennel club.  He doesn't flinch, and reads and reacts to heat really well.  Sending eight means he can make you pay by moving a little and picking the big swath of field he likes best.

The prospect of playing without Nichols.  Davis ain't ready yet.  LeFevour can play exactly 2.5 games before he has a season ending injury.  That's his past history.

The prospect of losing Flanders.  Guy keeps growing into a bigger role every week.


The criminal stuff:

Bradbury and staff should have been urine tested at half time and taken into custody for their own good.  They missed a lot out there (understatement), and created some calls out of ozone.   Whatever Al and the boys were on last night, I want a baggie of that for my next birthday.

The new challenge rules - Bradbury should have been challenged early and often.  Giving coaches one flag, with no refund when you show up the zebras, is quantuum foolishness.  It meant MOS had to watch Nichols take a head shot on a turnover, and decide to keep the flag in his pocket to save "for later".  Serious turning point of the game.  All because that crew was obviously gonna make an even more game changing blown call later.

Frankly, Ambrosie got this rule change absolutely wrong.  What The Commish didn't like was having a national fan base watch coaches figuratively pull down the pants of the officiating crew over and over again with successful challenges, and adding a half hour to games.  I disagree.  A commitment to getting calls right sure beats a nation of fans using their PVRs to roll back the play, mutter "bush league" to themselves, and turn off the CFL game. 

****

Once of those games that the team and fans need to shake off.  Hopefully we're not stuck with The Dominique Davis Experience (jazz fusion combo from the 60s) next week.

I still want that baggie from Al Bradbury's stash, though....









« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 12:57:15 PM by DarkDays » Logged

"I think we're done here." 
                                   - Ross Tucker
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10259


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2017, 12:57:59 PM »

Good

Leggett - always shows up to play.
Jeffcoat - really establishing himself as a bookend to Westerman.
Getting a solid look at Davis.
Getting an OK look at Wolitarski.
Coats seems to be improving every game and making the most of his opportunities.
Great weather for fall football.

Bad

Santos-Knox - he was getting manhandled a lot and although I like his physicality, his short fuse could have really hurt us a couple of times (I was surprised he didn't get flagged), especially if the game had been closer/meant more. You can't take selfish penalties at this time of year.
Hurl - we really saw the limit of Hurl's athleticism. He's fine plugging gaps and playing the LoS, but he's awful in any type of coverage.
Davis - nice to get a look but he was a deer in headlights a lot of the time. Still needs lots of time/work.
Watching half a game knowing even the WBB had essentially written it off.
Momentum killers - I'm not going to blame the refs because they were close calls (evidenced by no challenges) but the PI on Walker in the first half was pretty bogus IMO (solid jam and aggressive play to the ball with a textbook breakup is not - or should not be - PI), and the 3rd down gamble that looked pretty **** iffy after a huge stop by the WBB (IMO the officials should never call something that close a success, and the burden of proof should be on the offense to clearly make the gain - because they gambled - not on the defense to emphatically stop them). The offside forward pass by Thomas to Leggett on his TD was another. These were all bad luck momentum killers that could have really changed the pace of the game in the WBBs favour.

Ugly

Nichols getting injured. Hopefully it isn't serious.
Randle not respecting Bank's speed on the first TD.
The punt recovery (you can believe that was a huge slap to the face for MOS that he won't soon forget).
Such poor attendance when we were 10-3 on a gorgeous night.

Edit: Although the game was tough to watch, sometimes these instances are good later in a season to keep everyone honest. Blue tinted goggles? Maybe. But I'd wager the tone at practice this week is going to be a lot more serious than if we'd rolled over the Cats, which might be a good thing.

Are you referring to the convert return by leggett? That wasn't a TD - it would only have been 2 points.  Would have been nice to get the points but I don't think it would have changed the game. 
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 749



« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2017, 01:21:12 PM »

Are you referring to the convert return by leggett? That wasn't a TD - it would only have been 2 points.  Would have been nice to get the points but I don't think it would have changed the game. 

I was, and you're right it was only 2pts, but it would have been a big momentum shift, which was the subject of that point.
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5893



« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2017, 01:53:34 PM »

The Good:
  • Adams to Harris for 44 yards, leading to our only TD.
  • Santos-Knox mostly played really well.
  • Leggett played another great game.
  • Reffing was mostly good. Only head-scratcher was the forward progress stopped call.
  • Adams had another strong game.
The Bad:
  • Randle not respecting Banks on the first drive... set the tone for the whole game.
  • Hammy winning the game from start to finish. Heck they had enough points to win by half time.
  • Back to a slow start. This time, we never even sped up.
  • Lost TOP big time: (Ham 38:19, Wpg 21:41)
  • Giving up 484 yards of offence.
  • Finding out that Davis isn't ready for prime time.
  • Not establishing Harris. He's what makes our offence go. Is he actually hurt?
The Ugly:
  • Losing Nichols - He better not be out for a long time
  • The defence in general.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2576


« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2017, 01:59:02 PM »

Until this team fines a stud MLB, this team isn't going anywhere. Terrible game game for D. Some good pressure up front but gave Masoli to much time, and our run D was terrible.
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 749



« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2017, 02:09:05 PM »

Until this team fines a stud MLB, this team isn't going anywhere.

Except 10-4, 2nd place in the West, the playoffs, etc.  Roll Eyes
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2017, 02:10:33 PM »

Except 10-4, 2nd place in the West, the playoffs, etc.  Roll Eyes

This. The team is a single victory away from making the playoffs.

Yes, the Bombers were lousy last night. It was one game, though.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
BlueInCgy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 393


« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2017, 02:20:35 PM »

The Good

Maybe we're trying for the Eastern Crossover?

The Bad

If we're not, what in the blue hell was that?

The Ugly

Pretty much everything else.

Sorry, not a very insightful post, but can't generate much constructive thought after that pile.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2017, 02:29:12 PM »

The Good

Maybe we're trying for the Eastern Crossover?

The Bad

If we're not, what in the blue hell was that?

The Ugly

Pretty much everything else.

Sorry, not a very insightful post, but can't generate much constructive thought after that pile.

I know what you mean. All I can think of is the ugly from last night.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
elder
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 258


« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2017, 02:31:42 PM »

Except 10-4, 2nd place in the West, the playoffs, etc.  Roll Eyes

I wish I could believe that this position will be maintained; however, with this defence I have serious doubts.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2017, 02:41:10 PM »

Ugly game.   As Admiral Akbar once proclaimed; "It's a trap! (game)"

I rarely leave early, but as I told my neighbors when they joked about getting out their keys to jangle at me:  "I paid money for this buffet, and the only thing left out there is fried turd."

Good stuff:

The players who showed up, but who always show up and play hard: Mo, Knox Santos, O line, Harris, et al.

The fleaflicker, Adams to Harris, of course.

Bad stuff:

Gonna skip the merely bad stuff.

Ugly stuff:

Perplexing offensive play calls - no real use of Harris until the club was already behind.  If you can't install a run game, because of the fierce Ticat rush, then roll Harris into the flat and build a short pass game.

The D coaches need to study this game, and figure out what to do about a team with a running game and a quick back.  Might happen again this year, y'know.

Sending eight on Mazzoli at any time.  You don't do that.  He's a "hard bodied dog", as they say at the kennel club.  He doesn't flinch, and reads and reacts to heat really well.  Sending eight means he can make you pay by moving a little and picking the big swath of field he likes best.

The prospect of playing without Nichols.  Davis ain't ready yet.  LeFevour can play exactly 2.5 games before he has a season ending injury.  That's his past history.

The prospect of losing Flanders.  Guy keeps growing into a bigger role every week.


The criminal stuff:

Bradbury and staff should have been urine tested at half time and taken into custody for their own good.  They missed a lot out there (understatement), and created some calls out of ozone.   Whatever Al and the boys were on last night, I want a baggie of that for my next birthday.

The new challenge rules - Bradbury should have been challenged early and often.  Giving coaches one flag, with no refund when you show up the zebras, is quantuum foolishness.  It meant MOS had to watch Nichols take a head shot on a turnover, and decide to keep the flag in his pocket to save "for later".  Serious turning point of the game.  All because that crew was obviously gonna make an even more game changing blown call later.

Frankly, Ambrosie got this rule change absolutely wrong.  What The Commish didn't like was having a national fan base watch coaches figuratively pull down the pants of the officiating crew over and over again with successful challenges, and adding a half hour to games.  I disagree.  A commitment to getting calls right sure beats a nation of fans using their PVRs to roll back the play, mutter "bush league" to themselves, and turn off the CFL game. 

****

Once of those games that the team and fans need to shake off.  Hopefully we're not stuck with The Dominique Davis Experience (jazz fusion combo from the 60s) next week.

I still want that baggie from Al Bradbury's stash, though....










Totally agree with you on the challenge rule change. What they should do is give back unrestricted challenges but they can only be on acts that affected the play. No more fishing expeditions on contacting a receiver the Qb didn't even look at as tradeoff is we have to live with crap calls like tonight and that ain't the answer. At the end of the day, you gotta get it right, and there are several situations where clearly that wasn't the case and that's just plain wrong
Logged
Horseman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 321


« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2017, 02:50:25 PM »

The Good:
  • Adams to Harris for 44 yards, leading to our only TD.
  • Santos-Knox mostly played really well.
  • Leggett played another great game.
[li]Reffing was mostly good. Only head-scratcher was the forward progress stopped call.[/li]
  • Adams had another strong game.
The Bad:
  • Randle not respecting Banks on the first drive... set the tone for the whole game.
  • Hammy winning the game from start to finish. Heck they had enough points to win by half time.
  • Back to a slow start. This time, we never even sped up.
  • Lost TOP big time: (Ham 38:19, Wpg 21:41)
  • Giving up 484 yards of offence.
  • Finding out that Davis isn't ready for prime time.
  • Not establishing Harris. He's what makes our offence go. Is he actually hurt?
The Ugly:
  • Losing Nichols - He better not be out for a long time
  • The defence in general.

Agree, the only blown call was the quick whistle, the other calls were the correct calls. Bradbury wouldn't have any "baggies" as he is a Winnipeg Police Service officer. Grin
Logged
TrueBlue75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2329


« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2017, 03:03:37 PM »

I thought the ball placement a few times was atrocious and the quick whistle on Lankford was pure crap. I haven't seen them blow the whistle that quickly on forward progress all season. In fact it has seemed like they have been giving more time for offences to push for yardage. Unbelievable. I really wish O'Shea had challenged for roughing the passer on the first Nichol's fumble. Clear hand to the head and hit to the chin should have kept the ball for the Bombers. All that and the defence made it a garbage night for the fans. Gross. I'm sure hoping we get some help this weekend to keep the hounds at bay....it's been nice dreaming of a home playoff game. Undecided
Logged
Ducky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 423


« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2017, 03:34:53 PM »

I was very surprised Oshea did not challenge roughing the passer on the first fumble by Nichols.  I Tracy (I think) clearly lead with his head.  That would have negated the turnover, right?  Pretty big momentum changer.

All in all the Bombers were very soundly beaten.  Full credit to Hamilton.  Masoli looked like a star Qb.  Banks was fantastic.  Their D dominated our vaunted O.

Moving forward - does Nichols miss a couple weeks?  That could be trouble.  How injured is Harris?  Flanders?  And the D continues to allow teams to move at will.  Seemed like good pressure by the front 4 but Masoli escaped really well.  Whether it is schemes or talent (lack of) our Dbs cant seem to cover anyone.  Hurl is not good enough.

Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2017, 03:51:33 PM »

#6 on the Ticats hit Nichols in the chest with his helmet, there was no helmet to helmet. It sucks to turn the ball over, but it was the right call.
Logged
Ducky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 423


« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2017, 04:13:28 PM »

#6 on the Ticats hit Nichols in the chest with his helmet, there was no helmet to helmet. It sucks to turn the ball over, but it was the right call.

Fair enough.  I thought leading with the crown of the head is a penalty?
Logged
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1197



« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2017, 05:46:52 PM »

On the Darvin pass to Harris you could tell Harris was hurting as he had no speed in his legs after he caught the ball....he just kinda lumbered a bit and the defender caught him easily. I thought for sure Harris had enough separation to make a move to lose the defender and just walk in...but he didn't.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116



« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2017, 06:04:46 PM »

On the Darvin pass to Harris you could tell Harris was hurting as he had no speed in his legs after he caught the ball....he just kinda lumbered a bit and the defender caught him easily. I thought for sure Harris had enough separation to make a move to lose the defender and just walk in...but he didn't.
The ball was under thrown. I don't think Harris was injured, I just think he's 30 years old and doesn't have the breakaway speed he once had.
Logged
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1197



« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2017, 06:08:19 PM »

The ball was under thrown. I don't think Harris was injured, I just think he's 30 years old and doesn't have the breakaway speed he once had.

Even though it was slightly underthrown he still had real good separation from the defender....so if what yer saying is true then I hope he has enough in the tank to get us a playoff run, and then we should trade him and try to get some value out of him

Honestly though I think he is hurting otherwise he would have had more touches earlier in the game...like someone else said they thought he might just have been a decoy out there last night.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #32 on: October 07, 2017, 07:40:10 PM »

That was an offside pass by Thomas--he used his hands to move the ball towards the Hamilton end zone--and that's illegal, so no sense whining about an illegal play that was a momentum killer , the play didn't exist. If Thomas had been smart enough he would have kicked/dribbled the ball downfield an since Leggett was behind him, he could have legally recovered it.

Also, on the turnover, Nichols was not hit in the hit or there was no helmet to helmet hit. Quit trying to blame the loss on the refs, who made the right call in both cases, the reason we lost is we turned the ball over too many times!!
Logged
Blue and Golden Delicious
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 749



« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2017, 07:53:53 PM »

That was an offside pass by Thomas--he used his hands to move the ball towards the Hamilton end zone--and that's illegal, so no sense whining about an illegal play that was a momentum killer , the play didn't exist. If Thomas had been smart enough he would have kicked/dribbled the ball downfield an since Leggett was behind him, he could have legally recovered it.

Also, on the turnover, Nichols was not hit in the hit or there was no helmet to helmet hit. Quit trying to blame the loss on the refs, who made the right call in both cases, the reason we lost is we turned the ball over too many times!!

I'm not sure who this is directed at? The returned convert certainly had the potential to swing momentum for the WBB.  The fact that it was an illegal push forward by Thomas has no bearing on whether or not it would have been a momentum changer. Also, if directed at me, I most certainly wasn't blaming the officials.
Logged

And I will reach my field of battle by any means at my disposal
And when I get there, I will arrive violently
I will rip the heart from my enemy, and leave it bleeding on the ground
Because he cannot stop me
Who am I? I AM A CHAMPION!
Cheesebuster
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 875



« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2017, 08:29:00 PM »

I think that was just because he had to slow down to catch the ball. In the time it took him to start speeding up again the defender who was already at full speed had caught him.
Logged
DeeBoy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3313



« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2017, 09:24:53 PM »

I?m not sure the criticism of Davis is warranted. 9/14 with 2 drops. And ran for 21 yards. He can only run the offence that is called for him. He looked poised enough for me and this experience was invaluable.
Logged

Not Worthy Of A Response
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2017, 09:30:24 PM »

I?m not sure the criticism of Davis is warranted. 9/14 with 2 drops. And ran for 21 yards. He can only run the offence that is called for him. He looked poised enough for me and this experience was invaluable.

Agreed. Absolutely unwarranted criticism.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2576


« Reply #37 on: October 08, 2017, 12:15:43 AM »

DD will keep us in games, but the D will have to be much better.
Logged
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2576


« Reply #38 on: October 08, 2017, 12:27:43 AM »

The DB was at full speed and Harris was just about at a dead stop. Also Harris is more of a power back then a speed back.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2017, 02:46:52 AM »

If the ball was thrown properly, it was an easy TD. He had to stop and wait for the feeble throw to get to him while the Db was Barreling down on him at full speed . I credit harris for concentrating and not taking his eye off th ball and onto the oncoming db
Logged
NorthernSkunk
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1197



« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2017, 03:47:35 AM »

Got it what yer all sayin....
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #41 on: October 08, 2017, 10:04:05 AM »

#6 on the Ticats hit Nichols in the chest with his helmet, there was no helmet to helmet. It sucks to turn the ball over, but it was the right call.

Also, on the turnover, Nichols was not hit in the hit or there was no helmet to helmet hit. Quit trying to blame the loss on the refs, who made the right call in both cases, the reason we lost is we turned the ball over too many times!!

There was 100% a hit to Nichols' head on the fumble!  It wasn't the head-to-head you're focusing on, it was before that by Kanneh.  His left hand hits Nichols' helmet first, then his right hand causes the strip.  The slap to the helmet is as clear as day and 100% would have been RTP if MOS had challenged.  Everyone was so focused on the fumble (even Nichols) that no one noticed it...  Except me and TrueBlue75 who reported it in an earlier comment.

As for the refs, there was one directly behind the original camera shot whose job is to watch for this and he was just turning his head from upfield to view the QB when the hit happened and he missed it.  Thanks a lot, idiot ref.

MOS didn't challenge it because I guarantee you no one was aware of it.  And TSN instantly went to commercial giving BB only 30s to find a subtle smack well before all the main action.  Thanks TSN.  MOS needs to hire some better tablet-spotters.  Dickerson seems to have mastered the tablet-spotter-roster as he gets these types of things spotted quickly and correctly.  He would have gotten that one.  If MOS knew about it before the 30s time limit, 100% he would have challenged to save the turnover.

That was a key turning point in the game, losing all the momentum, and ruining Nichols' nail.  Game might have been different if it had been (rightfully) RTP.
Logged
gbill2004
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10116



« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2017, 11:58:57 AM »

Anyone else notice that the person who manages the replays at IGF on the jumbotron is absolutely terrible?  Does nothing to help out the Bombers. I often see O'Shea looking up at it waiting for the replay and it goes to commercial or taking forever to show the replay.
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10259


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2017, 01:09:14 PM »

There was 100% a hit to Nichols' head on the fumble!  It wasn't the head-to-head you're focusing on, it was before that by Kanneh.  His left hand hits Nichols' helmet first, then his right hand causes the strip.  The slap to the helmet is as clear as day and 100% would have been RTP if MOS had challenged.  Everyone was so focused on the fumble (even Nichols) that no one noticed it...  Except me and TrueBlue75 who reported it in an earlier comment.

As for the refs, there was one directly behind the original camera shot whose job is to watch for this and he was just turning his head from upfield to view the QB when the hit happened and he missed it.  Thanks a lot, idiot ref.

MOS didn't challenge it because I guarantee you no one was aware of it.  And TSN instantly went to commercial giving BB only 30s to find a subtle smack well before all the main action.  Thanks TSN.  MOS needs to hire some better tablet-spotters.  Dickerson seems to have mastered the tablet-spotter-roster as he gets these types of things spotted quickly and correctly.  He would have gotten that one.  If MOS knew about it before the 30s time limit, 100% he would have challenged to save the turnover.

That was a key turning point in the game, losing all the momentum, and ruining Nichols' nail.  Game might have been different if it had been (rightfully) RTP.

There was for sure a slap to the head.  I wonder if MOS thought it would get looked at during the change of possession review - he spent a long time talking to the official.  I can't imagine the bombers missed it - it was a long delay.
Logged
TrueBlue75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2329


« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2017, 02:00:43 PM »

That was an offside pass by Thomas--he used his hands to move the ball towards the Hamilton end zone--and that's illegal, so no sense whining about an illegal play that was a momentum killer , the play didn't exist. If Thomas had been smart enough he would have kicked/dribbled the ball downfield an since Leggett was behind him, he could have legally recovered it.

Also, on the turnover, Nichols was not hit in the hit or there was no helmet to helmet hit. Quit trying to blame the loss on the refs, who made the right call in both cases, the reason we lost is we turned the ball over too many times!!

Watch the replay of the fumble.... defender's left hand hits Nichol's head (you can see his head push to the side after contact), then right hand swipes the ball. It was boom-boom but there is no question as to the hand hit on his head. They've called RTP on players with their hand barely brushing the QB's helmet. In my opinion, O'Shea had a good case for the penalty.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2017, 03:00:00 PM »

The game was won/lost at the 10 minute mark of the 4th quarter, score 22-13, and Medlock punted the ball oat the Hamilton 10 yard line. Our D gets them to go 2 and out we get out the ball in great field position poised to score some points. Instead the tabbies March 100 yards for a TD, game over.

Sure there were missed calls that would have helped us, but really, we could have won this game but didn't. Dropped passes, missed field goals missed tackles and our inability to Stop The Ticats when we Needed To Was why we lost
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2017, 09:29:41 PM »

Anyone else notice that the person who manages the replays at IGF on the jumbotron is absolutely terrible?  Does nothing to help out the Bombers. I often see O'Shea looking up at it waiting for the replay and it goes to commercial or taking forever to show the replay.

Yup, horrible replays at the stadium.  It's always that way.  And when it's something close (i.e. challengeable) they don't show it at all: like a couple of times the crowd got really rowdy at the bad calls, no replay at all.  There were at least 5 calls that night that left me wondering and I had to wait until I got home to the PVR to find out.

P.S. I think the donut is in every cup.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2017, 09:32:16 PM »

The game was won/lost at the 10 minute mark of the 4th quarter, score 22-13, and Medlock punted the ball oat the Hamilton 10 yard line. Our D gets them to go 2 and out we get out the ball in great field position poised to score some points. Instead the tabbies March 100 yards for a TD, game over.

Sure, but I don't blame the D for that.  At 10min in 4th Q the D had been on the field about double the time the O was.  The D was completely wasted halfway through the 3rd.  You can't expect the D to be on the field all game and be productive.  O really blew the game tonight, and you can blame the D early, but not in the 4th.  I'm surprised they held up as well as they did; they still didn't fold like MTL does or HAM did earlier in the year in their blowouts.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2017, 10:27:31 PM »

Hamilton drove the ball 100+ yards twice for TD's, that falls on the defense. You have to stop them since the O and ST trapped the Ticats inside their 10. They didn't do that, Ticats pathetic offense comes down and scored 14 points instead of giving us back good field position, bang, that's the game right there. And that's the reason this team won't win the big one, the defense will break our hearts every time.
Logged
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2576


« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2017, 11:15:58 PM »

Hamilton is improving each week. Last week they got Fantz back, this week it was was the teddy bear, and what looks to be a very good RB. There front 7 are also very good when healthy.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2017, 04:57:58 AM »

GOOD
  • Bryant grabbing the 2nd Nichols fumble and lateralling to Denmark; Bryant makes a good RB, breaking tackles! 2Q4:01
  • Shut out Tasker & Fantuz in the 1st half: no easy feat!!
  • ST didn't screw anything up, so they get a pass; but they didn't get us many yards either (that fake on 3rd down punt cannot be pinned on ST as it was the normal 3rd down D on the field, not ST)

BAD
  • Kanneh's hand slaps Nichols' helmet before the strip on the Nichols' fumble; uncalled, unchallenged 1Q2:38
  • Same play HAM #0 steps squarely on Nichols' wrist once he's down, that's gotta do some damage
  • Masoli was in the zone: he was by far the best QB of all the games this week so far
  • #51 hands to the face again??  Ugh.  No replay showed it, but I'll assume it's true.  OL coach needs to lay down the law on #51 and HTTF; #51's the new Westerman, guaranteed a stupid penalty every game
  • O & D were sleeping zombies; no excuse, no heart, no fire, no win

UGLY
  • Horrendous spot on Adam's catch last in 1st half was a whole yard off of forward progress; wastes our 2min offence time getting the 1st down on a sneak. Thought eye in the sky auto-corrected those in last 3 mins?  I guess they are saying because he fell back before being touched that there is no fwd progress?  I've never seen it called that way before (2Q0:18)
  • Moe's convert return "offside pass": here the rules are goofy, so if he stayed upright and kicked it, it would have been fine, but because he did the harder thing of leaning over it's "offside pass".  Need to coach hoggies on what to do in that situation and practice it.  (3Q10:05)  (Rule 6, sec 3, art 1)
  • Davis hooksliding
  • Reffing: While they did get most marginal calls correct, they definitely seemed to have gotten the memo to "make it up" to HAM for blowing that PI call the week before that CFL apologized for
  • Can't blame anything after the first half (or earlier) on D because O left them on the field double the time; no D can succeed like that for very long
  • LaPo play calling in the 1st half; those weren't BB playcalls; did someone put Bellefeuille in the booth instead?  The first few series were atrociously called; I sat there in the stands wondering: huh?  Sure, try something new, but when it fails miserably after 2 drives, pull out the usual playbook.  Not a single sweep?  Not a single criss-cross playaction?  No dual-back looks?  Ya, throw away everything that worked so far this year...
Logged
DarkDays
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 912



« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2017, 11:01:09 AM »


  • LaPo play calling in the 1st half; those weren't BB playcalls; did someone put Bellefeuille in the booth instead?  The first few series were atrociously called; I sat there in the stands wondering: huh?  Sure, try something new, but when it fails miserably after 2 drives, pull out the usual playbook.  Not a single sweep?  Not a single criss-cross playaction?  No dual-back looks?  Ya, throw away everything that worked so far this year...



This X 10.
Logged

"I think we're done here." 
                                   - Ross Tucker
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2681


« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2017, 11:47:29 AM »

Yes the play calling on offence seemed off compared to the last few games?
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5893



« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2017, 02:05:58 PM »

Eye in the sky never auto-corrects anything.
Passing the ball ahead with your hand has always been against the rules.
Blaming the O because the D couldn't stop Hamilton is dumb. If the D wants to get off the field, they have to stop Hammy's O themselves.
Blaming the refs is sour grapes. They mostly did their job right, and they are never 100% right.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2017, 04:34:23 PM »

GOOD
  • Bryant grabbing the 2nd Nichols fumble and lateralling to Denmark; Bryant makes a good RB, breaking tackles! 2Q4:01
  • Shut out Tasker & Fantuz in the 1st half: no easy feat!!
  • ST didn't screw anything up, so they get a pass; but they didn't get us many yards either (that fake on 3rd down punt cannot be pinned on ST as it was the normal 3rd down D on the field, not ST)

BAD
  • Kanneh's hand slaps Nichols' helmet before the strip on the Nichols' fumble; uncalled, unchallenged 1Q2:38
  • Same play HAM #0 steps squarely on Nichols' wrist once he's down, that's gotta do some damage
  • Masoli was in the zone: he was by far the best QB of all the games this week so far
  • #51 hands to the face again??  Ugh.  No replay showed it, but I'll assume it's true.  OL coach needs to lay down the law on #51 and HTTF; #51's the new Westerman, guaranteed a stupid penalty every game
  • O & D were sleeping zombies; no excuse, no heart, no fire, no win

UGLY
  • Horrendous spot on Adam's catch last in 1st half was a whole yard off of forward progress; wastes our 2min offence time getting the 1st down on a sneak. Thought eye in the sky auto-corrected those in last 3 mins?  I guess they are saying because he fell back before being touched that there is no fwd progress?  I've never seen it called that way before (2Q0:18)
  • Moe's convert return "offside pass": here the rules are goofy, so if he stayed upright and kicked it, it would have been fine, but because he did the harder thing of leaning over it's "offside pass".  Need to coach hoggies on what to do in that situation and practice it.  (3Q10:05)  (Rule 6, sec 3, art 1)
  • Davis hooksliding
  • Reffing: While they did get most marginal calls correct, they definitely seemed to have gotten the memo to "make it up" to HAM for blowing that PI call the week before that CFL apologized for
  • Can't blame anything after the first half (or earlier) on D because O left them on the field double the time; no D can succeed like that for very long
  • LaPo play calling in the 1st half; those weren't BB playcalls; did someone put Bellefeuille in the booth instead?  The first few series were atrociously called; I sat there in the stands wondering: huh?  Sure, try something new, but when it fails miserably after 2 drives, pull out the usual playbook.  Not a single sweep?  Not a single criss-cross playaction?  No dual-back looks?  Ya, throw away everything that worked so far this year...

Coach up the Hoggies??? I thought everyone playing youth league and High School football knew that if you can't advance the ball by batting it forward with your hands
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2017, 09:34:53 PM »

Eye in the sky never auto-corrects anything.

False.  Eye has corrected many spots this year.  Like 10 or so.  My question was whether the corrections only occur in the last 3 mins of a half.  Usually the corrections are after a sneak.  But you'd think it would be just as valid on Adams' catch.  Either forward progress doesn't apply in that particular case, or the refs blew the spot.

Logged
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3844


« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2017, 12:23:23 PM »

The Good
- Denmark had a nice game
- Santos-Knox looked really good again... this guy is good
- Although Banks torched Randle once early, he made a ton of nice plays as the game went on
- Wolitarsky's first catch was a really nice play and route by him
- Coates looks like a viable replacement for JFG if his injury is serious, which is nice
- Catching Hamilton napping on 3rd down, Adams to Harris pass.

The Bad
- Wolitarsky's drop was not very good (although I don't know why anyone thinks it would've lead to a first down, tight coverage 4 yards short it was never gonna happen)
- Terrible night from Walker.
- Leggett made some plays, but Tasker worked him over pretty good in coverage.
- Pretty rough night from the defense as a whole actually. Willing to write this one off as an anomaly, but a step back for sure.
- Unfortunately, Davis is a mess. The stats look okay, but the on-field performance absolutely did not. I will grant there were a couple drops, but what worries me is that he looked totally lost on most plays that went past their first reads. I thought he was more composed in his start a couple years ago than tonight (edit: this week). Maybe that's something that he needs to prepare as the starter for, but I'm pretty disappointed with what I saw from him.
- Flanders and Nichols going down... hope they are back quickly.

The Ugly
- Early whistle by the ref on Lankford's catch being a contender for worst call of the year. I think the spots were way off a couple of times. Oh well.
- Lankford quitting on a route, leading to an INT
- Taking the wind in the 4th quarter, then promptly letting Hamilton run the first 9 minutes of it off the clock.


We had a pretty terrible first quarter, but we were coming back. I don't think we lose this game if Nichols doesn't get hurt (although the real killer was that 4th quarter drive Hamilton had).
« Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 02:26:26 PM by bowlerdude » Logged
GCn17
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 19166


« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2017, 01:20:44 PM »

Bottom line:

We got caught in a trap game. Happens to all good teams eventually.
Logged

Unabashed free thinker. No Kool-Aid in my fridge. I don't get blinded by sunglasses at night.
Realist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 320


« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2017, 01:48:43 PM »

Yup, horrible replays at the stadium.  It's always that way.  And when it's something close (i.e. challengeable) they don't show it at all: like a couple of times the crowd got really rowdy at the bad calls, no replay at all.  There were at least 5 calls that night that left me wondering and I had to wait until I got home to the PVR to find out.

P.S. I think the donut is in every cup.


I think it's always in the original. And Gwendoline wins most often at the Moose games.  Wink
Logged
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1533



« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2017, 02:24:49 PM »

Watched the replay....our D was basically ineffective and Masoli ate them up and kept them off balance the entire game.   We were completely out coached in this game as well.  It was disturbing just how easily they moved the ball on us and their TOP was nearly 40 minutes.....that will tire any Defence so obviously our offence wasn't able to control the LOS and we had too many 2-0s.  If they come out flat the next game we have issues but I don't expect them to especially if Nichols can play!  Too bad the team laid an egg as they need to get into the playoffs with momentum behind them.   Hope they didn't peak too early against Edmonton?!
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #60 on: October 10, 2017, 06:30:37 PM »

Bottom line:

We got caught in a trap game. Happens to all good teams eventually.

Yep, pretty much. Just gotta learn from it and move on to the next game.

I think it's always in the original. And Gwendoline wins most often at the Moose games.  Wink

Wasn't it in the dark roast on Friday?
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
Realist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 320


« Reply #61 on: October 10, 2017, 06:34:13 PM »

Yep, pretty much. Just gotta learn from it and move on to the next game.

Wasn't it in the dark roast on Friday?

Don't know, wasn't there. Someone else in my seats Friday. Ever since my partner brought it to my attention about both promotions, she has been right. ****, I've been looking for a sample of her being wrong for years...
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2017, 05:45:07 AM »

I think it's always in the original. And Gwendoline wins most often at the Moose games.  Wink

This year they always chose original, and always won... except the HAM game when the guy chose dark roast (I think) and it had the donut!  I think it's just a ploy to get people to watch the advertisement.  Every cup is a winner.  Has anyone ever seen someone lose the donut game?
Logged
The Zipp
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 10259


Who gives a flying Buck...


« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2017, 01:50:56 PM »

on the topic of the coffee cup contest - we are getting gypped out of the prizes, same contest at BC Place, winner gets a tim's pack plus a BC Lions jersey..(I suspect the Lions add that in as their contribution)

Logged
TrueBlue75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2329


« Reply #64 on: October 13, 2017, 12:31:42 AM »

I thought the ball placement a few times was atrocious and the quick whistle on Lankford was pure crap. I haven't seen them blow the whistle that quickly on forward progress all season. In fact it has seemed like they have been giving more time for offences to push for yardage. Unbelievable. I really wish O'Shea had challenged for roughing the passer on the first Nichol's fumble. Clear hand to the head and hit to the chin should have kept the ball for the Bombers. All that and the defence made it a garbage night for the fans. Gross. I'm sure hoping we get some help this weekend to keep the hounds at bay....it's been nice dreaming of a home playoff game. Undecided

As per the CFL twitter, Tracy was fined for spearing Nichols. Was it this ⬆️ fumble or a different play? I erased the game from my PVR already.,,
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #65 on: October 13, 2017, 01:32:07 AM »

This was the fumble, he lead with his head and made contact on Nichols's chest just below his chin....this is what MOS was arguing with the official about. So riddle me this....why is it the player is fined for an offense, but the bozo's in stripes, nor the command centre catch the foul?? This is a major foul committed on the Qb, this is not like a hold by the O line, this is inexcuseable, 1 it was missed, and 2 it was a turnover and pivotal part in the game, and a fineable offense was committed and missed by our awesome CFL officiating crew. They should increase the challenges to at LEAST 2 per quarter just like timeouts, so things like this aren't missed, they are at least challenged.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 523


« Reply #66 on: October 13, 2017, 03:44:26 AM »

As per the CFL twitter, Tracy was fined for spearing Nichols. Was it this ⬆️ fumble or a different play? I erased the game from my PVR already.,,

I just rewatched and it is Tracy spearing Nichols, though there's no H2H contact.  However, as MOS said in the coach show, he was chirping about the Kanneh slap to the head, not the spear.  This fine (i.e. "we got things wrong") by the CFL just makes things worse... not only did they not call the hard slap to the head (not incidental) but they didn't call a spear they thought was bad enough to warrant a fine!

I'll stand by what I said: MOS should have challenged, two potential RTPs, and if he doesn't get them, CFL has to come back grovelling to BB during the week.  (We never used our challenge anyhow.)
Logged
3rdand1.5
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2681


« Reply #67 on: October 13, 2017, 09:39:29 AM »

No, please do not increase the challenges. Coaches figured out a way to abuse it quickly and it really became a hinderance to the flow of the game.

Instead invest in better training for reff's
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #68 on: October 13, 2017, 12:18:04 PM »

No, please do not increase the challenges. Coaches figured out a way to abuse it quickly and it really became a hinderance to the flow of the game.

Instead invest in better training for reff's

There is a middle ground between abuse of the challenge and getting screwed on calls.  Either give a 30 seconf challenge where the CC has 30 seconds to overturn (for egregious misses), or allow the team to maintain the ability to challenge a second time if they win the first.  Or make it a delay of game for the second challenge if it is lost. 

There has to be an opportunity for a second challenge.  Right now, coaches are not challenging egregious calls because they need to save the challenge for later.  And that's not right.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #69 on: October 13, 2017, 12:27:52 PM »

There is a middle ground between abuse of the challenge and getting screwed on calls.  Either give a 30 seconf challenge where the CC has 30 seconds to overturn (for egregious misses), or allow the team to maintain the ability to challenge a second time if they win the first.  Or make it a delay of game for the second challenge if it is lost. 

There has to be an opportunity for a second challenge.  Right now, coaches are not challenging egregious calls because they need to save the challenge for later.  And that's not right.

There will always be mistakes. Even the command centre makes mistakes. That's football and it tends to balance out at the end of the year. The way it is now is fine and way better than earlier in the year.
Logged
bluebeard
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1057


« Reply #70 on: October 13, 2017, 01:43:28 PM »

No, please do not increase the challenges. Coaches figured out a way to abuse it quickly and it really became a hinderance to the flow of the game.

Instead invest in better training for reff's
I agree.  I even turned off football games because of the slowing of games by these challenges.  It was getting too much and ruining the game for me
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5893



« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2017, 01:57:45 PM »

It's a hard no to extra challenges for me and an extra challenge wouldn't have done anything for this situation anyway as we never used the one we have.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1533



« Reply #72 on: October 13, 2017, 02:07:49 PM »

There will always be mistakes. Even the command centre makes mistakes. That's football and it tends to balance out at the end of the year. The way it is now is fine and way better than earlier in the year.
Agreed....the delays were intolerable....remember Jason Maas?
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #73 on: October 13, 2017, 02:12:34 PM »

Hence the 30 second review.  If the call is too close to reverse in 30 seconds, back to the game.  For egregious calls only. 

You could even add in two of these, a total of a one minute delay.  But add a 10 yard delay of game penalty if it is not reversed.  This would make sure that it has to be a black and white, cut and dried dumb call for the coach to challenge.  And they don't waste their actual challenge to reverse something that is completely wrong.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3844


« Reply #74 on: October 13, 2017, 02:46:02 PM »

Hence the 30 second review.  If the call is too close to reverse in 30 seconds, back to the game.  For egregious calls only. 

You could even add in two of these, a total of a one minute delay.  But add a 10 yard delay of game penalty if it is not reversed.  This would make sure that it has to be a black and white, cut and dried dumb call for the coach to challenge.  And they don't waste their actual challenge to reverse something that is completely wrong.

That's basically all it ever was. A 30 second review, plus time to talk to the coach and figure out the challenge, get the call, etc. There was the odd long review, but the delays with a challenge are hardly the time spent reviewing. Every 30 second review adds like 3 minutes to the game, and the games aren't really more than a few minutes shorter now anyway. The difference is they flow better, not that they're cutting some huge amount of time off the game.
Logged
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1533



« Reply #75 on: October 13, 2017, 02:50:54 PM »

Hence the 30 second review.  If the call is too close to reverse in 30 seconds, back to the game.  For egregious calls only. 

You could even add in two of these, a total of a one minute delay.  But add a 10 yard delay of game penalty if it is not reversed.  This would make sure that it has to be a black and white, cut and dried dumb call for the coach to challenge.  And they don't waste their actual challenge to reverse something that is completely wrong.
Had MOS challenged that call we would likely have overturned the call on the field and maintained possession.   I'm not sure exactly why he didn't other than saving the challenge for later.  He has made calls early in games on lesser infractions but when the play results in a turnover you should call it.  That was a brutal and savage hit and how the refs can miss that one is beyond me because they often call the real cheesy ones??
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #76 on: October 13, 2017, 03:53:08 PM »

Hence the 30 second review.  If the call is too close to reverse in 30 seconds, back to the game.  For egregious calls only. 

You could even add in two of these, a total of a one minute delay.  But add a 10 yard delay of game penalty if it is not reversed.  This would make sure that it has to be a black and white, cut and dried dumb call for the coach to challenge.  And they don't waste their actual challenge to reverse something that is completely wrong.

The whole point of video review is to methodically break down the play and take the appropriate amount of time to make the right call. Sometimes this involves multiple angles and slow motion. If you put the replay official under some weird review clock then they are little better (and possibly worse) than the on-field refs.

Would you have a two-tiered system of reviews? One flag for a full review and the other for this hyper fast split-second call from Toronto review? It's just a bad idea Aardvark. I don't want more reviews but if you have them, you have to do them right.
Logged
rubanski
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 822


« Reply #77 on: October 13, 2017, 04:53:42 PM »

The whole point of video review is to methodically break down the play and take the appropriate amount of time to make the right call. Sometimes this involves multiple angles and slow motion.

That's not true. The spirit of the system was to get the egregious incorrect calls right. What's often "broken" about the replay system is that it's impossible to discern between that and a call that was really really close to being wrong. It's the grey area, judgement call, or 'no good camera angel' available calls that really kill the system and bog it down.

It was never meant to correct any and all calls, always intended to catch obvious, game changing calls.
Logged
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #78 on: October 13, 2017, 05:05:31 PM »

That's not true. The spirit of the system was to get the egregious incorrect calls right. What's often "broken" about the replay system is that it's impossible to discern between that and a call that was really really close to being wrong. It's the grey area, judgement call, or 'no good camera angel' available calls that really kill the system and bog it down.

It was never meant to correct any and all calls, always intended to catch obvious, game changing calls.

Perhaps that was the spirit behind the idea but that's never been how it was actually implemented in either the CFL or NFL. From the very onset, the important game-changing plays were reviewed, slowed down, with hairs split. By the end of the challenge, the play is supposed to be ruled correctly. Many of the challenges are close calls, which is why refs and coaches disagree on the initial call. After all, a wrong call is still wrong regardless of if it's egregious or not.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #79 on: October 13, 2017, 06:20:16 PM »

The whole point of video review is to methodically break down the play and take the appropriate amount of time to make the right call. Sometimes this involves multiple angles and slow motion. If you put the replay official under some weird review clock then they are little better (and possibly worse) than the on-field refs.

Would you have a two-tiered system of reviews? One flag for a full review and the other for this hyper fast split-second call from Toronto review? It's just a bad idea Aardvark. I don't want more reviews but if you have them, you have to do them right.

But we're not talking about micro assessing the play.  Its the bang/bang plays that are blatant mis calls that are troubling for the league.  Its like the offside reviews in the NHL, so stupid, is the skate blade on the ice, or above the ice.  Like it makes a difference.  Its not to decide whether the players butt touched the ground a millisecond before the ball came loose.  That's what a full challenge is for.  30 second challenges are for the plays where everyone and his 6 year old kid can see from a replay on the jumbotron that the call was missed.  Blatant miscalls that take no time to reverse/make.  Like when the PI when Harris got pancaked. 

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #80 on: October 13, 2017, 06:32:36 PM »

But we're not talking about micro assessing the play.  Its the bang/bang plays that are blatant mis calls that are troubling for the league.  Its like the offside reviews in the NHL, so stupid, is the skate blade on the ice, or above the ice.  Like it makes a difference.  Its not to decide whether the players butt touched the ground a millisecond before the ball came loose.  That's what a full challenge is for.  30 second challenges are for the plays where everyone and his 6 year old kid can see from a replay on the jumbotron that the call was missed.  Blatant miscalls that take no time to reverse/make.  Like when the PI when Harris got pancaked. 



The idea makes no sense Aardvark. The game doesn't need two sets of challenges. How does a coach know how long a call will take to be reviewed properly? If he sees a call he wants to challenge how does he determine which flag to throw? What looks like a close call is sometimes obvious on replay and vice versa. So if he throws a 30-second challenge but it actually takes 45 seconds he loses? How does that accomplish anything other than slow the game down?

Bad calls happen. They happen in every league. We already review scoring plays and turnovers and each team gets a challenge. Beyond that, the calls will even out over the course of the year because refs miss/don't see calls for ALL teams. Good teams are still good despite the reffing. Calgary is still awesome despite the fact they get the same refs as every other team.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 06:34:43 PM by Sir Blue and Gold » Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #81 on: October 13, 2017, 06:46:54 PM »

The idea makes no sense Aardvark. The game doesn't need two sets of challenges. How does a coach know how long a call will take to be reviewed properly? If he sees a call he wants to challenge how does he determine which flag to throw? What looks like a close call is sometimes obvious on replay and vice versa. So if he throws a 30-second challenge but it actually takes 45 seconds he loses? How does that accomplish anything other than slow the game down?

Bad calls happen. They happen in every league. We already review scoring plays and turnovers and each team gets a challenge. Beyond that, the calls will even out over the course of the year because refs miss/don't see calls for ALL teams. Good teams are still good despite the reffing. Calgary is still awesome despite the fact they get the same refs as every other team.

Pretty easy, really.  Harris gets mugged, you call a 30 second challenge.  You KNOW its going to be corrected. 

You want to challenge a PI that was handfighting with a 30 second challenge, you're taking a 10 yard penalty.

The idea is to not have a blatant call chew up your only challenge, but not burn a lot of time.  Limiting deliberation to 30 seconds means that obvious calls will get corrected, and borderline calls will not be challenged. 

As to two sets of challenges, doesn't the NBA have 2 types of time outs?  How hard is it to administrate? 

Again, it is for egregious calls only, so that the borderline call can still be challenged late in the game.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #82 on: October 13, 2017, 06:51:52 PM »

Pretty easy, really.  Harris gets mugged, you call a 30 second challenge.  You KNOW its going to be corrected. 

You want to challenge a PI that was handfighting with a 30 second challenge, you're taking a 10 yard penalty.

The idea is to not have a blatant call chew up your only challenge, but not burn a lot of time.  Limiting deliberation to 30 seconds means that obvious calls will get corrected, and borderline calls will not be challenged. 

As to two sets of challenges, doesn't the NBA have 2 types of time outs?  How hard is it to administrate? 

Again, it is for egregious calls only, so that the borderline call can still be challenged late in the game.

And I would say, Harris got 'mugged, big deal. We were still going to lose the football game and we probably had a few calls go our way like that too. An intricate challenge system won't fix every mistake. There will still be bad calls and you'll have a slower game.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #83 on: October 13, 2017, 06:55:22 PM »

And I would say, Harris got 'mugged, big deal. We were still going to lose the football game and we probably had a few calls go our way like that too. An intricate challenge system won't fix every mistake. There will still be bad calls and you'll have a slower game.

Intricate?  Add in one 30 second challenge, nothing "intricate" about that.  Slow the game down?  Its 30 seconds, dude. 

If it reverses one bad call, its worth doing.  Dismissing it as "bad calls go both ways" is ludicrous.  Why bother to make any calls, then, or provide any challenges?  It'll all balance out.

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #84 on: October 13, 2017, 06:57:00 PM »

Intricate?  Add in one 30 second challenge, nothing "intricate" about that.  Slow the game down?  Its 30 seconds, dude. 

If it reverses one bad call, its worth doing.  Dismissing it as "bad calls go both ways" is ludicrous.  Why bother to make any calls, then, or provide any challenges?  It'll all balance out.



It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a half-baked stupid idea.
Logged
bowlerdude
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3844


« Reply #85 on: October 13, 2017, 07:55:50 PM »

Intricate?  Add in one 30 second challenge, nothing "intricate" about that.  Slow the game down?  Its 30 seconds, dude. 

A 30 second challenge is at least a 2-3 minute delay in the game. The time spent reviewing is hardly the issue.
Logged
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #86 on: October 15, 2017, 02:06:10 PM »

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a half-baked stupid idea.
A 30 second challenge is at least a 2-3 minute delay in the game. The time spent reviewing is hardly the issue.

No, a 30 second review takes 30 seconds.  Again, not for bang bang plays, not for deciding about handfighting vs. PI, not for a hand brushing a QB helmet, but for blatant, egregious fouls.  That any 6 year old can see was a mistake.  No deliberation, just a "yep, yer right, our bad".  If its any more than that, its no reversal, 10 yard penalty.
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Pigskin
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2576


« Reply #87 on: October 15, 2017, 02:12:58 PM »

I like the one challenge per game. However if you are right you should keep your challenge.
Logged
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5010


« Reply #88 on: October 15, 2017, 02:31:46 PM »

That is the simplest approach to this. If you're right, you maintain the right to Challenge
Logged
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5893



« Reply #89 on: October 15, 2017, 02:46:07 PM »

Everyone saw what more challenges looked like and yet a lot of folks still want to bring back more challenges? It doesn't make any sense. The games move much better than they did before they changed the challenge rules.
Logged

Being right never gets old.
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #90 on: October 15, 2017, 03:06:55 PM »

I like the one challenge per game. However if you are right you should keep your challenge.

This. I like this system because it still prevents wasteful fishing expeditions while allowing a coach who successfully challenged a call/play to retain his challenge flag for one more opportunity.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23952



« Reply #91 on: October 15, 2017, 03:11:19 PM »

This. I like this system because it still prevents wasteful fishing expeditions while allowing a coach who successfully challenged a call/play to retain his challenge flag for one more opportunity.

It doesn't stop the fishing expeditions, it just rewards them if you are right.  You can still make a questionable challenge early, hoping it works out, and only lose your challenge.

The 30 second challenge, with a penalty if it is wrong, could never, ever be used in a fishing expedition.  It could only be used to correct an obvious missed call.

Call it the "are you kidding me?" challenge...
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 18725



« Reply #92 on: October 15, 2017, 03:16:09 PM »

It doesn't stop the fishing expeditions, it just rewards them if you are right.  You can still make a questionable challenge early, hoping it works out, and only lose your challenge.

The 30 second challenge, with a penalty if it is wrong, could never, ever be used in a fishing expedition.  It could only be used to correct an obvious missed call.

Call it the "are you kidding me?" challenge...



The 30-second challenge isn't a thing Aardvark.
Logged
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25028


Go BlueGolds!


« Reply #93 on: October 15, 2017, 03:27:42 PM »

It doesn't stop the fishing expeditions, it just rewards them if you are right.  You can still make a questionable challenge early, hoping it works out, and only lose your challenge.

Wrong. A fishing expedition is when a coach takes a gamble on something chintzy or flat-out non-existent. Hope isn't a luxury for a coach, anyway, and if he chooses to burn his challenge early and lose it, he's hooped for the remainder of the game.

The risk of losing your challenge means coaches have to mindful of what they challenge and make sure what they do challenge better be overturned.
Logged

Blue & Gold 'til I'm dead & cold.

You can't fix stupid.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!