Where was EITS?

[TecnoGenius]

I have no clue what EITS or RTP means keep them for personal messages !

Yet right at the bottom of your quote of me is the asterisk and the spelled out meaning of EITS.  I anticipated you! 

And RTP can easily be inferred by the context.

Yes, acronyms are pretty common here, especially the standard ones you see in football stats.  Yes, I am probably the worst acronym offender.  I'm horribly lazy and like to save time.

[TecnoGenius]

But come on. Neufeld, Stanley Bryant and Kolonkowski have played together for almost five seasons. Kolonkowski first played games in Winnipeg in 2021.

I bet thinking about individual OL is not the best approach.  How about thinking about it in terms of gap-pairs.  So there's the Stan-Vant gap, the Vant-Ko gap, etc.  Why?  Because the player is rarely on his own, it's usually a shared-gap thing (yes, I know, OT's can be speed/wide rushed out onto an island...).

So even though 3 of 5 have played together a long time, there's 3 of 4 gaps that are "new" (lacking gel).  Now, if the 3 vet guys were all on, say, the left side, then we'd only have 2 new-guy gaps.  If Neuf was always a LG instead of a RG, and the left-3 were fully gelled over many seasons, would we be better?  I bet the answer is yes.  At least the left side!

I don't pay attention to other teams... do they try to keep entire "sides" together instead of letting non-gel gaps develop every FA?

[TecnoGenius]

So, Reavis fined for the Zach hit:

https://3downnation.com/2025/09/11/this-some-bullsht-saskatchewan-roughriders-db-c-j-reavis-fined-for-high-hit-on-bombers-qb-zach-collaros/

That makes this thread even more relevant.  Not only was it deemed an illegal hit, it was deemed a fineable hit.

Explain again why MOS had to challenge it?  RTP gets EITS-flagged all the time.  They didn't have to wait for MOS.

Rule 10 Replay - Section 2 - Article 3 Automatic review game administration triggers (game not paused)
...
Penalty applications

Also:
Article 2 - Automatic review game administration triggers (Potential for game to be paused)
When the game is paused... the list of standard reviewable aspects will be reviewed.

Also:
Article 6 Officials Assistance
Officials are permitted to ask for assistance when a ruling is in question...
Examples are:...
Whether or not a roughing the passer ... has occurrred.

So not a single ref thought "hey maybe it might have been RTP, Zach's bell is rung, let's ask command"?  Pretty sad.

As for the auto-review, the game was already "paused" because of the long Zach turf rest.  The rule book talks about unpaused reviews, and reviews where they paused the game on purpose just to review... but it doesn't really talk about situations where an external pause (like an injury) occurs.  I would think that they would treat it like an already-paused situation? (i.e. more thorough review of more things)

I clearly recall in the past QBs getting killed and then a flag coming down like 2 mins after he was on the turf and commercials came and went.  Those didn't require challenges.  EITS flagged it autonomously.  Why not for Zach?

P.S. I'm a bit surprised Reavis got fined.  Riderforum must be going insane.  "League exists just to protect Zach! blah blah"

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Not sure what some posters were watching when they say there was no penalty- replay CLEARLY shows helmet to helmet contact. Should have been called without having to challenge it.

The question was asked what the tackler could have done to avoid any possible head contact - easy he could have lowered his impact point. Collaros didn't see him coming so made no move to lower his head down to make contact with the head unavoidable.

Imo - it was a dirty hit and I wish we would have done the same to Harris. Sask is a dirty team period end of story- tell me one other team that has injured as many QBs as Sask.

Watch his helmet as he rounds the corner and approaches Zach, Reavis doesn't think to drop it a single inch. It was a full height collision body to body, he may not have contacted the helmet intentionally, but he also did nothing to avoid it.  A good form tackle would have been aimed below the shoulders and above the waist, fair chance it would have knocked Zach out of the game regardless.

[TecnoGenius]

fair chance it would have knocked Zach out of the game regardless.

Yup, at that speed and with Zach's head hitting the turf in any event, Zach was going to be out.  The incidental helmet contact wasn't even necessary.

[TecnoGenius]

So EITS flags Demski for OSK interference in the HAM game?  They won't flag the fineable hit on Zach in the BB, but they choose this weak sauce to get flag happy?    Without any challenge?

Everyone was happy with the play.  The refs were happy.  HAM was happy.  WPG was happy.  Everyone satisfied it was all ok, then Command steps in and says "nope, we got some weak sauce for you, EAT THAT".

Watching the play again in real-time, it's bang-bang and Demski was clearly going for the ball.  This is what happens on every single OSK where the kick-team REC makes it to the target on time.  Everyone jumps up and someone gets it or bats it.

Keep in mind the last CFL memo we were privy to said that everything has to be "clear and obvious", supposedly in real time (no bang-bang overturns), and that "if you have to go to frame level" they won't overturn.

In the slow-mo replay after Proulx announces the penalty, ya sure Demski is a hair early (way under half a second) but he's playing the ball, not pulling Kenny's arms down.  Sure, he appears to "go through" Kenny.  But I don't think the normal "DPI" rules apply on an OSK, and if they do, no one ever applies them.

Can anyone find another instance of command calling down an OSK interference before?  And if so, calling it on the kick team player who is playing the ball?  Sometimes refs will flag someone illegally blocking someone from getting to it, but it's never the guy at the ball, it's somewhere else amongst the blockers.  Even then they let almost everything slide in OSKs.  It's the nature of the play.

What if Demski was taller and outjumps Kenny and comes down with it... would they still overturn?  If he is higher and gets the ball first, hard to argue he wasn't entitled to play the ball.

It seems so petty for them to rob us of this.  As even though we'd still probably lose, it could increase our confidence and momentum going into next week.