A Rider loss is never a bad thing.
Patterson looks better than I thought. Riders only trail the Lions by 3
Quote from: dd on July 13, 2024, 11:43:26 PMPatterson looks better than I thought. Riders only trail the Lions by 3
The Riders Dline rush worry me.
Quote from: dd on July 13, 2024, 11:43:26 PMPatterson looks better than I thought. Riders only trail the Lions by 3
Sure on 2 broken plays that carried them inside the 10, the game should be a blow out.
Jermarcus Hardrick carted off :-[
No, not J Hardrick Sr hurt, no one wants to see that.
Quote from: VictorRomano on July 14, 2024, 12:45:12 AMLooks bad. Knee?
Likely not sure went down in a weird way
They said he is done for the day
Milligan super beast (int)
Sad to see Yoshi carted off.
McInnis looks to hurt himself for 2nd time today (cramp)
Limping on sidelines
VA playing his old game of duck duck goose
Rider D is hungry!
Bc offense not the same without Mcinnis
About as perfect a short kick you can do
Riders Lose
What a great day! :D
Sad to see Yoshi get hurt.
Quote from: VictorRomano on July 14, 2024, 12:45:12 AMLooks bad. Knee?
So long Yoshi, from the look in his eyes I think he knows he's done for the season.
That's a huge loss for the Riders
Quote from: VictorRomano on July 14, 2024, 12:45:12 AMLooks bad. Knee?
I'm watching late (as usual). My take (from the computer) is he was stressing it too much (too far, too much weight on just that side) as he was losing balance from the DL guy's push, and then his knee just buckled and went limp. That made his ankle look twisted a bit wonky, but I don't think it's ankle. I think something popped inside his knee.
Could be due to age and wear & tear. Both work against him here. Not sure he's had many knee problems? He's been pretty solid for us.
The fact he couldn't walk is not a good sign. No matter what, he's probably out vs us next week.
Everyone everywhere loves Yoshi. No one wants to see him hurt. I bet he was looking forward to going up against big Willie J. Oh well, maybe by LDC? P.S. This plus no Trevor means SSK is ripe for a blue & gold butt kicking in 1 week...
Yoshi's leg has given him trouble a few times this season. Sadly, I was kind of waiting for something like this.
I think he signed a 2-year deal with the Riders. Hopefully he can still come back from this strong, even if it does keep him out for a bit.
Nobody wants to see anyone get hurt. Unfortunately football is a tough sport and bad things happen to nice people.
Yoshi has been a great player but he's a fan favourite and all around good guy.
Hopefully he'll recover soon.
Sad to see Yoshi on the sidelines, and an expensive $SMS hit on the Riders. The contract had to have some bonus and guaranteed money. They were counting on his leadership and the excitement he brings, if he's gone for the year, or even longer, he will be hard to replace.
He was always a fan favourite here, and we were sad to see him move on, hope this isn't the last we see of him (except against us ;) )
Get well soon, Mr. Hardrick.
no quit in the Riders this season.
nice of their D backfield to ignore Macinnes for much of the game, even after it was obvious va was going to him.
Mace looked exasperated at one point.
BC and VA was just too much for the Riders on this day. VA is the leading candidate for MOP so far this season. 450 yards passing despite all those sacks he took in the first half and throwing 2 picks. The Riders were game though and weren't able to capitalize on a few shots deep in BC territory however, BC was full marks for their win and are definitely the class of the West. The Riders will miss Yoshi as you can't really replace him as he gives AJ Ouelette plenty of room to operate....he's a powerhouse runner and our D will have their work cut out for them as well as containing Schafer/Baker who is an absolute stud of a receiver.
BC this year reminds me of Toronto last year. Seemingly unstoppable until they ran into that MTL defense.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 14, 2024, 03:39:33 PMSad to see Yoshi on the sidelines, and an expensive $SMS hit on the Riders. The contract had to have some bonus and guaranteed money. They were counting on his leadership and the excitement he brings, if he's gone for the year, or even longer, he will be hard to replace.
He was always a fan favourite here, and we were sad to see him move on, hope this isn't the last we see of him (except against us ;) )
Get well soon, Mr. Hardrick.
I don't think Hardrick isn't eligible for guaranteed money. Pretty sure it's only for players re-signing with teams they've already been on for a certain amount of years.
Quote from: Jesse on July 14, 2024, 10:05:53 PMI don't think Hardrick isn't eligible for guaranteed money. Pretty sure it's only for players re-signing with teams they've already been on for a certain amount of years.
That's right... but he got a big signing bonus... so only $110k is game cheque $SMS eligible, or $6100 per game. If he misses the rest of the season, they get $74k in $SMS relief.
Hardrick becomes the highest-paid American offensive lineman in the three-down league. He will collect a $120,000 signing bonus as part of a deal that totals $230,500 in hard money for both years. There's an additional $6,000 available in all-star incentives.
3Q10:53 The Campbell challenge McInnis catch spot:
Campbell chirping after losing the review... he has a very good point that I don't think the refs took into account. He's saying "ya it was bobbled, but he got up and ran".
And he's 100% right, because as soon as the bobbling was over and possession was gained the SSK player was no longer in contact with him (I confirmed on computer PVR). He instantly gets up and runs to maybe the 48.5YL, close enough to go for it on 3rd down.
The whistle sounds right as the tackle of him is starting. So this is a lot like the Demski-down challenge we had. Just like with Demski, the whistle takes 1.9s to be blown after the ref is determining him as down. That is just simply too long. So command is saying he bobbled and was DBC and his getting up is not part of the play because the ref determined he was DBC but was just slow on the whistle.
Once again, the refs are breaking the clear rule that basically says "err on the side of letting the play continue" because they have to be, by rule, "certain" they are DBC before blowing.
Once that mental whistle goes off in the refs head, that's the end of it, even if it takes him 1.9s to blow so the rest of us can gain the wisdom from his brain. And once again, when the ref screws up by blowing a live play dead (against rules), there is zero recourse for regaining YAC... meaning low-yardage / high-YAC-capable plays are second class citizens when it comes to review.
Campbell got robbed just as we got robbed.
The ref made a mistake, just like everyone else on this planet, they are human. They don't have a PVR while doing the game they have to make a split second decision, and in some cases they get it wrong, it just happens.
4Q13:52 When Patterson runs for a near-TD and gets his lid popped off: that should be RTP from the precedent set when Kramdi got a flag. That's flipper to the helmet in an excessively rough manner, and knocked his helmet off to boot. By rule that's RTP.
EITS doesn't want to call it? That would have setup SSK as 1st & goal from the 1, rather than 3rd down.
How could you guys have let Patrice Rene go?
What BC did at the end, V-formation followed by a FG, is really underhanded. It shouldn't even be legal.
Once you go V you shouldn't be allowed to do anything but run out the clock (punters running around would be allowed, as would QBs throwing it into the stands).
They did this to get more points for season series. The normal thing to do is run-play, run-play, FG. You should have to do that to earn the FG, or kick the FG on 1st down and give the opponent a chance with some clock left.
It's chintzy and I don't like it. In return, when we face BC we should go full on normal D beef attack mode when they go V formation. No law says you can't hit that OL with everything you have. If they want to play shenanigans, make 'em pay.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 14, 2024, 10:47:58 PMThat's right... but he got a big signing bonus... so only $110k is game cheque $SMS eligible, or $6100 per game. If he misses the rest of the season, they get $74k in $SMS relief.
Riderfans gonna be joining us in the "bonus money SMS relief" thread soon! At this rate they are approaching the same 6GIR-SMS hurt that we're in. Both teams are getting wrecked by injuries. The difference is, SSK fans are used to that, we're not.
Might be an insane game next week.
Quote from: CrazyCanuck89 on July 15, 2024, 05:27:29 AMHow could you guys have let Patrice Rene go?
He was an injury concern and DB is a position group the Bombers were deep at.
Quote from: dd on July 15, 2024, 03:11:30 AMThe ref made a mistake, just like everyone else on this planet, they are human. They don't have a PVR while doing the game they have to make a split second decision, and in some cases they get it wrong, it just happens.
That's why the
rulebook says they MUST be
CERTAIN of the play being dead or the player being DBC. CERTAIN. Otherwise they let it play out and can change the call after huddling with the other refs, or let command overturn it.
This is 2 times in 1 week the refs blew a non-dead play dead. Those are screw-ups, not mistakes. They will be reprimanded and graded poorly for these games. Over the years we actually haven't seen too many of these... this is kind of a new thing for this season, especially if this trend continues.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 15, 2024, 05:46:59 AMThat's why the rulebook says they MUST be CERTAIN of the play being dead or the player being DBC. CERTAIN. Otherwise they let it play out and can change the call after huddling with the other refs, or let command overturn it.
This is 2 times in 1 week the refs blew a non-dead play dead. Those are screw-ups, not mistakes. They will be reprimanded and graded poorly for these games. Over the years we actually haven't seen too many of these... this is kind of a new thing for this season, especially if this trend continues.
The Refs were
CERTAIN when they made the calls. Hindsight shows they were wrong. That's what a mistake is.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 15, 2024, 05:46:59 AMThat's why the rulebook says they MUST be CERTAIN of the play being dead or the player being DBC. CERTAIN. Otherwise they let it play out and can change the call after huddling with the other refs, or let command overturn it.
This is 2 times in 1 week the refs blew a non-dead play dead. Those are screw-ups, not mistakes. They will be reprimanded and graded poorly for these games. Over the years we actually haven't seen too many of these... this is kind of a new thing for this season, especially if this trend continues.
If the officials dissected and pulled apart every second play the way you wish the game would totally lose it's flow and all it's fans, and they still wouldn't get it 100% right. Accept it's imperfections and let it be, they're do the best they can.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 15, 2024, 05:43:59 AMRiderfans gonna be joining us in the "bonus money SMS relief" thread soon! At this rate they are approaching the same 6GIR-SMS hurt that we're in. Both teams are getting wrecked by injuries. The difference is, SSK fans are used to that, we're not.
Might be an insane game next week.
Keep in mind that they will need to add another player. Even though it may be a player on an ELC, that only leaves a small savings on the 13 games remaining.
But yes they may join the cry for SMS relief on early money bonus to players.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 15, 2024, 03:16:23 PMThe Refs were CERTAIN when they made the calls. Hindsight shows they were wrong. That's what a mistake is.
No, the ref was not
certain they saw Demski's ball hit the turf because
it didn't. Therefore
they didn't see it hit the turf. They
thought "it must have hit the turf", "the way it bounced means it hit the turf", or whatever. It's a distinction worth noting.
I'm sure they are trained and directed to be 100% sure or let it play out and then have a conference with the other refs, as they do so often. And for the most part the refs get this right. For instance, they almost always now let potential fumbles play out. >6 years ago they used to blow fumbles dead really early... not anymore.
This catch/no-catch scenario should be treated the same way. There is no downside to letting it play out then announce it was incomplete. None. You give the other 3-4 refs staring at that ball the chance to chime in and say "I saw it NOT hit the turf, are you POSITIVE?".
I guarantee you these 2 calls this week cost the refs who whistled it dead some grading points. It's not an
innocent oopsie, it's them not following their training to err on the side of being certain and letting it play out. AND, I would expect to see this cleaned up for next, and all following, weeks.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 16, 2024, 02:44:45 AM... I guarantee you these 2 calls this week cost the refs who whistled it dead some grading points. It's not an innocent oopsie, it's them not following their training to err on the side of being certain and letting it play out. AND, I would expect to see this cleaned up for next, and all following, weeks.
We are all biased, fans and refs, coaches and players, whether we want to admit it or not. I made the point earlier that we are not going to get any breaks from the refs because we've been perceived as bullies. I'm not surprised to see these calls going against us. O'Shea has got to be smart with his challenges, he's going to need them.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 16, 2024, 02:44:45 AMNo, the ref was not certain they saw Demski's ball hit the turf because it didn't. Therefore they didn't see it hit the turf. They thought "it must have hit the turf", "the way it bounced means it hit the turf", or whatever. It's a distinction worth noting.
I'm sure they are trained and directed to be 100% sure or let it play out and then have a conference with the other refs, as they do so often. And for the most part the refs get this right. For instance, they almost always now let potential fumbles play out. >6 years ago they used to blow fumbles dead really early... not anymore.
This catch/no-catch scenario should be treated the same way. There is no downside to letting it play out then announce it was incomplete. None. You give the other 3-4 refs staring at that ball the chance to chime in and say "I saw it NOT hit the turf, are you POSITIVE?".
I guarantee you these 2 calls this week cost the refs who whistled it dead some grading points. It's not an innocent oopsie, it's them not following their training to err on the side of being certain and letting it play out. AND, I would expect to see this cleaned up for next, and all following, weeks.
Yes the mistake will cost the official grading points in their extensive post game analysis and evaluation, but it was a mistake, l ve done it and I ve reffed for 37 years. It happens. The game moves so fast and all the noise and player banter, it is tough to be correct 100% of the time. You call what you see or thought you saw to the best of your ability and that's all you can do
Quote from: dd on July 16, 2024, 03:22:30 AMYes the mistake will cost the official grading points in their extensive post game analysis and evaluation, but it was a mistake, l ve done it and I ve reffed for 37 years. It happens. The game moves so fast and all the noise and player banter, it is tough to be correct 100% of the time. You call what you see or thought you saw to the best of your ability and that's all you can do
Yes, and the league can send out memos and remind refs of what the desired standard is, and what the rules say. We see big shifts like this after major botches all the time.
After the IP no-end call that cost us that game in CGY the league has not botched another no-end call since. The league apologized and made it right. They can do so in this case too. Remind the refs to be certain or shut up. Easy peasy, problem solved.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 16, 2024, 02:44:45 AMNo, the ref was not certain they saw Demski's ball hit the turf because it didn't. Therefore they didn't see it hit the turf. They thought "it must have hit the turf", "the way it bounced means it hit the turf", or whatever. It's a distinction worth noting.
I'm sure they are trained and directed to be 100% sure or let it play out and then have a conference with the other refs, as they do so often. And for the most part the refs get this right. For instance, they almost always now let potential fumbles play out. >6 years ago they used to blow fumbles dead really early... not anymore.
This catch/no-catch scenario should be treated the same way. There is no downside to letting it play out then announce it was incomplete. None. You give the other 3-4 refs staring at that ball the chance to chime in and say "I saw it NOT hit the turf, are you POSITIVE?".
I guarantee you these 2 calls this week cost the refs who whistled it dead some grading points. It's not an innocent oopsie, it's them not following their training to err on the side of being certain and letting it play out. AND, I would expect to see this cleaned up for next, and all following, weeks.
Certain doesn't mean right.
I agree that the call cost the Ref grading points.
I like the idea of letting every close call play out then fixing it in the command center as long as it doesn't cost the teams a challenge flag & as long as there are only a couple per game.
I'm impressed that the on field officials nailed the call on the pass to McInnis that was challenged by BC.
It was not apparent in stadium that McInnis bobbled the ball. After watching the video of the play it is clear that the 47 yard line was the correct spot on the play.
I believe the officials also got the down by contact aspect of the play correct. The double clutch of the ball by McInnis on the way to the ground does not change the fact that he went to the ground as a result of contact with an opponent during the process of catching the football.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on July 17, 2024, 07:27:04 PMI believe the officials also got the down by contact aspect of the play correct. The double clutch of the ball by McInnis on the way to the ground does not change the fact that he went to the ground as a result of contact with an opponent during the process of catching the football.
(My favorite type of conversation!)
My understanding of the rules are that the DBC process cannot begin until possession has been gained. So if the possession is gained
after the contact with team B has ceased, he is not DBC. I'm very much open if you can find a rule clause that says otherwise.
Hypothetical scenario: WR does a curl, D pushes him towards the ball, D no longer has contact, WR catches the ball, WR falls from the earlier push. Is the WR DBC or can he get up and get YAC? From everything I've seen in the CFL (except this play), the WR is
not DBC.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 15, 2024, 05:34:18 AMWhat BC did at the end, V-formation followed by a FG, is really underhanded. It shouldn't even be legal.
Once you go V you shouldn't be allowed to do anything but run out the clock (punters running around would be allowed, as would QBs throwing it into the stands).
They did this to get more points for season series. The normal thing to do is run-play, run-play, FG. You should have to do that to earn the FG, or kick the FG on 1st down and give the opponent a chance with some clock left.
It's chintzy and I don't like it. In return, when we face BC we should go full on normal D beef attack mode when they go V formation. No law says you can't hit that OL with everything you have. If they want to play shenanigans, make 'em pay.
Interesting. It didn't occur to me at the time, but you are correct, they definitely should not have done that. It's a betrayal of trust and very poor sportsmanship. From what I understand about this type of situation is the team on offence declares to the referee that they are not going to pursue any more points and will run out the clock to end the game. The referee in turn advises the defence not to attack.
Maybe I'm giving BC the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve here, but I don't think they had the intention of going for the field goal initially. They thought of it just before the last play. But they should have just scrapped the idea at that point, given what happened the previous 2 plays. That would have been the right thing to do. The referees were probably caught by surprise but realized there was nothing they could do.
Good catch Techno. The league needs to address this so it doesn't happen again.
Quote from: bomb squad on July 18, 2024, 05:50:33 AMMaybe I'm giving BC the benefit of the doubt they don't deserve here, but I don't think they had the intention of going for the field goal initially. They thought of it just before the last play. But they should have just scrapped the idea at that point, given what happened the previous 2 plays. That would have been the right thing to do. The referees were probably caught by surprise but realized there was nothing they could do.
Good catch Techno. The league needs to address this so it doesn't happen again.
Nah, just like MOS had it pre-planned he was going for 2 after the TD vs CGY, Campbell (an extremely smart/savvy HC) had the FG planned too. Both were thinking about the season series.
To rub salt in the wound, Campbell also called timeout with 1-2s left on the clock, causing the opponent to have to sit there another minute when all they wanted to do was go home and lick their wounds. That was also very uncool. You don't waste everyone's time so you can just rack up the points.
I'm not sure if it's spoken/unspoken, but it's kind of an unwritten rule, and ya, BC should be chastised. If I'm SSK, I'm ripping those guys a new one on D next time they go in V formation. Heck, even if I'm WPG I'm doing that.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 18, 2024, 08:44:03 AMNah, just like MOS had it pre-planned he was going for 2 after the TD vs CGY, Campbell (an extremely smart/savvy HC) had the FG planned too. Both were thinking about the season series.
To rub salt in the wound, Campbell also called timeout with 1-2s left on the clock, causing the opponent to have to sit there another minute when all they wanted to do was go home and lick their wounds. That was also very uncool. You don't waste everyone's time so you can just rack up the points.
I'm not sure if it's spoken/unspoken, but it's kind of an unwritten rule, and ya, BC should be chastised. If I'm SSK, I'm ripping those guys a new one on D next time they go in V formation. Heck, even if I'm WPG I'm doing that.
I'm hoping the TSN panel picked up on this and discusses it this weekend.
It's smart football to drain the clock with Victory formation, then call the time out so you can bring the FG unit in.
It was explained during the telecast that if the season series is tied between the 2 clubs it comes down to point for and against differential so BC was taking the points vs not and risk losing a tie breaker down the road.
No salt in anyone's wounds, both teams have similar records with lots of season left. BC played it smart and I don't think riders were upset over this
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 18, 2024, 02:45:50 PMIt's smart football to drain the clock with Victory formation, then call the time out so you can bring the FG unit in.
I think I agree with what they're saying though. There's the unspoken rule not to send pressure on that formation because the game is over and the clock is being drained to zero. If you're not specifically draining the clock to end the game, it's taking advantage of something I don't think teams want taken advantage of.
If the retribution is to send your defense on the victory formation, it might get unsuspecting offensive players hurt in a nothing play.
If you are doing something to try to win the season series, the D should be allowed to pursue the tackle for loss / forced fumble in the V formation.
You want to mess around, you are going to find out.
Quote from: TBURGESS on July 18, 2024, 02:45:50 PMIt's smart football to drain the clock with Victory formation, then call the time out so you can bring the FG unit in.
Smart, but douche, move. I think you're missing the point.
Can you remember team doing this before? It's an unwritten rule you don't go for points after V formation.
Remember when MTL, at the end of the game, drove our whole field @PAS in week 1 then went V at the 1 or 3 or something? Ya, so what if on their last snap they hand it to Fletcher and take an easy 7? It's the same situation.
Quote from: theaardvark on July 18, 2024, 06:40:58 PMIf you are doing something to try to win the season series, the D should be allowed to pursue the tackle for loss / forced fumble in the V formation.
You want to mess around, you are going to find out.
That's the problem. BC broke the unwritten rule. So now D's have to proceed on V formation like it's a normal snap. Well, at least vs BC... but maybe even bleeding over to other teams, unless their HCs get together pre-game and agree not to be a douche.
Jesse nails it: this is going to result in injured players. If BC does a V and the 300 lb DTs blow them the heck up when they are just standing there, people are going to get hurt. I won't feel sorry for them. It'll serve Campbell right to lose a bunch of players to 6GIR over this (though sad & sorry for the players, who had no part in making the call).
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 19, 2024, 12:47:00 AMSmart, but douche, move. I think you're missing the point.
Can you remember team doing this before? It's an unwritten rule you don't go for points after V formation.
Remember when MTL, at the end of the game, drove our whole field @PAS in week 1 then went V at the 1 or 3 or something? Ya, so what if on their last snap they hand it to Fletcher and take an easy 7? It's the same situation.
I can't remember a team doing it before, which makes it an even smarter coaching decision.
If MTL had taken 7 at the end of the game, then good on them, but that wouldn't be the same thing as bringing in the FG team on 3rd. Everyone on the field knew that they were going for the FG. It wasn't running off of the Victory formation.