Why did we have to challenge the RTP on the Zach head hit? EITS* & Command have the authority to flag those from Toronto without us doing anything. It's in the rules. And since Zach was on the turf for a very long time, they had time & authority to review that hit to the nth degree. We've seen EITS flag these QB hits before!
It's doubly weird & frustrating because command did indeed deem it to be RTP! We learned that because of MOS's challenge. It's one thing if we challenged and command said "no RTP", but they overturned and said "yes, RTP"! Huh??
This makes no sense.
* Eye In The Sky
Yup should have caught live or in the command center
It's fair I mention that this title thread somehow triggered ET in my mind at 1st glance 😀
Like ET phone home, ok over tired here but that's where my thoughts took me lol
Because it was barely a penalty. By the letter of the law I guess it was facemask contact but come on. There was nothing malicious about it.
Can't play the game with a bubble wrapped QB and you can't expect to get every soft RTP.
We have to get back to tough in the trenches football. We've gone soft and we're spending way too much time, effort and money on elaborate defense schemes and an offense style that was never our bread and butter.
Next year we need to load up on a real defensive line and find a few lineman that can move people on offense.
We don't need to big brain a way to cover every zone simultaneously. Attack the QB. Hit him. He'll make mistakes and if he's got to get rid of the ball it won't matter if every single defensive back simultaneously makes the right read.
On offense we need to go back to life without a hall of fame QB because we don't have one anymore. Win along the line of scrimmage there. Get holes that any cheap running back can go through. Have some receivers that win and are passer friendly.
Back to the basics.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 07, 2025, 04:32:19 PMBecause it was barely a penalty. By the letter of the law I guess it was facemask contact but come on. There was nothing malicious about it.
So why did command give it to us? Felt bad for us/Zach?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 08, 2025, 02:46:02 AMSo why did command give it to us? Felt bad for us/Zach?
QB gets hurt. Penalty happens.
Exactly. If zach had bounced up after that hit, there wouldn't have been a call. Lay on the field motionless, you get the call.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 08, 2025, 03:16:04 AMQB gets hurt. Penalty happens.
According to Riderforum, it's:
QB Zach gets hurt. Penalty happens
But again, that's my whole point of the thread: why didn't they call the RTP before being challenged?
I'm starting to wonder if the ref-helper didn't tell MOS "command says if you challenge that, you'll win". Or "it's RTP but you need to challenge it first".
My point is the rule book now has a list of things command can call WITHOUT CHALLENGE given proper time (which they had here). I'll find the section if someone wants, and quote it. RTP/UR type things are part of that rule. And we've seen them flag it from EITS before!
Quote from: dd on September 08, 2025, 03:57:23 AMExactly. If zach had bounced up after that hit, there wouldn't have been a call. Lay on the field motionless, you get the call.
Ah, the Cody School Of Writhing!! Yes, always writhe. Or in this case, cover your eyes like you're seeing looney tunes birds flying around.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 08, 2025, 04:38:10 AMAccording to Riderforum...
Say no more. That place is a cesspit.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 07, 2025, 04:32:19 PMBecause it was barely a penalty. By the letter of the law I guess it was facemask contact but come on. There was nothing malicious about it.
Can't play the game with a bubble wrapped QB and you can't expect to get every soft RTP.
I was listening on the radio and Doug Brown made this out to be a dirty, egregious hit. He wanted 25 yards and a RP disqualification penalty. Even pined about it to MOS in the post game interview. Then I saw the replay. I agree with your assessment.
Was it "egregious"? Probably not.
Was it "intent"? Probably not.
Was it avoidable? Yes.
"How am I supposed to tackle him"?
Not in a way that your helmet strikes his helmet and causes a concussion. Head to the side, wrap him up, etc.
This is a play that has been trained out of DL and LB for years. As a DB, maybe he's not had the same awareness of the geometry of the hit, and how the helmet to helmet is unavoidable when you tackle this way.
25yds and ejection? Probably not.
Call by the on field officials? Definitely.
According to John Hodge Zach was in the dressing room after the game in street clothes acting normally, chatting with fellow players and he couldn't detect any signs he had just suffered a concussion.
Say what you may about 3DN but these post weekend podcasts have become the best summaries of the games and all things CFL.
Quote from: The Fresh Prince Of Belair, MB on September 08, 2025, 03:15:59 PMI was listening on the radio and Doug Brown made this out to be a dirty, egregious hit. He wanted 25 yards and a RP disqualification penalty. Even pined about it to MOS in the post game interview. Then I saw the replay. I agree with your assessment.
And yet on TSN, after the game, Milt said that it was not a "dirty hit". Who do you believe. For me, I agree with Milt. That was a text book tackle and his face mask came in contact with Collaros helmut, thus the penalty.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 07, 2025, 04:32:19 PMBecause it was barely a penalty. By the letter of the law I guess it was facemask contact but come on. There was nothing malicious about it.
Can't play the game with a bubble wrapped QB and you can't expect to get every soft RTP.
We have to get back to tough in the trenches football. We've gone soft and we're spending way too much time, effort and money on elaborate defense schemes and an offense style that was never our bread and butter.
Next year we need to load up on a real defensive line and find a few lineman that can move people on offense.
We don't need to big brain a way to cover every zone simultaneously. Attack the QB. Hit him. He'll make mistakes and if he's got to get rid of the ball it won't matter if every single defensive back simultaneously makes the right read.
On offense we need to go back to life without a hall of fame QB because we don't have one anymore. Win along the line of scrimmage there. Get holes that any cheap running back can go through. Have some receivers that win and are passer friendly.
Back to the basics.
Nope it was clearly a head shot that was missed which happens at game spee
I believe the tone of your post doesn't do justice to some of the talent we have
We have a "real" D line
Yes the OL needs work but has a solid base
Zach could bounce back and has shown an incredible ability to stay healthy in his time here
Qbs get injured all the time, young, middle aged or old
Yes his injury history is a concern
That wasn't a soft RTP, the game has changed, a soft RTP is when a hand hits the helmet my mistake, gently
Agree we need to improve on DL and OL, key cogs to a winning club
Yes shop for QB but I think Zach has a few steamboats left in him, as long as he doesn't have too high of a risk to his brain or neck health
Go to practice and tell any of our DL that they are not real, please report back when head is reattached to the body lol
I see no issues with the receiving core we have, bring in a few new faces and draft a cdn or two
Calling Zach bubble wrapped isn't fair and I don't agree with that language
If Zach is healthy, the Oline gets healthy and gels, we still have a shot at the cup imo
Without both of those things happening we are a 500 ball club and could cross over, we are an average club right now and that's ok, can't be king forever
EITS is a joke (Bradbury, enough said). If that was Rourke the flags would have been flying.
I can't believe some people are saying that shouldn't have been a penalty.
How many times have we seen players flagged for just putting a hand on a quarterback's helmet.
There doesn't need to be intent, the play doesn't need to be dirty but if a QB gets hit in the helmet it's a penalty.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 08, 2025, 09:21:23 PMNope it was clearly a head shot that was missed which happens at game spee
I believe the tone of your post doesn't do justice to some of the talent we have
We have a "real" D line
Yes the OL needs work but has a solid base
Zach could bounce back and has shown an incredible ability to stay healthy in his time here
Qbs get injured all the time, young, middle aged or old
Yes his injury history is a concern
That wasn't a soft RTP, the game has changed, a soft RTP is when a hand hits the helmet my mistake, gently
Agree we need to improve on DL and OL, key cogs to a winning club
Yes shop for QB but I think Zach has a few steamboats left in him, as long as he doesn't have too high of a risk to his brain or neck health
Go to practice and tell any of our DL that they are not real, please report back when head is reattached to the body lol
I see no issues with the receiving core we have, bring in a few new faces and draft a cdn or two
Calling Zach bubble wrapped isn't fair and I don't agree with that language
If Zach is healthy, the Oline gets healthy and gels, we still have a shot at the cup imo
Without both of those things happening we are a 500 ball club and could cross over, we are an average club right now and that's ok, can't be king forever
I don't really care if "you don't agree with the language".
Collaros can't take regular football hits and the most respected of all Bomber Alumni tells him, on live TV, to retire. Listen to Milt. He knows football even when he says something you don't like.
Our defensive line is a shell of the Grey Cup years. They can't get to the QB and we have a defensive coordinator who has stopped trying. The all Canadian interior led by freaking Jake Thomas has gone from bad to an embarrassment. He would have been released from camp on half a dozen teams.
We have a head coach who refuses to adapt to current roster rules.
We have mismanaged our backup QB situation so badly that on the most important drive of the season our rookie OC was forced to call five straight running plays before the first pass which was intercepted. Terrible. Actually beyond terrible.
What is going to gel? Our offensive line? Does Neufeld, Stanley and Kolonkowski need to gel? The RT has started every game and Vanterpool isn't the issue. Neufeld,. Stanley and Kolonkowski are as much the issue as left guard and right tackle.
You're right about one thing, no team can dominate forever. I'm fine with the regression although it's disappointing it's in a Grey Cup year. It is real regression.
What is annoying is you trying to shoot rainbows from your eyebrows when anyone says things are the way they are.
Have we even beat a .500 team this year? We're in for a major roster reconstruction next year. That's the sign of real issues that won't get fixed with patience or "gelling".
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 08, 2025, 05:26:08 PMAccording to John Hodge Zach was in the dressing room after the game in street clothes acting normally, chatting with fellow players and he couldn't detect any signs he had just suffered a concussion.
Ya, but that's literally what 75% of concussions are like. Everything is great until hours or days later and you're like woooo something ain't right.
That's why so many concussed players want to get straight back in.
And we all know WFC + Zach will remove Zach every single time out of precaution. He's been rung so many times now maybe he does indeed have zero effects (at any time) besides the 1 minute after the hit.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 09, 2025, 02:59:02 AMWhat is going to gel? Our offensive line? Does Neufeld, Stanley and Kolonkowski need to gel? The RT has started every game and Vanterpool isn't the issue. Neufeld,. Stanley and Kolonkowski are as much the issue as left guard and right tackle.
Yes, the OL needs many games together to gel. It's a unit, not individual players. Prototypical gestalt.
We've barely ever gone 3 weeks without changes this season. Vant in, Vant out. RT changing. LT changing. Neuf in, Neuf out. The only constant is Ko-man (bless his heart).
Yes, I think they would be stronger now had Vant stayed in the whole time and the "Wallace experiment" never occurred. And the bonus is, if we keep this line-up unchanged for the rest of the season, it should be far stronger come playoff time. (Though I'd still love to see Lofton back, like next week.)
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 09, 2025, 07:08:48 AMYes, the OL needs many games together to gel. It's a unit, not individual players. Prototypical gestalt.
We've barely ever gone 3 weeks without changes this season. Vant in, Vant out. RT changing. LT changing. Neuf in, Neuf out. The only constant is Ko-man (bless his heart).
Yes, I think they would be stronger now had Vant stayed in the whole time and the "Wallace experiment" never occurred. And the bonus is, if we keep this line-up unchanged for the rest of the season, it should be far stronger come playoff time. (Though I'd still love to see Lofton back, like next week.)
Exactly my point, a well written summary
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 09, 2025, 07:08:48 AMYes, the OL needs many games together to gel. It's a unit, not individual players. Prototypical gestalt.
We've barely ever gone 3 weeks without changes this season. Vant in, Vant out. RT changing. LT changing. Neuf in, Neuf out. The only constant is Ko-man (bless his heart).
Yes, I think they would be stronger now had Vant stayed in the whole time and the "Wallace experiment" never occurred. And the bonus is, if we keep this line-up unchanged for the rest of the season, it should be far stronger come playoff time. (Though I'd still love to see Lofton back, like next week.)
Ya, I don't really buy it. And it's not to say the offensive line is bad. They are probably the most average unit in the league.
But come on. Neufeld, Stanley Bryant and Kolonkowski have played together for almost five seasons. Kolonkowski first played games in Winnipeg in 2021.
Vanterpool and Randolph have both been in that room since 2024 so while starting has been new for them, they aren't air lifted in learning the blocking schemes. Randolph in particular will be starting regular season game 19 in his career this week. Largely with the same unit he's always played with. And sure Vanterpool you could argue is the new guy in but you can't possibly be trying to argue that every player on the offensive line needs several seasons of all playing beside each other to be effective. That's not often possible for any unit when you factor injuries or one year contracts.
"They need to gel" is simply code for "be patient" because I have no idea what I'm looking at or why it's not working.
Who is our O line coach? Is he another ball boy that was promoted from within because gosh he works hard !?
Quote from: dd on September 10, 2025, 12:51:35 AMWho is our O line coach? Is he another ball boy that was promoted from within because gosh he works hard !?
Some yahoo named Marty Costello, rode into town 10 seasons ago on the coat-tails of Bob Wylie. Before he took over the O-line he was Jr. mop boy at the RedTop Drive inn.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 10, 2025, 01:12:38 AMSome yahoo named Marty Costello, rode into town 10 seasons ago on the coat-tales of Bob Wylie. Before he took over the O-line he was Jr. mop boy at the RedTop Drive inn.
I don't really think he's the issue. He's been here wwhen the line was good. When the line was downright dominant. Where were at today.
The main issue is the same one that we had last year. Neufeld and Bryant are in decline and will continue to regress every month and every season due to age.
Kolonkowski has always been an average centre and both Vanterpool and Randolph are good young players who have a lot of growing to do.
The result is we have no anchors but veterans who have declined too far and the youth which needs more time.
It's the exact same problem on the defensive line by the way, with the exception of Cam Lawson who is legitimately effective and much closer to being at the height of his powers.
It's poor roster construction and management. I'm not blaming Walters in any meaningful way. He had reason to believe it would continue to work. It just didn't and so the reality is the reality.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 08, 2025, 02:46:02 AMSo why did command give it to us? Felt bad for us/Zach?
I am not clear on why all of the parsing of words it was CLEARLY a Penalty !
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 07, 2025, 04:52:45 AMWhy did we have to challenge the RTP on the Zach head hit? EITS* & Command have the authority to flag those from Toronto without us doing anything. It's in the rules. And since Zach was on the turf for a very long time, they had time & authority to review that hit to the nth degree. We've seen EITS flag these QB hits before!
It's doubly weird & frustrating because command did indeed deem it to be RTP! We learned that because of MOS's challenge. It's one thing if we challenged and command said "no RTP", but they overturned and said "yes, RTP"! Huh??
This makes no sense.
* Eye In The Sky
I have no clue what EITS or RTP means keep them for personal messages !
Quote from: jdrattops on September 08, 2025, 10:10:22 PMEITS is a joke (Bradbury, enough said). If that was Rourke the flags would have been flying.
EITS RTP , TIAJ, This is just STUPID IDNC !
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 07, 2025, 04:32:19 PMBecause it was barely a penalty. By the letter of the law I guess it was facemask contact but come on. There was nothing malicious about it.
Can't play the game with a bubble wrapped QB and you can't expect to get every soft RTP.
We have to get back to tough in the trenches football. We've gone soft and we're spending way too much time, effort and money on elaborate defense schemes and an offense style that was never our bread and butter.
Next year we need to load up on a real defensive line and find a few lineman that can move people on offense.
We don't need to big brain a way to cover every zone simultaneously. Attack the QB. Hit him. He'll make mistakes and if he's got to get rid of the ball it won't matter if every single defensive back simultaneously makes the right read.
On offense we need to go back to life without a hall of fame QB because we don't have one anymore. Win along the line of scrimmage there. Get holes that any cheap running back can go through. Have some receivers that win and are passer friendly.
Back to the basics.
It was a helmet to helmet hit. 100% a penalty.
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.
Quote from: BBFANDM on September 10, 2025, 02:45:12 AMI am not clear on why all of the parsing of words it was CLEARLY a Penalty !
No one's arguing that. The
question is why did MOS have to challenge. EITS (Eye In The Sky) could have called it down automatically, as they often have.
Quote from: BBFANDM on September 10, 2025, 02:48:41 AMI 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.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 10, 2025, 12:37:39 AMBut 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?
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"
Quote from: TrueBlue4 on September 10, 2025, 04:09:57 AMNot 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.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 12, 2025, 04:15:40 PMfair 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.
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.
EDM@HAM game
4Q0:35 BLM takes a H2H from a D guy. No ref flag. But 1m10s later EITS steps in and calls down a flag.
So WHERE WAS THIS EITS WHEN ZACH GOT HIT? Where was this EITS when VAJ got hit? They can't just pick and choose what to flag and what to wait for the HC to challenge. The rules afford them the ability to flag ALL of these if they don't need to "pause the game" just to look (which none did).
Keep in mind the Zach hit was deemed RTP/UR in-game post-challenge (plus a fine midweek). The VAJ hit will certainly be a fine.
But only this hit is deemed worthy of EITS to step in.
The league has struggled for years with consistency on the field, and now we have it off the field, which to me, should be alot easier to control, and it does take away from the credibility of the EITS process
Quote from: dd on September 21, 2025, 04:14:51 AMThe league has struggled for years with consistency on the field, and now we have it off the field, which to me, should be alot easier to control, and it does take away from the credibility of the EITS process
Pony-tail lady doesn't help, I think the male crew is reluctant to overturn calls she makes with utter self-assurance and from what I can tell she's at least partially blind.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 21, 2025, 05:35:56 AMPony-tail lady doesn't help, I think the male crew is reluctant to overturn calls she makes with utter self-assurance and from what I can tell she's at least partially blind.
Uh oh, ban-happy swamp mire-wading activated... you went "there".
Ok, I'll risk it. I'll agree that ref has been botching things since day 1. Not like the other refs aren't too, but she's particularly bad. And I'm not making the statement because of the obvious "difference", I'm basing it entirely on the "merit" I've seen on the field. If there's a particularly bad spot or call, I often look down the line to see if it's you-know-who. Alas, we're not allowed to say such things though... <head in sand mode reactivated>
The only ref I'd say is worse is that #22 bleepity bleep that made all those ridiculous and insane and rigged calls on us in '24. You know, the ref who was benched for botching and rigging way too much. Haven't seen him since. Good riddance.
Not that I want to derail the thread topic. I feel the EITS issue is very important.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 21, 2025, 06:51:10 AMThe only ref I'd say is worse is that #22 bleepity bleep that made all those ridiculous and insane and rigged calls on us in '24. You know, the ref who was benched for botching and rigging way too much. Haven't seen him since. Good riddance.
For someone who claims to notice a lot of the finer details, you fail to notice a lot.
Murray Clarke was not benched at any point. Every fan base claims that the officials botch calls against their team; sometimes both fan bases in the same game. Yes, on field officials do make mistakes but they get a lot more correct than they do wrong. To claim that officials rig games is irresponsible.
Murray Clarke is in his 33rd CFL season making him one of the longest serving officials in CFL history. Recently, he worked his 600th career game in the Banjo Bowl. Heck, you probably even clapped for him when the Blue Bombers honoured him. Perhaps the reason you haven't noticed him since you blackballed him is because he actually does a good job.