This will be a tough game for SSK but I think they pull through. Nearly every picker picked SSK on both our and Riderfans forums. Only 2-4 EDM pickers on each forum.
Surprisingly, this is the 2nd last SSK home game, and that final game will be vs CGY. So this might be their only chance to show a home win to their fans until 2023. Add to that this fact: SSK hasn't won a home game since week 5!!
I would say this is as much a must-win as there can be, simply from a fan-placation standpoint. Things will get ugly in Riderville if they lose to the most-hopeless team in the West.
Rouge wins the internet; from the Riders forum:
QuoteQuoteOriginally posted by Dart Guy
Riders win in a flag fest...22-13
22 flags to 13?
Is the forum down again? No one commenting.
no. probably all fall asleep while watching or just went straight to bed. ;D
6 sasks on sask
Walker bad drop
Huge blocked punt riders
Cornelius is a magician on the run
Edmonton is actually playing ok, they might upset the criders at home.
Loved how marshal got burned after chirping it up/calling out Cornelius!!! That has to be the burn of the year. Looked great on him. Just shut your mouth and play bonehead. Chirp the Qb and call him on and he torches you. Beautiful!!
Boo birds coming on big
Walker bad drop #2 two
Quote from: pjrocksmb on September 17, 2022, 04:14:27 AM
Walker bad drop #2 two
Washed...they could lose because of that one
Elks are playing t9 lose if they continue dropping the ball....Walker was at one time a premiere receiver in the CFL....not so much these days!
Edmonton is so bad
Up to corny now
Nice catch Walker
Quote from: The Zipp on September 17, 2022, 04:22:10 AM
Edmonton is so bad
They have played well today but had way too many penalties
Best fans left the game early.
Then a penalty to almost put into field goal range
Walker sick catch #2
Yes!
Walker is still ok
Riders suck
Good effort for Edm
Riders OL swiss cheese, the cheap kind you get at Giant Tiger. 9 sacks. Riders suck, like bad.
Cody throws a duck
Can?t believe Saskatchewan lost at home. Wow
Quote from: pjrocksmb on September 17, 2022, 04:29:13 AM
Riders suck
Good effort for Edm
well...the vaunted Rider D couldn't hold the Elks with just over a minute to go.....losing at home isn't sitting well with the Rider Nation, especially after back to back losses in the LDC & BB games!! Riders seem t9 be imploding....and the Elks....well they aren't that much better by the look of things!
Love it !!
Riders could have used Kermet on the OL lol
Fajardo sacked 8 times tonight, their O line stunk!!
Quote from: pjrocksmb on September 17, 2022, 04:34:10 AM
Riders could have used Kermet on the OL lol
Nine sacks? Cody must be beat up! We roughed him up some....but 9 sacks!!
No joy in Mudville tonight! ;)
Riders post game show on radio is wild! Heads wanted to roll now.
Quote from: Tiger on September 17, 2022, 04:32:52 AM
Can?t believe Saskatchewan lost at home. Wow
That makes 5 in a row at home. #5inarow.
Elks have a lot of very good players, by next year they'll no longer be the bottom feeders in the West, never count Chris Jones out.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 17, 2022, 05:36:23 AM
Elks have a lot of very good players, by next year they'll no longer be the bottom feeders in the West, never count Chris Jones out.
I missed this one, had tickets to the Eagles concert.
Riders entering depth con 5 :D
Imagine they do not even make the playoffs in the GC hosting year!
That was yet another bad outing from the Riders. So much for the stomach flu excuse. The defence has really softened up. Making the playoffs is no longer a lock. Edmonton, Hamilton, and Ottawa all saw that and have to be feeling inspired. We?ll see what Hamilton brings today. Bombers better be ready.
Quote from: dd on September 17, 2022, 04:35:58 AM
Fajardo sacked 8 times tonight, their O line stunk!!
Not to mention that Fajardo was equally a Houdini as he was against us and escaping the rush and sack many times.
Quote from: Tiger on September 17, 2022, 01:51:48 PM
Not to mention that Fajardo was equally a Houdini as he was against us and escaping the rush and sack many times.
The Riders gave up 8 sacks to a strong Elks pass rush, so he wasn't a very good version of Houdini if at all, he literally looked like a chicken with it's head cut off a few times, running aimlessly in circles.
Quote from: GOLDMEMBER on September 17, 2022, 12:34:48 PM
Riders entering depth con 5 :D
Imagine they do not even make the playoffs in the GC hosting year!
Dream come true.
Quote from: GOLDMEMBER on September 17, 2022, 12:34:48 PM
Riders entering depth con 5 :D
Imagine they do not even make the playoffs in the GC hosting year!
Happened to us in 2015 and sure doesn?t feel very nice.
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
?I feel like the whole world is basically against us?: Cody Fajardo ?hurt? by Riders fans booing in loss to Elks: Saskatchewan Roughriders? quarterback Cody Fajardo has been sacked a CFL-worst 54 times this season.
Faj face is in full force. I didn't realize Sask is on bye next week too, if we beat them at home again it will send them into further spiral. Let's do it!!
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 03:20:41 PM
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
It was impossible to determine which team recovered the ball 1st and / or before the whistle. Just because a Rider ended up with it eventually it doesn't mean an Elk regained possession prior.
As the broadcasters suggested, it was the right outcome of the challenge without proof one way or the other.
Saying the Elks didn't deserve the TD is a bit of a stretch.
Even if the Riders ended up with the fumble, they may have been sacked for a safety on the next play. Who knows what might have happened. It could have swung momentum or not.
The Riders played like crap and it could just as easily be said they got what they deserved. Nine sacks!! Multiple penalties.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 03:20:41 PM
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
If "ifs and buts were candies and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas..."
Sask is a joke of a team - they are a mess internally and lack talent and leadership.
It was a close game. I think edmonton improved. Fajardo tried but no protection in the middle. Maas doesnt have anyone blocking and fajardo ran a few tines when he shouldnt have. Sask should have won the game but let edmonton qb go down the field. That was pretty bad and they took a bad penalty. Plus two missed field goals. They had a good crowd too. Id blame the gm and jones sure liked beating his ild team and he usnt a good coach at all. Lost a few challenges that were so clear i think he just likes thriwibg that flag
Quote from: buckzumhoff on September 17, 2022, 03:43:02 PM
Id blame the gm and jones sure liked beating his ild team and he usnt a good coach at all. Lost a few challenges that were so clear i think he just likes thriwibg that flag
Bravo, great post! :D
Lauther had an uncharacteristic bad night, if he was on point they win. Still, Riders have no O line whatsoever, fajardo was running for his life every play. All of a sudden sask making the playoffs is not a given, wouldn?t that be something if they didn?t!!
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 03:20:41 PM
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
they allowed the Elks to move the ball with just over a minute remaining....the Elks are full value for beating them and Castillo has a history of making kicks when it matters....despite his sun-par season this year. The Elks made just enough plays to win and the Riders again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They will be hard pressed to even make a crossover, especially if BC can win a game or two with VA. If Rourke does come back late in the season it will make things very interesting in the West. Calgary looks solid and it will likely be BC they face in the SF....that is assuming we clinch first place in the West.
The Riders, continue to find ways to lose and that has been their Achilles heel most of the season.....not to mention a very weak O-line resulting in CF running for his life!
Football is a game of what ifs and the outcome is affected by so many factors.....bad calls go either way as does luck (the football Gods) at times and isolating one play or missed call as a game breaker isn't always that easy to isolate.
Quote from: dd on September 17, 2022, 04:00:49 PM
Lauther had an uncharacteristic bad night, if he was on point they win. Still, Riders have no O line whatsoever, fajardo was running for his life every play. All of a sudden sask making the playoffs is not a given, wouldn?t that be something if they didn?t!!
LOL. He missed 2 FG's and got 1 single. In theory the Riders could have scored 5 more points then they did as a result.
Castillo missed 1 FG which would have resulted in 3 more points.
If all of those misses were made we'd have Riders scoring 29 points and Elks scoring 29 points. So suggesting the Riders would have won if Lauther was accurate is not true. Game might have gone to OT.
It's not impossible the Riders do miss a crossover. They still have to play the Bombers once more in Winnipeg. Then they have 2 games against the Stamps and 1 against the Ti Cats and Elks again.
That's not an easy schedule for the most part. Fajardo might not survive the season getting sacked as often as he has in 2022.
OTOH I have zero confidence that the Elks can rise to 4th in the west division and win more games than the 3rd place eastern team.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 03:20:41 PM
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
While an argument could be made on this, if you go watch the replay a D-lineman was offside, not terribly but as much as we were on the "close call" so it actually should have been a non-counting play and Edm. 1st and goal.
Fumble given to wrong team:
1. The Riders ended up with it and should have been given the ball.
2. Before or after the whistle means the whistle shouldn't have blown until the ball was recovered, not that the ball should be given to the offence.
3. Other plays where the Riders could have overcome the bad call/losing the ball/TD from a bad call have nothing to do with the call itself.
4. Two games in less than a month, settled by less points that giving the ball to the wrong team netted = a problem for the CFL.
5. Just because the calls helped us and hurt the Riders, doesn't make them good calls.
Sask. did cut down on penalties. While we all like to razz Fajardo, and I am not saying he played anywhere near great. I do feel a bit for the guy, he was sacked 8 or 9 times and was close at least 5 or 6 more times. Edm. did this with mostly 3 and 4 man rushes meaning they were outmanning the receivers. Sask.is in trouble IMO they lack ownership of their losses, they look for excuses instead of looking in the mirror.
Edm. played ok, but the penalties, they really need to clean that up, if they cleaned up the penalties they probably would have manhandled the Riders. Without Lawler yet. IMO Carter needs to move to offence or sit, he is a terrible tackler. The Edm. O-line IMO played pretty darn good, Sask was at times throwing 5-6 at them and they handled it pretty good. Teams are built from the lines, and they might have something along the O-line, there D-line isn't looking terrible. Jones as much of a nit as he is might actually field a good team next year.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 03:20:41 PM
Edmonton got a TD they didn't deserve after fumbling on the play before. Riders should have got the ball which likely would have given them the win.
Not true. Riders recovered the ball. But to the say without that TD Riders win????
What was interesting to me is how poorly Hickson ran when he ran so well against us. Why is the question. Oline is more banged up or less motivated?
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 05:23:37 PM
Fumble given to wrong team:
1. The Riders ended up with it and should have been given the ball.
2. Before or after the whistle means the whistle shouldn't have blown until the ball was recovered, not that the ball should be given to the offence.
3. Other plays where the Riders could have overcome the bad call/losing the ball/TD from a bad call have nothing to do with the call itself.
4. Two games in less than a month, settled by less points that giving the ball to the wrong team netted = a problem for the CFL.
5. Just because the calls helped us and hurt the Riders, doesn't make them good calls.
You're discounting the possibility that an Elk recovered the ball in the pile, then the whistle blew and then a Rider ripped it out of his hands.
That's the issue. There was nothing that proved anything other than there was a fumble. There was no evidence that the Riders recovered it prior to the whistle.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 17, 2022, 06:36:56 PM
You're discounting the possibility that an Elk recovered the ball in the pile, then the whistle blew and then a Rider ripped it out of his hands.
That's the issue. There was nothing that proved anything other than there was a fumble. There was no evidence that the Riders recovered it prior to the whistle.
Official call: (12:48) T. CORNELIUS Run QB Sneak (0 yds), T. CORNELIUS Fumble forced by D. SANKEY, Recovered by T. CORNELIUS at S1 (0 yds), Tackle: D. SANKEY, PLAY REVIEWED (Coach): Call Stands, CHALLENGE: Saskatchewan challenged for a fumble recovery.
I'm not sure how Cornelius recovers a ball that was behind him, but that means you are right & I'm wrong. It was called a recovery by the Elks.
Flame away folks.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 06:54:32 PM
Official call: (12:48) T. CORNELIUS Run QB Sneak (0 yds), T. CORNELIUS Fumble forced by D. SANKEY, Recovered by T. CORNELIUS at S1 (0 yds), Tackle: D. SANKEY, PLAY REVIEWED (Coach): Call Stands, CHALLENGE: Saskatchewan challenged for a fumble recovery.
I'm not sure how Cornelius recovers a ball that was behind him, but that means you are right & I'm wrong. It was called a recovery by the Elks.
Flame away folks.
He didn't recover it. Should have been Rider ball.
Quote from: Pigskin on September 17, 2022, 06:59:55 PM
He didn't recover it. Should have been Rider ball.
That's the way I saw it too, but all we have is the camera views. The Ref was actually looking inside the pile so he has a better view than we do.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 17, 2022, 06:36:56 PM
You're discounting the possibility that an Elk recovered the ball in the pile, then the whistle blew and then a Rider ripped it out of his hands.
That's the issue. There was nothing that proved anything other than there was a fumble. There was no evidence that the Riders recovered it prior to the whistle.
That's the thing, if the players knew the whistle wouldn't blow until possession could be clearly shown, every pile up would devolve into a brawl, with the strongest (or dirtiest) players always winning possession.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 06:54:32 PM
Official call: (12:48) T. CORNELIUS Run QB Sneak (0 yds), T. CORNELIUS Fumble forced by D. SANKEY, Recovered by T. CORNELIUS at S1 (0 yds), Tackle: D. SANKEY, PLAY REVIEWED (Coach): Call Stands, CHALLENGE: Saskatchewan challenged for a fumble recovery.
I'm not sure how Cornelius recovers a ball that was behind him, but that means you are right & I'm wrong. It was called a recovery by the Elks.
Flame away folks.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 17, 2022, 07:04:24 PM
That's the way I saw it too, but all we have is the camera views. The Ref was actually looking inside the pile so he has a better view than we do.
The ball travelled forward between the legs of an ELK. That may or may not have been Cornelius. What happened in the pile may have been more obvious to a ref standing near the pile, moreso than what we saw on TV. He may have seen the hands of an ELK in possession but it could have been an OL as well.
I wouldn't say I'm convinced what happened in the scrum. The refs didn't make a call immediately. Nothing on camera showed anything that could be conclusive.
We can only go by a decision which included a challenge review that didn't award the ball to the Riders. The Rider that ended up with the ball may know than he admits. It's a little like a receiver knowing the ball touched the ground when a catch is ruled.
It's not a matter of me being right or you being wrong. Some plays fall into more of a grey hole than others and we can't see everything a ref might see next to the pile.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 17, 2022, 07:09:34 PM
The ball travelled forward between the legs of an ELK. That may or may not have been Cornelius. What happened in the pile may have been more obvious to a ref standing near the pile, moreso than what we saw on TV. He may have seen the hands of an ELK in possession but it could have been an OL as well.
I wouldn't say I'm convinced what happened in the scrum. The refs didn't make a call immediately. Nothing on camera showed anything that could be conclusive.
We can only go by a decision which included a challenge review that didn't award the ball to the Riders. The Rider that ended up with the ball may know than he admits. It's a little like a receiver knowing the ball touched the ground when a catch is ruled.
It's not a matter of me being right or you being wrong. Some plays fall into more of a grey hole than others and we can't see everything a ref might see next to the pile.
It's quite possible for an official standing right beside the pile not to catch sight of the ball at all if he's looking for it in the wrong area among the chaos of bodies. After 4 seconds, the whistle blows and the referee comes to the conclusion that none of the officials could determine exactly what happened on the play. The home viewing audience probably saw more than they did.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 17, 2022, 07:51:45 PM
It's quite possible for an official standing right beside the pile not to catch sight of the ball at all if he's looking for it in the wrong area among the chaos of bodies. After 4 seconds, the whistle blows and the referee comes to the conclusion that none of the officials could determine exactly what happened on the play. The home viewing audience probably saw more than they did.
I think your right, but that is the first time I can recall seeing that. Is that actually the policy or are you just speculating? They used to just let them battle it out until somebody shows up with it no matter how long it takes and how he got it. The troubling issue for me is they don't or won't explain the call.
That is a problem.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 17, 2022, 08:08:33 PM
I think your right, but that is the first time I can recall seeing that. Is that actually the policy or are you just speculating? They used to just let them battle it out until somebody shows up with it no matter how long it takes and how he got it. The troubling issue for me is they don't or won't explain the call. That is a problem.
Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 18, 2022, 02:40:29 AM
Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.
Agree
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 18, 2022, 02:40:29 AM
Yes and no. They said it was a fumble. If there is no certain recovery by the defence the ball remains with the offence. That seems quite clear.
That is not accurate. They never said it was a fumble.
I was expecting something like:The ruling on the field is a fumble recovered by the offence.
We got something like: SKN is challenging that there was a fumble on the play that they recovered.
I ASSUMED that meant they didn't call it a fumble and recovery in the first place.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 18, 2022, 04:58:06 AM
That is not accurate. They never said it was a fumble.
Yes they did when they announced the result of the challenge. It's not unlike other possible fumbles with no immediate recovery by the defence. It wasn't as clear as whether they also initially determined a fumble live.
That makes it difficult to " recover " a fumble that hasn't been called EXCEPT by challenge. We've covered WHY that wouldn't succeed without definitive proof.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 18, 2022, 03:06:28 PM
I was expecting something like:The ruling on the field is a fumble recovered by the offence.
We got something like: SKN is challenging that there was a fumble on the play that they recovered.
I ASSUMED that meant they didn't call it a fumble and recovery in the first place.
IDK. It was pretty obvious the ball was out. I can't see the refs not seeing that live. What happened in the scrum was a determination of who did what 1st before the whistle and whether the Riders could be shown to have recovered.
Note that it's not unusual for the defence to end up with the ball after the offence already recovered it and was deemed down by contact. That's just an after the fact possession.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 18, 2022, 05:23:55 PM
Yes they did when they announced the result of the challenge. It's not unlike other possible fumbles with no immediate recovery by the defence. It wasn't as clear as whether they also initially determined a fumble live.
That makes it difficult to " recover " a fumble that hasn't been called EXCEPT by challenge. We've covered WHY that wouldn't succeed without definitive proof.
?After review the ruling on the field stands? is what they said. They did not say at any time that it was a fumble.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 18, 2022, 06:33:24 PM
?After review the ruling on the field stands? is what they said. They did not say at any time that it was a fumble.
I'm almost positive I heard them say that but I've now deleted the game from my PVR.
However, the immediate reaction by the defence was we recovered a fumble. The challenge was based on a fumble and a fumble recovery.
That says there was a fumble and somebody recovered it. Everybody watching the game saw a fumble. At best you're just trying to split hairs.
How deep a dive do you need to make?
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 18, 2022, 06:41:19 PM
I'm almost positive I heard them say that but I've now deleted the game from my PVR.
However, the immediate reaction by the defence was we recovered a fumble. The challenge was based on a fumble and a fumble recovery.
That says there was a fumble and somebody recovered it. Everybody watching the game saw a fumble. At best you're just trying to split hairs.
How deep a dive do you need to make?
I didn't.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 18, 2022, 08:02:32 PM
I didn't.
Didn't hear or didn't delete? Either way it's moot based on the challenge, the result and everyone in the country seeing the fumble. But I'm curious what they did say and how they said it if you re-watch.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 18, 2022, 09:35:24 PM
Didn't hear or didn't delete? Either way it's moot based on the challenge, the result and everyone in the country seeing the fumble. But I'm curious what they did say and how they said it if you re-watch.
Head referee prior to the review: "Saskatchewan is challenging that Edmonton fumbled the ball and they recovered. The play will be reviewed."
Head referee after the review: "After review, the ruling on the field stands. It's 3rd down."
Does anybody know why my quotation marks come out as question marks after the post is sent and how it can be fixed?
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 17, 2022, 04:28:21 PM
It's not impossible the Riders do miss a crossover. They still have to play the Bombers once more in Winnipeg. Then they have 2 games against the Stamps and 1 against the Ti Cats and Elks again.
I see SSK winning 0 more games. They are demoralized, beaten down and lack all momentum. They've been fielding basically their best line-up (no more injury excuses) and getting beaten by their hated rivals (us) and now the worst team at home (EDM). If HAM can play 2 more games like they did against us, and especially get a win and spread greater than 17 vs SSK, then there will be no crossover this year. That means SSK is out of the playoffs. Their fan base hasn't realized this yet and will go mental. In a bad way.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 19, 2022, 01:00:33 AM
Does anybody know why my quotation marks come out as question marks after the post is sent and how it can be fixed?
Because you're probably on an Apple device and this forum is too old to use UTF-8 that Apple insists on turning on by default.
You have to use standard ASCII quotes (in iOS you can long-press the apostrophe or quote and select the old style straight up and down quotes). I'm not sure if there's a global way to disable UTF8-by-default in an iOS keyboard, maybe an Apple geek can tell us.
You can fix it by using the "modify" button at the top-right of your post.
I've changed my mind about this play after reading all you guys/gals wrote, and the official ruling. And watching the angles on frame-by-frame. Some things:
1. No oral call was made on the field. That means the field-call was DBC, 3rd down. But, when the ball is out like that, refs owe us an oral call on the field. Normally they would announce this. However, Dickenson The Lesser challenged so fast maybe he interrupted any potential oral call. Kroeker was very flustered and screwing up his thoughts when he announced the challenge.
2. Ball definitely out. I think the refs saw it was out.
3. From the rear view we can see a few things that lead me to believe one of the refs (probably the guy with his head in the pile) saw that Cornelius recovered the ball and was DBC and blew the whistle. He's the only one that knows what went on.
4. The rear view lets us infer a few things:
a) For EDM, only Cornelius could have recovered, because:
b) He was flanked by two OL who both had their backs to him and had no way to know it was fumbled or reach it with their hands.
c) Cornelius knew it was fumbled and would have been doing gymnastics reaching back to recover, he could have seen the ball and reached back, all very doable long-snapper type gymnastics.
d) The ball was sitting on some guys and then had a rapid drop like someone was pulling it down, faster than gravity would accelerate it (speculating).
e) No SSK players yet knew it was out and no SSK hands were around. You can tell when they notice it's out as they get very animated reaching for it but Cornelius was already pulling it down
5. If you consider this sequence now, and watch both the live play with the audible whistle and the rear replay, it all makes sense:
a) Sneak about half a yard
b) Fumble
c) Gymnastics recovery begins by Cornelius
d) SSK players see it's out and get animated but Cornelius has pulled it down
e) Pile ref sees Cornelius has it and he's DBC or not advancing
f) Whistle blows
g) SSK steals it from Cornelius because he's in a weak protection position (can't put his weight on the ball)
When I watched live I thought SSK got ripped off, but now I think the above scenario is more likely. Before I thought the refs missed it was fumbled and just ruled the ol' "not immediately recovered" thing, but that's not what command said. They said fumbled and recovered by Cornelius. It all jives if you understand that the guy in the best position to know and recover the fumble was Cornelius himself.
Sankey might have had a chance on it at first but his head was tilted up and he didn't notice until it was a hair too late.
I think the refs should have a) made an oral call on the field, and b) told Dickerson The Lesser that the above is what happened. They should have told him they saw the fumble and Cornelius recovered. I bet he thought they didn't see anything, like we all did. If he knew what they thought happened happened he likely would keep his challenge. Or he challenges anyway because he's desperate at that point.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 19, 2022, 01:05:57 AM
I see SSK winning 0 more games. They are demoralized, beaten down and lack all momentum. They've been fielding basically their best line-up (no more injury excuses) and getting beaten by their hated rivals (us) and now the worst team at home (EDM). If HAM can play 2 more games like they did against us, and especially get a win and spread greater than 17 vs SSK, then there will be no crossover this year. That means SSK is out of the playoffs. Their fan base hasn't realized this yet and will go mental. In a bad way.
For the Riders to get the crossover they need a better win loss record than the 3rd place Eastern team. Spreads don't come into play.
That Ham/ Rider game is going to a long way to determine who gets 3rd.
Ottawa also has a chance as they have some games in hand. They just need to get on a winning streak.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 19, 2022, 03:16:18 AM
For the Riders to get the crossover they need a better win loss record than the 3rd place Eastern team. Spreads don't come into play.
That Ham/ Rider game is going to a long way to determine who gets 3rd.
Ottawa also has a chance as they have some games in hand. They just need to get on a winning streak.
This could get interesting from here on out.
BC: Has no bye weeks left. They have to play C/O/T/W/E/W
Sask: Have two bye weeks left. They will play play W/H/C/C. Three of 4 away.
Ham: Have 5 games left. They will play M/S/C/O/O.
Montreal: They also have 6 games left. They will play H/E/O/O/T/T.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 19, 2022, 03:16:18 AM
For the Riders to get the crossover they need a better win loss record than the 3rd place Eastern team. Spreads don't come into play.
Oh, didn't know that, thanks! That makes it even worse for SSK!!
Quote from: Pigskin on September 19, 2022, 04:14:34 AM
This could get interesting from here on out.
Sask: Have two bye weeks left. They will play play W/H/C/C. Three of 4 away.
Ham: Have 5 games left. They will play M/S/C/O/O.
I think SSK is doomed then. SSK will win 0 or maybe luck out on one. I think WPG and CGY will be fighting to the end to fend off BC, which means no "free" garbage-season wins for any of the West playoff-bound teams.
HAM should win vs SSK, and 1 or 2 of their divisional games. Just 2 wins and HAM blocks out an all-loss SSK.
The interesting thing is EDM could tie SSK for worst-in-west and 2nd worst-in-league with 2 more wins, which is achievable looking at their upcoming opponents. And if EDM manages 3-1 down the stretch they put SSK into the basement. Now
that would be embarrassing for the supposed #2 best team in the West (based on last year, FA guesses, and Milt Stegall). If that happens it'll be earthquakes in Riderville that will eat up some high-up staff.
If we win 3 of 4 we will lock up #1 in West. We might even do it on 1 or 2 wins, but we won't know until near the end. As long as we beat BC once (more) we should be fine. We might get a final week rest if we win that 1st BC game because we'll have the season series so a tie in wins will be good enough.
If there's ever a year we need the playoff bye, it's this one. And the HAM-SSK game and 1st WPG-BC game should be epic stuff as they may be crucial.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 19, 2022, 01:33:52 AM
I've changed my mind about this play after reading all you guys/gals wrote, and the official ruling. And watching the angles on frame-by-frame. Some things:
1. No oral call was made on the field. That means the field-call was DBC, 3rd down. But, when the ball is out like that, refs owe us an oral call on the field. Normally they would announce this. However, Dickenson The Lesser challenged so fast maybe he interrupted any potential oral call. Kroeker was very flustered and screwing up his thoughts when he announced the challenge.
2. Ball definitely out. I think the refs saw it was out.
3. From the rear view we can see a few things that lead me to believe one of the refs (probably the guy with his head in the pile) saw that Cornelius recovered the ball and was DBC and blew the whistle. He's the only one that knows what went on.
4. The rear view lets us infer a few things:
a) For EDM, only Cornelius could have recovered, because:
b) He was flanked by two OL who both had their backs to him and had no way to know it was fumbled or reach it with their hands.
c) Cornelius knew it was fumbled and would have been doing gymnastics reaching back to recover, he could have seen the ball and reached back, all very doable long-snapper type gymnastics.
d) The ball was sitting on some guys and then had a rapid drop like someone was pulling it down, faster than gravity would accelerate it (speculating).
e) No SSK players yet knew it was out and no SSK hands were around. You can tell when they notice it's out as they get very animated reaching for it but Cornelius was already pulling it down
5. If you consider this sequence now, and watch both the live play with the audible whistle and the rear replay, it all makes sense:
a) Sneak about half a yard
b) Fumble
c) Gymnastics recovery begins by Cornelius
d) SSK players see it's out and get animated but Cornelius has pulled it down
e) Pile ref sees Cornelius has it and he's DBC or not advancing
f) Whistle blows
g) SSK steals it from Cornelius because he's in a weak protection position (can't put his weight on the ball)
When I watched live I thought SSK got ripped off, but now I think the above scenario is more likely. Before I thought the refs missed it was fumbled and just ruled the ol' "not immediately recovered" thing, but that's not what command said. They said fumbled and recovered by Cornelius. It all jives if you understand that the guy in the best position to know and recover the fumble was Cornelius himself.
Sankey might have had a chance on it at first but his head was tilted up and he didn't notice until it was a hair too late.
I think the refs should have a) made an oral call on the field, and b) told Dickerson The Lesser that the above is what happened. They should have told him they saw the fumble and Cornelius recovered. I bet he thought they didn't see anything, like we all did. If he knew what they thought happened happened he likely would keep his challenge. Or he challenges anyway because he's desperate at that point.
A lot of words but very good detailed analysis. thanks for doing it.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 19, 2022, 03:16:18 AM
For the Riders to get the crossover they need a better win loss record than the 3rd place Eastern team. Spreads don't come into play.
That Ham/ Rider game is going to a long way to determine who gets 3rd.
Ottawa also has a chance as they have some games in hand. They just need to get on a winning streak.
Correcto Mundo. Potential cross over team has to have more points than the 3rd place in the other division. A tie in points is meaningless. No tie breaker procedures involved
Some interesting factoids: no eastern team has ever crossed over to the west. Also no cross over team has ever made it To the grey cup. Eastern final at best a few times