Official Game Day Thread - Winnipeg at BC October 15, 2022

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You can bet that ST are going to get an earful this next two weeks, and there will be a lot of work done on them.

Leggs was short on a couple at the edge of his range (52, 53), and missed by a hair on the other(45).  No real concerning misses, BC place is notorious for "dead air". He managed to out kick/punt BC by over 5 yards average.

Coverage and return teams.. have to wonder if playing backups meant ST were stretched a iittle, with new players added as well.   Returning to starters and some film room will fix lot of this.

Dru getting picks out of the way in a nothing game is good, learning moments, film to study. 3td/2int is still positive, 325 yards was more than twice VA3's output.

I also do not get the illegal kickoff ruling.  That kick was dying in the perfect spot.  The returner was not forced out to retrieve the kick, he voluntarily placed his foot out of bounds (which then makes him ineligible to participate further) and then fielded the ball which was still in the field of play.  That was a huge reversal, should have been half the distance for illegal participation.

A couple bad breaks from decisively winning a nothing game, away, starting backups.

No "moral victory", but definitely a lot of film room material and learning material should we meet BC in the WF.

I think one of the problems with kick coverage last night was a lot of those 2nd string players were also starting or rotating in on O and D, so they didn't have their usual pent up energy they bring to the coverage teams and were probably exhausted by the end of the game.  They were also mostly the same players blocking for Grant which they did a good job on his returns.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

I think one of the problems with kick coverage last night was a lot of those 2nd string players were also starting or rotating in on O and D, so they didn't have their usual pent up energy they bring to the coverage teams and were probably exhausted by the end of the game.  They were also mostly the same players blocking for Grant which they did a good job on his returns.

A CFL record for returns was made last night...so that tells you something.   JG also looked more like the JG we have come to love.   He broke Keith Stokes record of most TD returns as well.   Our cover team has had issues this season..not just in this game....we are missing some key special teams guys due to injuries and it costs us valuable field position especially when Grant was MIA and not at 100%.   

[Horseman]

How does that make it an illegal K/O? The returner stepping out before touching the ball doesn't dictate where the ball is before that happens. Unless it bounced out and then in but that wasn't shown on TV?

In any case why weren't we trying an onside K/O?

I agree, the rule needs to be refined to specify the BALL has to go out of bounds NOT the returner to be an illegal kick.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I agree, the rule needs to be refined to specify the BALL has to go out of bounds NOT the returner to be an illegal kick.

TSN's coverage of that punt was atrocious, solely isolated on Kramdi running downfield, so I have no idea what actually happened.

[Blue72]

Williams liked running along the sidelines on a lot of his returns, but we never had anyone there to stop him. Was it our guys got blocked out or were they not in their positions

[jdrattops]

I agree, the rule needs to be refined to specify the BALL has to go out of bounds NOT the returner to be an illegal kick.

The call on the field made absolutely no sense on that play.  If anything, illegal participation should have been called on Williams as he stepped out of bounds on his own and then was the first to touch the ball.  Time to dig into the rulebook and see if the correct call was actually made on the field.

[Pigskin]

I agree, the rule needs to be refined to specify the BALL has to go out of bounds NOT the returner to be an illegal kick.

Very weird play.

[Blue In BC]

The call on the field made absolutely no sense on that play.  If anything, illegal participation should have been called on Williams as he stepped out of bounds on his own and then was the first to touch the ball.  Time to dig into the rulebook and see if the correct call was actually made on the field.

Very confusing and I wonder if we get an explanation from the league and or a change in the rules book.

I understand that a ball is out of bounds if the player doesn't have a foot land in bounds even if the location of the ball is in bounds. We see that from a receiver with the ball but no foot touching in the field of play.

That's not what happened. Williams put one foot out of bounds and that should have been illegal participation.

Now if he raised his left foot, touched his right foot and the ball exactly at the same time, then that COULD be a loophole. In that sense he isn't participating illegally and the ball becomes out of bounds.

It didn't impact the result of the game but something is wrong with the rule or the call, or both.

Bigger question is why did we kick deep instead of a short kick off? It was our only hope of getting ball again.

[Tiger]

What's wrong with our kick coverage teams?

Well I can make suggestions as to what the issue is.  That said when your kicker makes two tackles in this game and once to previous two games, then you seta cfl record for returns against you there is a problem.

What's wrong with our run defence?

The middle of the D line and LB?s are not stopping the run straight up the middle.  In cold weather Calgary and BC will present challenges. I would pound the run against the bombers until it opened other opportunities.  This is a weakness we have had all season. I think partly the issue has been at LB with so many injuries, Biggie trying to do everything to cover for injuries and it would seem Biggie is nursing an injury.

[Blue In BC]

Well I can make suggestions as to what the issue is.  That said when your kicker makes two tackles in this game and once to previous two games, then you seta cfl record for returns against you there is a problem.



The middle of the D line and LB?s are not stopping the run straight up the middle.  In cold weather Calgary and BC will present challenges. I would pound the run against the bombers until it opened other opportunities.  This is a weakness we have had all season. I think partly the issue has been at LB with so many injuries, Biggie trying to do everything to cover for injuries and it would seem Biggie is nursing an injury.

It's a passing league. If you hold an opposing QB to 140 yards passing you should win. Losing was not good but it was not due to the run defence. Field position resulting from poor coverage and missed scoring opportunities due to missed FG's did, along with 2 pic 6's.

Now I agree our run defence was horrible mostly in the 1st half when Darby, Clements and Bighill were playing. Lions had the ball less ( we won TOP by 9 1/2 minutes ) and our defence rotated in everybody except Buzz or Boomer.

The past several weeks we've been without Jeffcoat and Jefferson has been hobbled.

[theaardvark]

Very confusing and I wonder if we get an explanation from the league and or a change in the rules book.

I understand that a ball is out of bounds if the player doesn't have a foot land in bounds even if the location of the ball is in bounds. We see that from a receiver with the ball but no foot touching in the field of play.

That's not what happened. Williams put one foot out of bounds and that should have been illegal participation.

Now if he raised his left foot, touched his right foot and the ball exactly at the same time, then that COULD be a loophole. In that sense he isn't participating illegally and the ball becomes out of bounds.

It didn't impact the result of the game but something is wrong with the rule or the call, or both.

Bigger question is why did we kick deep instead of a short kick off? It was our only hope of getting ball again.

Did we get the ball back?  Pretty sure we did, and had that kick been 2 feet further from the sidelines, we get it in range for a TD shot...

[Stats Junkie]

There must be something else in the rule book based on the ruling on the field but under Illegal Participation:

It is illegal for a player of either team to go out of bounds, without contact with an opponent, and to reach back into or re-enter the field of play to touch or recover a loose ball.
PENALTY: LB PF

LB = loss of ball
PF = point of foul

Translation = Winnipeg ball at B11


RE: special teams coverage

I attended a practice leading up to the Edmonton game and there was a good portion of the practice allocated to special teams.

I'm half joking when I say this, but perhaps the problem is that Ali Mourtada does the kicking for the special teams coverage. He is a serious downgrade from Liegghio.

[dd]

Very confusing and I wonder if we get an explanation from the league and or a change in the rules book.

I understand that a ball is out of bounds if the player doesn't have a foot land in bounds even if the location of the ball is in bounds. We see that from a receiver with the ball but no foot touching in the field of play.

That's not what happened. Williams put one foot out of bounds and that should have been illegal participation.

Now if he raised his left foot, touched his right foot and the ball exactly at the same time, then that COULD be a loophole. In that sense he isn't participating illegally and the ball becomes out of bounds.

It didn't impact the result of the game but something is wrong with the rule or the call, or both.

Bigger question is why did we kick deep instead of a short kick off? It was our only hope of getting ball again.

I agree with your interpretation. Williams placing his foot out of bounds makes HIM out of bounds not the ball, and him touching it was illegal participation yet they called the ball being out of bounds which makes no sense. Bombers got hosed on that play

[TBURGESS]

I was wondering about that too.

My guess without looking into the rule book is that the player had one foot out and therefore was out of bounds when he touched it, making the ball outta bounds. He didn't reach back or re-enter the field.

Pretty weird call tho.

[TecnoGenius]

I looked quite a few places (and searches) in the rulebook and can find nothing at all that would indicate there is some sort of loophole about a OOB player making a KO OOB.

Someone said there are NFL rules about this.  Maybe the ref who the player pointed to to try to influence is one of the ref-swapping NFL-ites.

There really is no other explanation.

The reason such a rule would make no sense is because then you could have a 6' player who sees a ball 6' from the rail put his toe OOB and fall down in-bounds and touch the ball 6' in-bounds (while toe is still OOB).  Are you telling me that would be an illegal kickoff?  Same situation as this one.  Ridiculous.

What shocks me more than officials being insane is that MOS missed chirping and challenging this??  That's not like our MOS.

The only explanation is that the ball bounced OOB and bounced back in when the camera picked it up.  For some reason on that kick all we got was the iso on #17 like we really cared what he was doing.  And then no replay on a call that cost us 50 yards field position??

FORUM MEMBERS NEED ANSWERS!