Elks at Riders GDT

[The Zipp]

Man, you're too much sometimes.

If Chris Jones won out, he'd win coach of the year.

And deserve it with that sorry team..

[bwiser]

 The veteran leadership of the Elks also has to come into question. The veterans on special teams should be assisting and as mentioned earlier the special teams coach should have never assumed that a rookie is paying attention during film sessions.

[theaardvark]

Man, you're too much sometimes.

If Chris Jones won out, he'd win coach of the year.

You know Jones has a less than 0% chance of winning out the year... I was obviously being sarcastic about that.  

I'm not sure what kind of turn around he will have to make to get his next one year deal OK'd, but it would have to be something spectacular.  I just don't see him doing it.  He doesn't have the SMS$ to recruit a USFL/NFL QB, and he's not winning with Corneilius or Doege.  Not sure if he will give Ford a try, after all, he's Canadian.  

The team is in such disarray, the coaching, the penalties, the play calling...  its just a mess.  0-5, SSK, shut out by BC, TOR, OTT and SSK... the two quality teams they've played they were not even in the game.  3 of the next 4 games are at home,  HAM, Here, BC and WPG.  Can tehy beat Hamilton and end the losing streak at home?  Maybe... but the other 3 games against us and BC, there is a distinct chance Jones goes 0-9.  Best case, he goes 1-8.

[TecnoGenius]

Command center reviewed it..if you believe suitor - you can step over the line as long as a piece of you is behind the line you are ok.  It looked over to me but I will trust command center.

(... revised with updated info below ...)

The main thing I've found is the command center is very unlikely to turn a ruling of legal into illegal as it's very hard to prove as there usually isn't a direct down-the-line view.

[bomb squad]

This.  I was wrong in-game: the first real big example of the new rule was Cody vs us a couple years back where he was even more over the line than Corny in this game, and MOS challenged and it stood as a legal pass.  Even if just the tip of your big toe is behind the LoS when the ball leaves your hand, it's a legal pass.

The LoS was the 30, not the 29 as told by the booth.  The shadow shows his toes were likely behind the 30, thus it's a legal pass.

The main thing I've found is the command center is very unlikely to turn a ruling of legal into illegal as it's very hard to prove as there usually isn't a direct down-the-line view.

If anyone still doesn't believe, I can get a screenshot.

Just rewatched the play. The back tip of the ball was just touching the 29. So one ball length ahead of the the 29 was the LOS. When he released the ball, his back foot was very close (like within an inch or two tops behind) to the 30. It's not that hard to see on replay. That's a difference of about 2 feet. That's too much error to give to the call on the field IMO. A miss by the CC.

[bomb squad]

This.  I was wrong in-game: the first real big example of the new rule was Cody vs us a couple years back where he was even more over the line than Corny in this game, and MOS challenged and it stood as a legal pass.  Even if just the tip of your big toe is behind the LoS when the ball leaves your hand, it's a legal pass.

The LoS was the 30, not the 29 as told by the booth.  The shadow shows his toes were likely behind the 30, thus it's a legal pass.

The main thing I've found is the command center is very unlikely to turn a ruling of legal into illegal as it's very hard to prove as there usually isn't a direct down-the-line view.

If anyone still doesn't believe, I can get a screenshot.

Could you get two? One of the position of the ball on the field at the LOS, and the other at the release of the pass.

[TecnoGenius]

Just rewatched the play. The back tip of the ball was just touching the 29. So one ball length ahead of the the 29 was the LOS. When he released the ball, his back foot was very close (like within an inch or two tops behind) to the 30. It's not that hard to see on replay. That's a difference of about 2 feet. That's too much error to give to the call on the field IMO. A miss by the CC.

You made me go back and look.  I forgot it was 2nd down after a run play, for some reason I thought it was an incompletion on 1st down.  The run was for a loss, so 2 of the 3 sticks are not helpful here.

Ok, so the LoS was a bit back from the 30.  In fact, the live view at the snap gives us a great look with the line judge's foot, down marker, and blue line all showing at the correct location.  It is about a foot back from the 30.  I don't know why it looks like the ball is snapped closer to the 29, because the judge foot and down marker are the definitive LoS.  The blue line is notoriously wrong, and it moves as the camera pans, so don't read too much into the blue line.

I still maintain the back foot is (inches) behind the 30 when the ball is released.  But you guys are right, it is well forward of the 1-foot-behind-the-30 LoS.

So it should be IFP.

However, as I said before, command has shown they will not overturn these close IFP calls.  They didn't do it for MoS (was that the '19 WSF? or LDC?).  They aren't doing it for the Greenies here.  It's a dumb rule, and dumb rulings, but since they are consistent I'm ok with it.  Just so long as they stay that way.

[TecnoGenius]

Could you get two? One of the position of the ball on the field at the LOS, and the other at the release of the pass.

See my new take on it.  If we still want screenshots, I can do it, but it might not be required now.  My take is that the foot is 1-3" behind the 30.  That's not good enough for it to be legal if the LoS was 1 foot more more back from the 30.  But the views/angles shown suck for anything completely definitive.

Riderfans forum was going apoplectic when they let that stand.  Imagine if they had lost the game because of it!!

My big beef is still the fact they never stated what the call on the field was, even though there was a flag!!  Then they "upheld" what they never said the call was.  I'm ok with them letting this be a legal pass, I just wish they'd follow strict protocol on the order and announcements of flags/calls/reviews.

[bomb squad]

I'm with Goldie.  If they are picking only some games to show in the USA, it's unfortunate this is one of them.  We're trying to showcase the best of our league and hook some new fans.

The game got fun at the end, but how many casual USA fans stayed that long?  Most tuned out by the 4th I bet.  It was a horrifically awful game, even worse than the CGY 6-3 at the half game the other week.

But maybe the few that stayed watching got revved up by the ending.  That's classic CFL right there.  Some noob IMP screwing up the rouge, then is-he-over-the-LoS suspense and a great INT.  A great, classic CFL ending.

And everyone in Riderville gets to go mental.  The ones still awake, that is.

I don't disagree. I get it now and I got if before. My point was a bit different, but I could have said it in a nicer way. Sorry if I offended anybody. That's all I'm going to say on it.

[bomb squad]

You made me go back and look.  I forgot it was 2nd down after a run play, for some reason I thought it was an incompletion on 1st down.  The run was for a loss, so 2 of the 3 sticks are not helpful here.

Ok, so the LoS was a bit back from the 30.  In fact, the live view at the snap gives us a great look with the line judge's foot, down marker, and blue line all showing at the correct location.  It is about a foot back from the 30.  I don't know why it looks like the ball is snapped closer to the 29, because the judge foot and down marker are the definitive LoS.  The blue line is notoriously wrong, and it moves as the camera pans, so don't read too much into the blue line.

I still maintain the back foot is (inches) behind the 30 when the ball is released.  But you guys are right, it is well forward of the 1-foot-behind-the-30 LoS.

The line judge's foot position is irrelevant at that point, but it does look like the down marker is about a foot behind the thirty. In fact, it looks like the front of the ball is about a foot behind the down marker. It shouldn't be that much in practice, but it was. Anyways, the down marker should govern in the review, so yes I now agree the CC got it right after all. Good discussion.

So it should be IFP.

However, as I said before, command has shown they will not overturn these close IFP calls.  They didn't do it for MoS (was that the '19 WSF? or LDC?).  They aren't doing it for the Greenies here.  It's a dumb rule, and dumb rulings, but since they are consistent I'm ok with it.  Just so long as they stay that way.

The line judge's foot position is irrelevant at that point, but it does look like the down marker is about a foot behind the thirty. In fact, it looks like the front of the ball is about a foot behind the down marker. It shouldn't be that much in practice, but it was. Anyways, the down marker should govern in the review, so yes I now agree the CC got it right after all. Good discussion.

[TecnoGenius]

The line judge's foot position is irrelevant at that point, but it does look like the down marker is about a foot behind the thirty. In fact, it looks like the front of the ball is about a foot behind the down marker. It shouldn't be that much in practice, but it was. Anyways, the down marker should govern in the review, so yes I now agree the CC got it right after all. Good discussion.

Not sure on the foot irrelevancy.  The LoS foot should be pretty much right on the LoS.  The other foot is supposed to mark the D's line 1 yard down.  Of course this depends on the leg-span of that particular ref.     I find the line-marker foot is usually pretty spot on with the stick.  I think it is in this case.

Yes, I think the "definitive" marker, when needed, is the down stick (? input?).  But I bet the players use the feet as an indicator too.

And yes, the ball really appears to be snapped from a foot back.  Even funnier, because the C's usually prop the ball a couple inches forward, not back!  I wonder if the officials just botched the whole down in terms of ball and line placement in general.  Too bad EDM didn't win, as then we could look to the Riders forum for a 10 page dissection of the issue.    Since they won they just got drunk and forgot all about it 

One last confounding factor: the line judge marking the LoS starts running down the field a second before Corny throws because he thinks (like everyone else) it's now a running QB.  Thus he's no longer bothering to judge the "is he over the LoS for the pass?" question, which is one of his important jobs!!  Maybe he made a reffing mistake by leaving his position on the line before the QB was definitively over the LoS.  Maybe he shouldn't anticipate the run like he did.  After all, once he vacates, he can no longer properly judge if it's IFP or not.

[theaardvark]

The key to all of this is trailing foot/hand and conclusive enough to overturn.

I don't know what angles they had for review, but I do not understand why they don't have a "blue line camera" like in the NHL that shoots along the LOS.  Could be mounted on the LOS marker.  One on each side.  If one has to move because players are approaching, the other is still there.  Or, better, have spidercam wires on either side and roll the cameras up and down the field covering the LOS, and maybe the goal lines.  Above the players so hey won't be obstructed.

Horrible that the on field ref did not make a call, but the eye in the sky reviewed, and could not justify making the call retroactively from the evidence. 

It is good that the game eventually ended with that play not factoring in, but had the Esks won and the Riders missed the playoffs by a point... would have been quite the to do...

[bomb squad]

Not sure on the foot irrelevancy.  The LoS foot should be pretty much right on the LoS.  The other foot is supposed to mark the D's line 1 yard down.  Of course this depends on the leg-span of that particular ref.     I find the line-marker foot is usually pretty spot on with the stick.  I think it is in this case.

Yes, I think the "definitive" marker, when needed, is the down stick (? input?).  But I bet the players use the feet as an indicator too.

And yes, the ball really appears to be snapped from a foot back.  Even funnier, because the C's usually prop the ball a couple inches forward, not back!  I wonder if the officials just botched the whole down in terms of ball and line placement in general.  Too bad EDM didn't win, as then we could look to the Riders forum for a 10 page dissection of the issue.    Since they won they just got drunk and forgot all about it 

One last confounding factor: the line judge marking the LoS starts running down the field a second before Corny throws because he thinks (like everyone else) it's now a running QB.  Thus he's no longer bothering to judge the "is he over the LoS for the pass?" question, which is one of his important jobs!!  Maybe he made a reffing mistake by leaving his position on the line before the QB was definitively over the LoS.  Maybe he shouldn't anticipate the run like he did.  After all, once he vacates, he can no longer properly judge if it's IFP or not.

Well, they actually do have a 10 page discussion on it! And they've got a "definitive proof" screenshot that's so distorted it looks like the 30 yard line marker is 4" inches above his front foot. I hear you on the foot, it's just not anything official is my point. Yes, it is strange the linesperson on that side would take off early like that.

[dd]

Its strange indeed the linesman leaves the line on a passing play with a 7 man crew. They have 3 officials downfield to cover pass interference, the 2 linesmen are supposed to stay on the line and call IFP, which is tough to do if you leave your post. Brutal mechanics by the line officials and they blew that call only to be followed up by CC blowing the call!!

[GOLDMEMBER]

And deserve it with that sorry team..

yes absolutely indeed!