Riders at Lions

[CrazyCanuck89]

How could you guys have let Patrice Rene go?

[TecnoGenius]

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.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

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.

[gobombersgo]

How could you guys have let Patrice Rene go?

He was an injury concern and DB is a position group the Bombers were deep at.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

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.

[TBURGESS]

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.

The Refs were CERTAIN when they made the calls. Hindsight shows they were wrong. That's what a mistake is. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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.

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.

[Blue In BC]

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.

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.

[TecnoGenius]

The 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.

[J5V]

... 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.

[dd]

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.

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

[TecnoGenius]

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

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.

[TBURGESS]

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.

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. 

[Stats Junkie]

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.

[TecnoGenius]

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.

(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.