Riders at Als GDT

[Horseman]

There is no bias for refs for the Riders end of

Tin foil on sale?

Techno put some in the mail?

WHAT??

[bomb squad]

once again the mystery command center steps in... when a coach doesn't have a challenge...seems arbitrary

Interesting point. I assume you're referring to the 4th qtr Anderson fumble forward and then recovered by Montreal to give them 3rd and short. They are supposed to step in when there is an egregious incorrect judgement call by the on-field officials. The on-field officials called that an incomplete pass. It was clearly a fumble, not a pass. That's why the command center stepped in. To your point though, yes it is arbitrary. And it is also controversial.

What the on-field officials did do correctly on this play however, is to not blow the whistle and let the play play out as if it was a fumble.

It was a critical call and play in the game. I can imagine many roughrider fans are not at all happy with the way it went down.

[TecnoGenius]

why do they even have that rule? NO end?

Because otherwise you could have 2 extra guys on the waggle, causing an unfair advantage for the O.  Heck, if there were no formation rules you could put 10 receivers all behind the LoS on the waggle with no OL (except a C to snap)!

Also, even without the waggle, the formation/end requirements are part of the history of football and have been there forever, in all leagues.

It's an obvious rule, always been that way, everyone knows it, and only Os making dumb brain toots will screw it up.  That said, there have been a bunch of IPNE calls this season!  Which is a bit odd.  It really boils down coaching... this is a failure of coaching and discipline.

[TecnoGenius]

I'd like to see that penalty replay.

The IC to save the final SSK drive was the ol' R runs straight into a DB trying to undercut another route.  We see that from time to time: I call it a "mugging" by a R, because the R is purposely looking to ram into a DB in order to draw the IC flag and save the series.

Marcus Sayles, when he was here, used to get hosed by those muggings all the time.  I think it's an inherently unfair call as DBs should be entitled to "their ground".  But oh well.

The ironic part is, if the QB throws to a R near the mugging (but not the mugger) then the D can challenge/argue that the mugging was a pick/rub!  Funny how it the ball is nowhere near them, it's a IC on D, and if the ball goes near there it's a IB on O, and if the ball goes to the mugger, it's DPI on D!  It's one of the most frustrating calls in football.

(Rogers and Rhymes were/are also quite good at mugging.)

[TecnoGenius]

Stupid end zone

The stupidest.  Lamest carve-out (both rule and field boundary!) in football history.  Can't they just lay out some extra turf on the track?  Maybe one day MTL will get a "real" stadium, not some poncy U sports hand-me-down (and not some roof-structure-challenged behemoth either).

[TecnoGenius]

hickson One hundred yards first half... montreal absolutely flat.

so sask stops running.

Ya, and for the final SSK drive, once they got across C field, MTL started lining up 7+ D on the LoS.  They didn't always bring all 7, but often they did.  Just a spread out line of D, with the DBs far back in man coverage.

If I'm SSK, on that drive, I'm having 2-3 hoggies make a gaping hole for an immediate handoff to Hickson.  If the hoggies can get any sort of seal (which they should, they've been good most of the season), Hickson basically runs for 10-20 every snap.  Noel was able to do that alignment because SSK just abandoned the run.  There was still plenty of time and a Hickson run for 7-20 each time is better than a quick hot slant for 7 with a ton of incompletions!!  Each run by Hickson would have a ~30% chance of going to the house as the Rs could turn into blockers, and Hickson was killing it in space.

You can't ask that new(ish) SSK QB to pass every down in that kind of pressure situation, with incessant pass rush and the OTs failing on every snap.

And to think... Noel Thorpe was couch-sitting for how many years before MTL picked him up off the scrap heap of has-beens??  The dude is out-Halling Hall.  He's a genius.

[TecnoGenius]

Why is there no replay on the piston play?? Brutal coverage TSN

Nope, but I checked on the comp-PVR and Picton did go out on his own (no one around) and came back to the ball.  He had his eyes on QB the whole time and had no idea where he was on field.  Bad awareness may have cost SSK the game.  Which is funny, because Picton has been there 5 years and should know better.

But I learned something today: IPart is normally loss-of-10, which is what I was expecting, but it does indeed have an option for team B to make it incomplete -- meaning it indeed is a 3rd down turnover.  Not sure I've ever seen that.  Cool!  Clearly Mace needed a refresher too based on his look/face...   

[TecnoGenius]

once again the mystery command center steps in... when a coach doesn't have a challenge...seems arbitrary

Because fumble potential change of possession

"Potential change of possession" is not something EITS can auto-review, except in the last 3 mins.  And this was not in the last 3 mins.

I believe command center may have screwed this up and it directly helped MTL go up by 4 (a TD's worth)... but see article 6a.

I just checked Rule 10 - Replay - Section 2

Article 1 confuses me a bit: is it a preamble to the other Articles which specify exactly what is auto-reviewable and what is not?  I'll assume Article 1 does not mean "everything is reviewable" but instead outlines the general idea to which the subsequent articles apply.  If I'm wrong then command can basically auto-review anything at all at any time as long as they see the issue without having to pause the game.

Article 2 - Automatic Review Triggers (Potential for game to be paused) is very limiting, and only applies to: scores, potential scores, and RULED fumbles (doesn't apply here).

Article 3 - Doesn't apply, it's just: spots, 20 clock, penalties.  Cannot pause the game, so doesn't apply here (they paused the game).

Article 4 - Penalties only.  Doesn't apply here.

Article 5 - Only applies to final 3 mins.  (The fumble thing happened 4Q9:14.)

Strange, there are 2 Article 6's, I'll call them 6a and 6b.

Article 6a - Officials Assistance: this one could apply.  If "two officials have differing rulings on a play" they can ask for help.  They enumerate specific situations, which do not including "fumble or forward pass", but they are listed as examples so a fumble could apply.

BUT, Valesi makes a call on the field we can all hear: incomplete pass.  If there was 2-ref dispute, shouldn't there be no call on the field?  Or are they allowed to differ in opinion AND make a field call?

So this article may be what was used to allow this review, though I don't like how we have no idea this is indeed the case, and also that a "rogue" ref could be adamant he saw things differently and force Article 6a whenever he wants!  This article allows for a delay equal to or less than the refs arguing on the field would cause!  And that's about how long command took here, so the delay aspect is ok.

Article 6b - Integrity of the game step-in: can "correct an egregiously wrong judgment".  This could also be indicated here, however this article explicitly says "immediate decision" and "the game is not paused".  So this article doesn't apply here, and if it does, command broke the rules because they paused the game.

Articles 7 & 8 don't apply.

I must be correct about Article 1, otherwise every other article is superfluous.  So Article 6a is the only other option, unless command screwed up here.  But article 6a requires 2 refs to be in disagreement and the ref group to ask for help.  Did that happen?  If so, why the call on the field?

To make this more transparent for fans, I think that if 6a is invoked, and the refs make a call on the field, they say: "the ruling is X, but officials are in disagreement and have asked for command review".  Or just "the ruling is X but we have asked for command review".

[Stats Junkie]

Nope, but I checked on the comp-PVR and Picton did go out on his own (no one around) and came back to the ball.  He had his eyes on QB the whole time and had no idea where he was on field.  Bad awareness may have cost SSK the game.  Which is funny, because Picton has been there 5 years and should know better.

But I learned something today: IPart is normally loss-of-10, which is what I was expecting, but it does indeed have an option for team B to make it incomplete -- meaning it indeed is a 3rd down turnover.  Not sure I've ever seen that.  Cool!  Clearly Mace needed a refresher too based on his look/face...   

Last time it was applied was August 4, 2022. Rasheed Bailey was penalized for Illegal Participation on a 12 yard reception on a 1st and 15 play. Montreal chose to make it 2nd and 15 rather than 1st and 25.

[Blueforlife]

WHAT??

Just poking fun at some that think the refs are bias aka pro rider

Foil helps with the signals lol

[bomb squad]

"Potential change of possession" is not something EITS can auto-review, except in the last 3 mins.  And this was not in the last 3 mins.

I believe command center may have screwed this up and it directly helped MTL go up by 4 (a TD's worth)... but see article 6a.

I just checked Rule 10 - Replay - Section 2

Article 1 confuses me a bit: is it a preamble to the other Articles which specify exactly what is auto-reviewable and what is not?  I'll assume Article 1 does not mean "everything is reviewable" but instead outlines the general idea to which the subsequent articles apply.  If I'm wrong then command can basically auto-review anything at all at any time as long as they see the issue without having to pause the game.

Article 2 - Automatic Review Triggers (Potential for game to be paused) is very limiting, and only applies to: scores, potential scores, and RULED fumbles (doesn't apply here).

Article 3 - Doesn't apply, it's just: spots, 20 clock, penalties.  Cannot pause the game, so doesn't apply here (they paused the game).

Article 4 - Penalties only.  Doesn't apply here.

Article 5 - Only applies to final 3 mins.  (The fumble thing happened 4Q9:14.)

Strange, there are 2 Article 6's, I'll call them 6a and 6b.

Article 6a - Officials Assistance: this one could apply.  If "two officials have differing rulings on a play" they can ask for help.  They enumerate specific situations, which do not including "fumble or forward pass", but they are listed as examples so a fumble could apply.

BUT, Valesi makes a call on the field we can all hear: incomplete pass.  If there was 2-ref dispute, shouldn't there be no call on the field?  Or are they allowed to differ in opinion AND make a field call?

So this article may be what was used to allow this review, though I don't like how we have no idea this is indeed the case, and also that a "rogue" ref could be adamant he saw things differently and force Article 6a whenever he wants!  This article allows for a delay equal to or less than the refs arguing on the field would cause!  And that's about how long command took here, so the delay aspect is ok.

Article 6b - Integrity of the game step-in: can "correct an egregiously wrong judgment".  This could also be indicated here, however this article explicitly says "immediate decision" and "the game is not paused".  So this article doesn't apply here, and if it does, command broke the rules because they paused the game.

Articles 7 & 8 don't apply.

I must be correct about Article 1, otherwise every other article is superfluous.  So Article 6a is the only other option, unless command screwed up here.  But article 6a requires 2 refs to be in disagreement and the ref group to ask for help.  Did that happen?  If so, why the call on the field?

To make this more transparent for fans, I think that if 6a is invoked, and the refs make a call on the field, they say: "the ruling is X, but officials are in disagreement and have asked for command review".  Or just "the ruling is X but we have asked for command review".

Valesi told us it was a command center step-in. As for the pause issue, Valesi did not pause the game for a replay review. It was only the TV announcers that said so. Sure, technically there was a short delay, like a calldown for a respot usually is, but it was not a pause of the game.

[theaardvark]

The stupidest.  Lamest carve-out (both rule and field boundary!) in football history.  Can't they just lay out some extra turf on the track?  Maybe one day MTL will get a "real" stadium, not some poncy U sports hand-me-down (and not some roof-structure-challenged behemoth either).

They should just make the field 5 yards shorter and make the EZ full...

lol

The Argos have the hybrid grass w/turf endzones, the two largest markets have the two most embarrassing stadiums.

The Olympic Stadium in MTL is still working, no?  And the Blue Jays aren't really using the Skydome anymore...  just saying

[Lincoln Locomotive]

Great game by the two best teams in their respective divisions.  Low scoring as both Ds are dominant.  Great comeback by the Als lead by Alexander who was amazing in relief of Evans.  That first play where he escaped the rush and made a completion to Philpot set the tone.  Als were fortunate but give them credit for clawing out a win.  Two FG crossbars for the Riders was the difference in this one plus the stellar play of Alexander! 

[jayrock]

Great game by the two best teams in their respective divisions.  Low scoring as both Ds are dominant.  Great comeback by the Als lead by Alexander who was amazing in relief of Evans.  That first play where he escaped the rush and made a completion to Philpot set the tone.  Als were fortunate but give them credit for clawing out a win.  Two FG crossbars for the Riders was the difference in this one plus the stellar play of Alexander! 

I agree, this was a great game to watch. As a Riders fan, it was and is frustrating to see them miss 2 more field goals. Those 6 points...well you see where I am going with this. Kicking needs to get better.
It is amazing how I see it happen all the time in the CFL, rookie QB comes in, lights it up, and a smart strong defense has nothing to stop him. Then the next time the kid plays he looks just OK or not good at all.
This has been a great season with lots of close games, and it being any teams game to win.
Not going to say they are going to the CUP, but I do like the direction the Riders are heading this year, the new coach has really revived the team, and by the looks of it the fan base as well. Will be happy with a few more wins (labour day for one) and a trip to the playoffs, after the last few years or crap play.

[theaardvark]

Alexander shone in that game, pretty sure he just gave MTL the boost they needed in the absence of Fajardo.  They will be shopping for a #3 guy now, not a #1 guy.  At least for the near future, until Alexander stumbles.

The two bars hit in one game hasn't been done in a while, but I do believe Lirim did it when he was here...