Coaches show ...

[J5V]

what id like to see in the meantime is the officials giving a more comprehensive explanation of the command center decision ie  the ruling on the field stands vs there is no interference as the defenders action had no impact on the receiver's ability to catch the ball. or the defender arrived at the same time as the ball.
 Even if its given to the tsn booth much as they are likely currently giving the coaches an explanation,,,or should be.
It certainly shouldnt take 5 or 6 days to do so as it is now
(and would also not subject us to Suitors explanation as he sees it)

To his credit, Suitor did say that he didn't understand the calls and that there was no DPI there against the Bombers.

[TecnoGenius]

To his credit, Suitor did say that he didn't understand the calls and that there was no DPI there against the Bombers.

Yes, Suitor (or whoever was doing the game) did agree with me & the fanbase on most of the horrifically bad calls coming out of command this season.  Ya, he's been wrong in the past, but doing ok this year.

The calls were literally so bad that even Suits could recognize them as duds!

[TecnoGenius]

I have to wonder too if the admission on the Demski call came after the overturned non dpi call against Ottawa in OT 1 of the OTT/SSK game. Perhaps they felt they had to admit the Demski mistake because that ruling was obviously inconsistent with the overturn standard used in the OTT/SSK game? Likely not, but still makes me wonder a bit. Or, do they admit they were both wrong?

Could be.  I had stopped getting mad by that point but I made the same mental note that "hey, isn't this the opposite of what you did in our various games?".

Maybe MOS sent them some film showing the similarities and the league was forced to clarify the standard, and thus admit wrongdoing?

Me waiting for the league to officially say something about our botched calls:

[TecnoGenius]

They always say they want more explanations from command but they don't want them because it will slow the game down.

Ok, so do this:

Do what they're currently doing, but immediately put the extra details and clarification and justification into a cfl.ca page (game tracker?) as fast as they can (within 3-5 mins after relaying the call to the official?).

Voila, we all get more detail in realtime and not a second of delay was added to the game.  Everyone's happy.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Yes, Suitor (or whoever was doing the game) did agree with me & the fanbase on most of the horrifically bad calls coming out of command this season.  Ya, he's been wrong in the past, but doing ok this year.

The calls were literally so bad that even Suits could recognize them as duds!

Don't be surprised if Glenn Suitor is listed in those the CFL chooses to fine this coming week!

[J5V]

Yes, Suitor (or whoever was doing the game) did agree with me & the fanbase on most of the horrifically bad calls coming out of command this season.  Ya, he's been wrong in the past, but doing ok this year.

The calls were literally so bad that even Suits could recognize them as duds!

What struck me was that even as a huge Rider fan he called BS. He definitely scored some points with me that day because up until then, I couldn't stand him.

[bomb squad]

They always say they want more explanations from command but they don't want them because it will slow the game down.

Ok, so do this:

Do what they're currently doing, but immediately put the extra details and clarification and justification into a cfl.ca page (game tracker?) as fast as they can (within 3-5 mins after relaying the call to the official?).

Voila, we all get more detail in realtime and not a second of delay was added to the game.  Everyone's happy.

Good idea. Or on X as well, which I think Ed Tait suggested. Just the closer calls, not every review. They could relay it during the next break. All it would take is one or two sentences. The TSN announcers would also get that and could relay it to the viewers. There has to be a better connection between the Command Center and the TSN announcers/fans.

For eg. Re review of play at 12:22 of 4th Qtr" "While part of a defenders arm over the shoulder of the receiver may not alone constitute interference, in this case we determined the arm restricted the movement of the receivers left arm towards catching the ball." 

[TecnoGenius]

Good idea. Or on X as well, which I think Ed Tait suggested. Just the closer calls, not every review. They could relay it during the next break. All it would take is one or two sentences. The TSN announcers would also get that and could relay it to the viewers. There has to be a better connection between the Command Center and the TSN announcers/fans.

For eg. Re review of play at 12:22 of 4th Qtr" "While part of a defenders arm over the shoulder of the receiver may not alone constitute interference, in this case we determined the arm restricted the movement of the receivers left arm towards catching the ball."

Adding X is fine, but they have an official site: use it.  Anything posted elsewhere should be on the main cfl.ca site too.

I would also add to the "review notes" stuff they looked at/saw that they did consider and ruled it unimportant.  "We noted a hand on the hip but determined it didn't turn or impede the receiver".  Stuff like that.

When I'm questioning command it's usually like "did they not notice this aspect here?".  Knowing they noticed and why they didn't care (what rule applies, etc) would be great.

[Jesse]

Good idea. Or on X as well, which I think Ed Tait suggested. Just the closer calls, not every review. They could relay it during the next break. All it would take is one or two sentences. The TSN announcers would also get that and could relay it to the viewers. There has to be a better connection between the Command Center and the TSN announcers/fans.

For eg. Re review of play at 12:22 of 4th Qtr" "While part of a defenders arm over the shoulder of the receiver may not alone constitute interference, in this case we determined the arm restricted the movement of the receivers left arm towards catching the ball." 

The weird thing is, sometimes the ref does spell out an explanation in his call, but most of the time doesn't. And sometimes we don't even see or hear them the making the call, they just go on with play without telling the crowd. SO much inconsistency.

[markf]

Deleted... Not relevant.

[TecnoGenius]

The weird thing is, sometimes the ref does spell out an explanation in his call, but most of the time doesn't. And sometimes we don't even see or hear them the making the call, they just go on with play without telling the crowd. SO much inconsistency.

Proulx has always been best for adding a bit of extra info to explain.  Maybe he thinks it'll calm down the boo-birds?

The best ever is "it's a wash".  Or maybe the "IP, defense, they made the offense move" from the Proulx song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=XGLj4b--lXs

If anyone knows what year/game he made that call in, let me know!  He's been reffing so long it could be from 1950   

[Stats Junkie]

From the Coach's show (August 26)

First caller wanted to talk about the game winning single in SSK-TOR game. It was obvious that he had read a post I made on TwiXter but he then proceeded to butcher the facts. Mike O'Shea wasn't hearing any of it - leave the 'rouge' alone.

Rant
As a Canadian football traditionalist who has done an enormous amount of historical research over the years, I find it important to use the proper verbiage in the manner that it was meant. The play in question was a kick over the dead ball line also referred to as a 'Deadline Kick'.

Historically, a 'Rouge' referred to a play where the returner was tackled in the end zone. In game summaries up to the mid-1960s a play with a 'Rouge' was often displayed as: Player A Rouged by Player X on a kick by Player Y.

Terms relevant to the single:
Deadline Kick - ball kicked over the dead ball line at the back of the EZ
Rouge - the returner is rouged (tackled) in the EZ
Forced to Rouge - the returner is pushed OB in the EZ
Kick into Touch - ball was kicked OB along sideline in EZ
Ran into Touch - returner ran the ball OB in EZ on his own
Touch in Goal - we now refer to this as a conceded single. Historically, the returner had to touch the ball to the ground in the goal area to concede a point. The easiest way to achieve this was to take a knee

No Tackle = No Rouge
End Rant

Mid-Show, a caller asked if the officials were graded on their performances (was this Tecno?). O'Shea said that all of the officials are graded on each play, not only for the calls that they make but wider views are used to determine if the officials were in the correct spot to make the calls they need to make.

I'll add, there is a game supervisor at each game who will meet with the officials post game (and perhaps at halftime).

Re: the review of the Tim White non-catch
It was clear and obvious that Tim White did not secure the ball as initially ruled on the field. It was not clear and obvious what happened after that. It could have been incomplete - apparently there is an angle which it appears as though the ball may have hit the ground but it is not clear. It could have been a simultaneous catch at some point or it could have been an interception by Alexander.

[TecnoGenius]

Kick into Touch - ball was kicked OB along sideline in EZ
Ran into Touch - returner ran the ball OB in EZ on his own

Mid-Show, a caller asked if the officials were graded on their performances (was this Tecno?). O'Shea said that all of the officials are graded on each play, not only for the calls that they make but wider views are used to determine if the officials were in the correct spot to make the calls they need to make.

Wasn't Tecno!  I never remember the show is on until hours later...

I love the terminology lesson!  I'll have to save those for later.  I'm curious about the bolded ones... why the word "touch"?  Is there a historical reason for this?

[Stats Junkie]

I love the terminology lesson!  I'll have to save those for later.  I'm curious about the bolded ones... why the word "touch"?  Is there a historical reason for this?

Historically the sideline was known as the touchline.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Historically the sideline was known as the touchline.

Do you know when did the term "rouge" become commonly used again? I had never heard this term growing up following the CFL through the 70's and 80's, but when I got back to following the game after completing university it was a commonly used term, I had to look up it's actual meaning.