Official Game Day Thread - BC at Winnipeg, August 1, 2024

[blue_gold_84]

[UNSUBSCRIBE]

[Pigskin]

Well deserved bye week. But, after the bye our roster should get interesting. Lawler should be back, so Johnson back on the PR. Woli82 will could be back, and Haba will be ready to go.

I don't think I am messing with the D. Players like Adams, Garbutt, Griffin, and Jones, have all played very well.

If Woli82 comes back what do you do with Lucky. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Source please.

I'll explain it to you because I find it interesting and maybe some other people will too.

First though, how can I source something that 'isn't'? You already quoted the rule book once. Go back to the page, look through the definitions of pass interference and you will notice that pass defenders 'looking for the ball or not looking for the ball' is nowhere to be found.

In general, they teach defensive backs to look for the ball, because, as a defender, if you're making a genuine play to catch or contact/bat down the ball you can make contact with the receiver as much as you like in the process. An easy example that everyone will recognize is of a hail mary pass when everyone jumps up to try and grab it. DBs are contacting receivers everywhere, receivers are contacting DBs everywhere, but since everyone is making a play at the ball, it's not PI in any case.

However, looking for the ball is NOT good technique in all cases and had Ford tried it he probably would have got beat on that play. Trailing defensive backs are usually taught to run on the inside shoulder, put a hand up when they think the ball is coming (which can be and often is a few seconds), and play through the ball if it arrives into the receivers hands. This retains their speed, has a chance of the batting the ball down and failing that, has a chance to drive the ball through the receivers hands if it makes it there. The downside to the technique is if the receiver tracks the ball and tried to jump back through the defensive back, they are now face to face and that IS a typical screening call. In fact, that WAS called against a BC defender on Clercius later that game. That isn't what happened on the Ford play though: hence no flags or challenges or even any sort of complaining by the BC receiver at all.

[dd]

Well deserved bye week. But, after the bye our roster should get interesting. Lawler should be back, so Johnson back on the PR. Woli82 will could be back, and Haba will be ready to go.

I don't think I am messing with the D. Players like Adams, Garbutt, Griffin, and Jones, have all played very well.

If Woli82 comes back what do you do with Lucky.

Lawler goes in for Johnson, Woli goes in for clercius, lucky stays in the lineup

[Pigskin]

Lawler goes in for Johnson, Woli goes in for clercius, lucky stays in the lineup

Yes, I did forget about Clercius.

Clercius is going to be a good one. Kid makes some good blocks.

[Blue In BC]

Yes, I did forget about Clercius.

Clercius is going to be a good one. Kid makes some good blocks.

Yes, that sounds about right. I don't know how long Woli will be out but Clercius / Whitehead will do fine in the meantime. I expected Lawler back this week, but coming back after the bye gives him more time to heal.

Clercius is looking good and making plays.

[dd]

For sure and that's the ugly side of the business, veteran receivers like Bailey want big dollars like Lawler get, but there are tons of receivers out there for our #4-5 spots. Lucky adds a speed element and kick return threat and clercius is going to fit in nicely at a fraction of the cost. Things are looking good

[J5V]

We got the calls.

Yeah, we didn't win because "We got the calls". This game started with the majority of calls going against us. I have checked and the calls against were 3-1 at one point. The game ended with 5 penalties each. We earned this game in every way. No one gave us anything.

[TBURGESS]

I'll explain it to you because I find it interesting and maybe some other people will too.
First though, how can I source something that 'isn't'? You already quoted the rule book once. Go back to the page, look through the definitions of pass interference and you will notice that pass defenders 'looking for the ball or not looking for the ball' is nowhere to be found.
In general, they teach defensive backs to look for the ball, because, as a defender, if you're making a genuine play to catch or contact/bat down the ball you can make contact with the receiver as much as you like in the process. An easy example that everyone will recognize is of a hail mary pass when everyone jumps up to try and grab it. DBs are contacting receivers everywhere, receivers are contacting DBs everywhere, but since everyone is making a play at the ball, it's not PI in any case.
However, looking for the ball is NOT good technique in all cases and had Ford tried it he probably would have got beat on that play. Trailing defensive backs are usually taught to run on the inside shoulder, put a hand up when they think the ball is coming (which can be and often is a few seconds), and play through the ball if it arrives into the receivers hands. This retains their speed, has a chance of the batting the ball down and failing that, has a chance to drive the ball through the receivers hands if it makes it there. The downside to the technique is if the receiver tracks the ball and tried to jump back through the defensive back, they are now face to face and that IS a typical screening call. In fact, that WAS called against a BC defender on Clercius later that game. That isn't what happened on the Ford play though: hence no flags or challenges or even any sort of complaining by the BC receiver at all.

A hail Mary is a poor example. No one gets PI because they are playing the ball. Waving your arm in the air without looking back isn't playing the ball. It's trying to stop the receiver from seeing the ball which is screening by definition. 

Receiver beats DB. DB goes into chase mode and throws an arm up. Ball goes off of the receivers helmet because he can't see the ball. I say screening. You say good DB play. I quote the rule book. 

Under which part of the rule book do you say it's not screening? 

[Pete]

One hand in the air doesnt screen the reciever, dont think ive ever seen it called that way
Its usually called when defender has two hands almost in the recievers face It usually has to be blatent to be called

[dd]

Screening and pass interference are both obstruction fouls, screening you're obstructing the receivers vision-commonly called face guarding, pass interference you're obstructing the receivers body position.

[theaardvark]

The other mitigating issue in the "screen" is that he touched the ball...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

A hail Mary is a poor example. No one gets PI because they are playing the ball. Waving your arm in the air without looking back isn't playing the ball. It's trying to stop the receiver from seeing the ball which is screening by definition.

Receiver beats DB. DB goes into chase mode and throws an arm up. Ball goes off of the receivers helmet because he can't see the ball. I say screening. You say good DB play. I quote the rule book.

Under which part of the rule book do you say it's not screening?

Yikes. I genuinely overestimated you. Noted.

[dd]

The other mitigating issue in the "screen" is that he touched the ball...

Doesn't matter. DB could be running down the field with his back to the ball, and he has his hands up screening the receiver making no attempt to locate and play the ball, ball hits him, it's still screening

[TBURGESS]

Yikes. I genuinely overestimated you. Noted.

So no where in the rule book does it say what you are saying.

I agree that DB's can shoot their arm up when the ball gets there without a penalty, but that's not what happened on the play. 

Provide an example that has nothing to do with screening and call it an example. 

Say you can't prove a negative when I'm asking for proof that DB's are allowed to run with a hand up (The half superman) to screen the receiver. Which isn't a negative. 

If you don't think it's screening then what do you consider to be screening? Two hands up (The full superman)? Waiving the arms?