TBURGESS

James Butler

The reality is that Ottawa is an 0-2 team, they aren't going unbeaten for the rest of the year & I didn't call them a garbage team. FTR: My guess is they're a less than .500 team and that most of their wins will be against eastern teams.

Et tu Mikey? I thought you were better than that. No, I didn't say any of that. No, it's not funny. No, you're not making a point. Neither BC nor us has played a top tier team. The two teams we've played have zero wins between them. The two teams BC's played have 1 win between them. We squeaked by Ottawa twice, a big part is the redblacks mistakes rather than our great play. We beat Hamilton convincingly by a pair of TD's. BC's hugely outplayed their competition. They even scored 24 points in the second half of the Toronto game when they were missing Burn-em and Butler. Others: As for the Flutie comparison, note the "if statement". 17's right, Rourke will have to do it consistently for at least a season before the "if statement" is true. If that happens, he'll be in the NFL as soon as his current contract is over. Will Rourke become the next Flutie? Only time will tell, but he's off to a great start. I love watching the best teams battle and that's what I'm expecting/hoping for next week.

BC's looked crazy good so far. #1 offence and #1 defence. Rourke's numbers are off the charts. Teams have film on Rourke from last year, but he looks like a different QB this year. If he keeps this up, he's in Flutie territory. BC destroyed Edmonton who looked way better against both Calgary and Regina. BC also destroyed Toronto who barely beat Montreal. I'm looking forward to our game against them in a couple of weeks. It'll really show who is the best in the west.

Toronto doesn't worry me. It's BC on a short week with a long travel that does.

I agree that should have been called too.

Watch it again. It was a valid call that could have impacted the game. Even when I try not to get into arguments folks try to pull me into them.

Rein-dolt would be great on the panel. He knows the game and says what he thinks. He's also a nice guy when you sit down and talk with him.

Wuss! I was there when it rained so hard that their were waterfalls running down the stands. They stopped the game. The water flooded the field and the sidelines. Rick House got tackled after they started back up again and he almost drowned. Pegger's shouldn't let the weather keep them from seeing the Bombers in person.

Maybe Suitor is right. Dan Clark is the glue that holds that OL together.

Kadeem Carey - I hope he gets more than 2 carries this week.

In MOS speak that means his legs are still attached to his body.

TSN - Please do the interviews at half time. Signed 99% of CFL fans.

Are the redblacks that much better or are we that much worse? Two weeks in a row we stuff a 3rd down gamble in the 4th and win a game we probably shouldn't have. Two weeks in a row we expected to win while the redblacks hoped to win. We're 2-0 and that's really what matters.

I like intentional grounding. Nice. Not written is the definition of not a rule. There's a group of folks who argue all the time, including Booch. It's not just me, but a certain group loves to complain about me arguing with them. Talk about lack of self awareness. Every hit is both intentional and targeted. What folks are really saying is targeting the head or neck. Guess what? According to the rules if you hit the head or neck, you get a penalty, targeted or not, intentional or not. Why would would you even need/want to figure out intent? UR, intent or not, is a 15 yard penalty anyway. 'Intent' for a fine after the fact. Sure. Why not? You get a chance to see the hit in multiple angles and in slow motion. Might be why players get fines for hits that aren't penalties in game. Although in this case it was the blow to the head that was missed in game. Rules should be binary. On side or off side. In or out. Within 5 yards or not. Hit the head/neck or not.

You're arguing something that can't be proven one way or the other. I'm arguing the rule and you admit it's not a rule then complain that I'm the one who is arguing and twisat'ing whatever that is. You're the one who keeps bringing intent and targeting up. Leave it alone and we'll have nothing to argue about. Keep bringing it up, and I'll keep replying. As usual the arguing is up to you.

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

Looks like I didn't read far enough. I stopped at f when g was the answer. Based on this information, I change my opinion. It was a UR penalty. It has nothing to do with intent.

I don't make up rules. I post the rules. Targeting isn't a rule. It wasn't helmet to helmet. The receiver wasn't in a vulnerable position. The ball wasn't past him when he was hit. I'm not surprised that the DB was fined. That doesn't make it a penalty in real time. If you don't want me to reply, then don't post 'alternate facts' IE: lies.

KaDeem Carey

Damn right I would. You can't call a penalty off the field of play.

You keep going back to targeting which isn't part of the rules no matter how many times you repeat it. If Schoen hadn't caught the ball and then got hit like that, it would most likely have been called as a receiver in a vulnerable position. The fact that he was trying to bring the fumble back in is the reason he got smacked the way he did & the reason it wasn't called. The play is on the highlight package from two different angles. No mention of any problem with it. They wouldn't do that if it was a botched call. Fans around here want a penalty any time our players take a vicious hit. They also want no penalty when our players lay a vicious hit on other teams.

Schoen's head was up because he was fumbling. He'd be able to tuck it in and protect himself if he hadn't fumbled the ball. If you expect a DB to pull up in that case, then you're expecting too much IMO. I just re-watched the CFL.CA highlight package. The play is around the 4:15 mark. The DB leads with his shoulder. The hit is shoulder to helmet, not helmet to helmet.

You think that the game should be stopped by the spotter every time a player takes a big hit and winces? I don't. I doubt the spotter stops the game more than a couple of times a year.

I don't know why people keep talking about targeting. It's not in the rule book. If you think the rule should be changed to hit a player in the helmet = penalty, then fine. If you think leading with your helmet should be a penalty, I'm with you. If you think it's already a rule then you are wrong. Defenceless isn't in the rule book. "Vulnerable position" is the closest. Every ball carrier and every receiver are not in a vulnerable position. Schoen wasn't in the act of catching a pass. He we in the act of fumbling. Collaros wasn't a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler. He was RB trying to gain extra yards. That's why they didn't call those plays as penalties.