Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Author
comment_423809
1 hour ago, Yourface said:

To be fair, it was kind of a freak accident, with Rempel's head hitting the turf the way it did.

It was no freak accident.

Remple’s head bounced because he wasn’t ready to absorb that hit. 

That alone should have been THE indicator that it was roughing. It was an aggressive hit and injured a player. 

Duh! 

What else do you need?

 

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Views 244.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Also, Winston Rose was tied for the lead in interceptions last year with 5, and this year, he was all alone with 9 interceptions, 2 ahead of the much more ballyhooed Tre Roberson... Great job Win

  • I wouldn't trade Neufeld at all..that be the stupidest thing to do for several reasons..one he's one of the better guards in league...secondly he and Bryant are a well oiled unit..thirdly if we did an

comment_423812
6 minutes ago, Mr Dee said:

It was no freak accident.

Remple’s head bounced because he wasn’t ready to absorb that hit. 

That alone should have been THE indicator that it was roughing. It was an aggressive hit and injured a player. 

Duh! 

What else do you need?

 

It was an aggressive, but unfortunately legal hit. I don't believe it was meant to cause injury.

Edited by Yourface

comment_423828

The hit on Rempel was legal.  The rule says you cannot hit him until his lifts his head.  He lifted his head and got hit - in that order.  What do you expect the league to do? 

There is no rule that you cannot hit someone hard.  Rempel will look at the film and say that he should have stayed lower as he brought his head up.   It's no different than skating through the neutral zone with your head down.

I preach about protecting players all the time.  But I don't want anyone refereeing based on how injured a player was after the play.

comment_423831
Just now, MC said:

The hit on Rempel was legal.  The rule says you cannot hit him until his lifts his head.  He lifted his head and got hit - in that order.  What do you expect the league to do? 

There is no rule that you cannot hit someone hard.  Rempel will look at the film and say that he should have stayed lower as he brought his head up.   It's no different than skating through the neutral zone with your head down.

I preach about protecting players all the time.  But I don't want anyone refereeing based on how injured a player was after the play.

Give me a break. It's absolutely nothing like skating with your head down in the neutral zone. The only somewhat accurate comparison would be a RB with the ball running with the head down. If you want to make a hockey comparison, it would be a goalie outside his crease getting plowed over with his head down looking for the puck. 

It wasn't within the spirit of the rule at all and that's why we've rarely (if ever) have seen this happen until now. All this did was force the league to make the rule black and white so this never happens again. 

It was a cheapshot 10000%. Dickenson even said so. 

Edited by Dr Zaius

comment_423834
4 hours ago, Yourface said:

Y'all are too sensitive.

The league said that there is nothing in the rule book prohibiting this type of hit, and that they will look at ways to prevent this from happening in the future, which is exactly THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

To be fair, it was kind of a freak accident, with Rempel's head hitting the turf the way it did. Had he simply fallen on his back, this wouldn't even be a point of discussion. I don't believe the hit was malicious in nature.

Emphasis mine, from Unnecessary Roughness in CFL rulebook, seems like they've chosen to allow the hit because they could easily deem it illegal.

g. Delivering a blow to an opponent in the neck or head including the long snapper on kicks from scrimmage and convert attempts,

h. Delivering a forcible blow to the long snapper while their head is down and they are in a vulnerable position and unable to protect them self,

u. Unnecessary physical contact, including but not limited to, running into, diving into, cut blocking or throwing the body on a player who is:

  1. out of the play, or
  2. should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead, or

v. Any other act of roughness or unfair play, provided it is not considered excessive enough to warrant disqualification.

comment_423835

dirty hit by sask on bomber..... ok... but we'll change it. cause it's not really ok.

improbable penalty  called on Jefferson  for a phantom late hit on a sask player..... fine.

the disproportionate penalty calls in that last game was actually comical. and bombers the least penalized team to boot.

 

 second rate.

 

 

Edited by Mark F

Create an account or sign in to comment