I found this.

 

AR: Team A kicks to Team B. B1 catches the ball in the Field of Play while moving towards own Goal Line and, in the judgment of the official, the momentum carries B1 into own Goal Area. RULING — Rouge (possession deemed to have been gained in the Goal Area).

 

Yeah, while kinda dumb, I could see how this was applied to the Demski catch.  He didn't consciously catch the ball and run into his end zone, which is what a safety is really all about.  That being said, had that been a Winnipeg player doing the exact same thing, like Veltung, I could see the Riders getting a safety, as the Bombers always seem to be on the wrong end of the grey area penalty/judgement calls.

 

Watched the game tonight. The Demski play as a safety didn't really register with me at the time, but now I would say it was definitely a safety. He caught the ball and saw that his momentum was going to take him out at the 1, so he tiptoed around the pylon, deliberately changing his direction before going out in the end zone. Should have been called a safety based on the change in direction.

 

As for the Adams interception, his knee touched down at the one yard line. Had he been untouched I'll bet they would have allowed his momentum to consider it an end zone INT and placed the ball at the 25, but the 'Rider player had contact when his knee hit. Correct call there.

 

As for the Bombers "always" getting the wrong side of the close calls, that's pure just homerism talking - I hope you don't really believe that. Refs will miss calls, make calls, and make judgements you may not agree with, but they aren't deliberately biased against your team, whatever team your team is. Saskatchewan could have argued that the "close" non-pass interference challenge that didn't go their way was unfair (they'd be wrong, it was good defence) or that the rough play call on the Denmark hit was bogus (they'd have a case there, good shoulder to chest hit there, the lack of wrapping up the tackle with the arms probably cost him the benefit of the doubt). These plays exist in every game and will balance out in the long run.

 

One play I'm curious about was the Willy fumble that Chick ran back for a TD (penalty wiped out the whole play, so not sure how that might have been ruled without the penalty). I know Willy went head first, and the broadcasters said he was touched (not sure about that part), but isn't the play always blown dead once the QB deliberately hits the ground, even if head first? Could have been a big turning point.

I found this.

AR: Team A kicks to Team B. B1 catches the ball in the Field of Play while moving towards own Goal Line and, in the judgment of the official, the momentum carries B1 into own Goal Area. RULING — Rouge (possession deemed to have been gained in the Goal Area).

Yeah, while kinda dumb, I could see how this was applied to the Demski catch. He didn't consciously catch the ball and run into his end zone, which is what a safety is really all about. That being said, had that been a Winnipeg player doing the exact same thing, like Veltung, I could see the Riders getting a safety, as the Bombers always seem to be on the wrong end of the grey area penalty/judgement calls.

Watched the game tonight. The Demski play as a safety didn't really register with me at the time, but now I would say it was definitely a safety. He caught the ball and saw that his momentum was going to take him out at the 1, so he tiptoed around the pylon, deliberately changing his direction before going out in the end zone. Should have been called a safety based on the change in direction.

As for the Adams interception, his knee touched down at the one yard line. Had he been untouched I'll bet they would have allowed his momentum to consider it an end zone INT and placed the ball at the 25, but the 'Rider player had contact when his knee hit. Correct call there.

As for the Bombers "always" getting the wrong side of the close calls, that's pure just homerism talking - I hope you don't really believe that. Refs will miss calls, make calls, and make judgements you may not agree with, but they aren't deliberately biased against your team, whatever team your team is. Saskatchewan could have argued that the "close" non-pass interference challenge that didn't go their way (they'd be wrong, it was good defence) or that the rough play call on the Denmark hit was bogus (they'd have a case there, good shoulder to chest hit there, the lack of wrapping up the tackle with the arms probably cost him the benefit of the doubt). These plays exist in every game and will balance out in the long run.

One play I'm curious about was the Willy fumble that Chick ran back for a TD (penalty wiped out the whole play, so not sure how that might have been ruled without the penalty). I know Willy went head first, and the broadcasters said he was touched (not sure about that part), but isn't the play always blown dead once the QB deliberately hits the ground, even if head first? Could have been a big turning point.

Well stated.

 

 

I found this.

 

AR: Team A kicks to Team B. B1 catches the ball in the Field of Play while moving towards own Goal Line and, in the judgment of the official, the momentum carries B1 into own Goal Area. RULING — Rouge (possession deemed to have been gained in the Goal Area).

 

Yeah, while kinda dumb, I could see how this was applied to the Demski catch.  He didn't consciously catch the ball and run into his end zone, which is what a safety is really all about.  That being said, had that been a Winnipeg player doing the exact same thing, like Veltung, I could see the Riders getting a safety, as the Bombers always seem to be on the wrong end of the grey area penalty/judgement calls.

 

Watched the game tonight. The Demski play as a safety didn't really register with me at the time, but now I would say it was definitely a safety. He caught the ball and saw that his momentum was going to take him out at the 1, so he tiptoed around the pylon, deliberately changing his direction before going out in the end zone. Should have been called a safety based on the change in direction.

 

As for the Adams interception, his knee touched down at the one yard line. Had he been untouched I'll bet they would have allowed his momentum to consider it an end zone INT and placed the ball at the 25, but the 'Rider player had contact when his knee hit. Correct call there.

 

As for the Bombers "always" getting the wrong side of the close calls, that's pure just homerism talking - I hope you don't really believe that. Refs will miss calls, make calls, and make judgements you may not agree with, but they aren't deliberately biased against your team, whatever team your team is. Saskatchewan could have argued that the "close" non-pass interference challenge that didn't go their way was unfair (they'd be wrong, it was good defence) or that the rough play call on the Denmark hit was bogus (they'd have a case there, good shoulder to chest hit there, the lack of wrapping up the tackle with the arms probably cost him the benefit of the doubt). These plays exist in every game and will balance out in the long run.

 

One play I'm curious about was the Willy fumble that Chick ran back for a TD (penalty wiped out the whole play, so not sure how that might have been ruled without the penalty). I know Willy went head first, and the broadcasters said he was touched (not sure about that part), but isn't the play always blown dead once the QB deliberately hits the ground, even if head first? Could have been a big turning point.

 

It's only automatically blown down if he slides feet first. If he slides head first then he would have to be touched to be ruled down.

 

 

 

I found this.

 

AR: Team A kicks to Team B. B1 catches the ball in the Field of Play while moving towards own Goal Line and, in the judgment of the official, the momentum carries B1 into own Goal Area. RULING — Rouge (possession deemed to have been gained in the Goal Area).

 

Yeah, while kinda dumb, I could see how this was applied to the Demski catch.  He didn't consciously catch the ball and run into his end zone, which is what a safety is really all about.  That being said, had that been a Winnipeg player doing the exact same thing, like Veltung, I could see the Riders getting a safety, as the Bombers always seem to be on the wrong end of the grey area penalty/judgement calls.

 

Watched the game tonight. The Demski play as a safety didn't really register with me at the time, but now I would say it was definitely a safety. He caught the ball and saw that his momentum was going to take him out at the 1, so he tiptoed around the pylon, deliberately changing his direction before going out in the end zone. Should have been called a safety based on the change in direction.

 

As for the Adams interception, his knee touched down at the one yard line. Had he been untouched I'll bet they would have allowed his momentum to consider it an end zone INT and placed the ball at the 25, but the 'Rider player had contact when his knee hit. Correct call there.

 

As for the Bombers "always" getting the wrong side of the close calls, that's pure just homerism talking - I hope you don't really believe that. Refs will miss calls, make calls, and make judgements you may not agree with, but they aren't deliberately biased against your team, whatever team your team is. Saskatchewan could have argued that the "close" non-pass interference challenge that didn't go their way was unfair (they'd be wrong, it was good defence) or that the rough play call on the Denmark hit was bogus (they'd have a case there, good shoulder to chest hit there, the lack of wrapping up the tackle with the arms probably cost him the benefit of the doubt). These plays exist in every game and will balance out in the long run.

 

One play I'm curious about was the Willy fumble that Chick ran back for a TD (penalty wiped out the whole play, so not sure how that might have been ruled without the penalty). I know Willy went head first, and the broadcasters said he was touched (not sure about that part), but isn't the play always blown dead once the QB deliberately hits the ground, even if head first? Could have been a big turning point.

 

It's only automatically blown down if he slides feet first. If he slides head first then he would have to be touched to be ruled down.

 

 

Recall Reilly's head-first slide from 2014 when he got up and gained another 7 yds. because no Bomber touched him.  I guess Willy got lucky.

(watching the highlights)

Gainer the Gopher wears #13? That's hilarious.

I thought a QB is allowed to give himself up...different rules for the QB in that situation, no?

Anyone catch the end of the game where Rod Black states that the Riders gotta stop the Bombers or its the game,then we take a knee

I thought a QB is allowed to give himself up...different rules for the QB in that situation, no?

 

No.  QB is considered a runner if he slides head first (and is not afforded any of the protection a QB gets when he's 'giving himself up'.  Only considered down when someone makes contact with him.  

Seems like they brought in Cronk a lot when they to the I formation

Hope Normond is ready soon.  Cronk looked lost. Watching replays and he is totally missing his assignments.  Pontbriand looks better then ever!

 

Seems like they brought in Cronk a lot when they to the I formation

Hope Normond is ready soon.  Cronk looked lost. Watching replays and he is totally missing his assignments.  Pontbriand looks better then ever!

 

 

Surprised Cronk was not cut when they signed Rempel.   What other function does Cronk bring?  A backup long-snapper seems like the perfect guy to be sitting on the PR.

 

Seems like they brought in Cronk a lot when they to the I formation

Hope Normond is ready soon.  Cronk looked lost. Watching replays and he is totally missing his assignments.  Pontbriand looks better then ever!

 

I was really happy to see Pontbriand involved a little more in the offense. Did pretty well blocking and made something out of the few touches he got

 

 

Seems like they brought in Cronk a lot when they to the I formation

Hope Normond is ready soon.  Cronk looked lost. Watching replays and he is totally missing his assignments.  Pontbriand looks better then ever!

 

I was really happy to see Pontbriand involved a little more in the offense. Did pretty well blocking and made something out of the few touches he got

 

 

 

 

Seems like they brought in Cronk a lot when they to the I formation

Hope Normond is ready soon.  Cronk looked lost. Watching replays and he is totally missing his assignments.  Pontbriand looks better then ever!

 

I was really happy to see Pontbriand involved a little more in the offense. Did pretty well blocking and made something out of the few touches he got

 

 

Pontbriand was also front and center messing with the Riders pre-game, him and Picard are cut from the same cloth. 

 

O'Shea also spoke glowingly about J.P. on the Coach's Show.

I thought Willy was touched actually

Little off topic but anyone else reading the threads over at RF.com?

 

Seems like the leagues best fans are having a hard time with this loss.....

 

Topics like firing their new DC, Seasons done, can't win with out DD, upset about officiating.....all doom and gloom... and I kinda like it

 

I though only we fell apart after a loss like that....

I thought Willy was touched actually

Looked like it to me.

I thought Willy was touched actually

Looked like it to me.

 

 

As for the Bombers "always" getting the wrong side of the close calls, that's pure just homerism talking - I hope you don't really believe that.

 

 

Of course it was homerism talking.  DOH!

 

The only time I consistently saw the Bombers getting screwed was when that goofball Murray Clark was the head referee.  That guy always found a way to screw us over.  Good to see he was demoted.

@LeeJonesCTV: Shea Emry doubtful for this week with neck injury. Keenan MacDougall out with dislocated shoulder. Could be done for season #Riders

Little off topic but anyone else reading the threads over at RF.com?

 

Seems like the leagues best fans are having a hard time with this loss.....

 

Topics like firing their new DC, Seasons done, can't win with out DD, upset about officiating.....all doom and gloom... and I kinda like it

 

I though only we fell apart after a loss like that....

 

 

Reminds me of "Mcarthur Park" over there, obviously someone left their cake out in the rain.

From the Book of Gin:

 

Rider Pride.....goeth before a fall....

Just want to say I thought Dom Picard played a hell of a good game for us.

Little off topic but anyone else reading the threads over at RF.com?

 

 

 

I've tried reading a few threads;

 

Completely boring.   Devoid of humour as far as I can tell. Just not worth the energy it takes to click a few times on the keyboard.

 

 

The people that post at MBB never fail to provide some really good laughs.

 

"Book of Gin" 

 

just looked, there actually is a book with that name.

 

Looks like you're in good company DOD  

 

 

"Among all the spirits, gin still signifies louche transgression and terminal seediness. And yet it has also had the smartest fans. The Queen Mother was punctilious about her pre-lunch gin and Dubonnet. Byron assiduously glugged gin and water. T S Eliot once told someone at a party that his inspiration came from “gin and drugs”.

 

 

 

terminal seediness, lol. 

Our line wore out the Riders dline. There were a lot of hands on hips and a lot less energy between whistles end of 3rd quarter on.

Just want to say I thought Dom Picard played a hell of a good game for us.

 

Yes I concur.  My knowledge of the O-line of course is limited to how many times our QB got killed and how big the holes were for the RB's.  On those two items alone I thought the O-Line dominated.  On that Marshall two-point run you could see the O-Line just push the entire Rider line back, and they almost all ended up in the end zone with Marshall at the end.  I also liked Picard's punch to the ribs of Chick while both his arms were tied up by Greaves, while the ref's vision was obscured and Chick was defenseless.  Just beautiful.  Chick got so mad he forgot about going into pursuit on Marshall and instead tried to fight Picard.  That's the kind of nasty edge we've been missing for so long.

 

Just want to say I thought Dom Picard played a hell of a good game for us.

 

Yes I concur.  My knowledge of the O-line of course is limited to how many times our QB got killed and how big the holes were for the RB's.  On those two items alone I thought the O-Line dominated.  On that Marshall two-point run you could see the O-Line just push the entire Rider line back, and they almost all ended up in the end zone with Marshall at the end.  I also liked Picard's punch to the ribs of Chick while both his arms were tied up by Greaves, while the ref's vision was obscured and Chick was defenseless.  Just beautiful.  Chick got so mad he forgot about going into pursuit on Marshall and instead tried to fight Picard.  That's the kind of nasty edge we've been missing for so long.

 

That was pretty funny. I like it a lot more when it's our guys doing it. He actually punched him twice. He gave him another one when Chick came after him for the first one.

 

I also thought Daniels owned Alex Hall for most of the game. He was pretty much invisible.