Exclusive: Riders vs. Bombers - Annual LDC/Banjo Bowl Discussion !

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

it wasn't clearly trapped at all as you put it. The ball can touch the ground - in this case, the tip of the ball - as long as the receiver appears to be in full possession or control. The receiver appeared to be in full possession of the ball on the replay hence the call on the field stands.

I wouldn't mind if they limited the coaches challenges to certain things and I would like to see elimination of the challenges on pass interference calls. It's unclear what is pass interference and what is not. Heck, I would love it if they were less strict on the PI calls beyond the 5-yards of scrimmage. It makes sense in the NFL without the waggle and smaller field, but not in the CFL with those inherent advantages.

A hand on a receiver while the ball is coming toward them is fine as long as there is no obvious grab of the jersey. Hand-fighting should be allowed if both the receiver and defender are doing it imo.

Check out the replay of the catch in question at the 2:19:10 mark of the youtube video - it gets replayed multiple times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puugjWJN0NE

It was a clear trap to me and to the commentators as he didn't have control of the ball until the ground knocked it firmly into his hands. That pass and many better catches that just happened to touch the ground incidentally would have been called incomplete at other times in the season. Apparently, trapped balls are a moving target just like pass interference and depend on how much coffee someone in the review booth has in their system.

Officiating in the CFL has turned into a subjective art.

[Brizzy82]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

Good job Winnipeg fans. Building the fan base one fan at a time.

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/9-year-ol...bowl-1.3069103

Holy shit that's infuriating.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

were they on fire?

No, I think Rider fans mistakenly thought that is how males show their attraction for the opposite sex from all provinces, not just in Saskatchewan. Sorry to disappoint.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

Check out the replay of the catch in question at the 2:19:10 mark of the youtube video - it gets replayed multiple times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puugjWJN0NE

It was a clear trap to me and to the commentators as he didn't have control of the ball until the ground knocked it firmly into his hands. That pass and many better catches that just happened to touch the ground incidentally would have been called incomplete at other times in the season. Apparently, trapped balls are a moving target just like pass interference and depend on how much coffee someone in the review booth has in their system.

Officiating in the CFL has turned into a subjective art.

There is nothing in the replay that indicates he did not have control of the ball when the nose hit the ground. The commentators stated that the ball can touch the ground if the receiver has control. You are free to continue imagining that the ball was not secure in the receiver hands if you should so desire. I would be happy to view specific videos of these many better catches in the CFL that were ruled incomplete afterwards from earlier this season.

It appears subjectivity does not only apply to CFL officials.

[Treesplease]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

There is nothing in the replay that indicates he did not have control of the ball when the nose hit the ground. The commentators stated that the ball can touch the ground if the receiver has control. You are free to continue imagining that the ball was not secure in the receiver hands if you should so desire. I would be happy to view specific videos of these many better catches in the CFL that were ruled incomplete afterwards from earlier this season.

It appears subjectivity does not only apply to CFL officials.

You got me.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by Treesplease

The ones that get me are when a flag is called and then there is a referee huddle for 2 minutes before they decide what the call is. Did they see an infraction when they threw the flag or not? why does it take so long?

One example is when a player "checks in" with one official. Another official may not know it happened and throw a flag. Then they get together to discuss why they flag was thrown and official 1 says player X was not eligible to which official 2 replies, no it is okay they checked in with me before the play.

[bomberjet]

Stuff like the kid getting yelled at happens everywhere and more frequent then we hear about. Most people are big enough to tell their kid these people are idiots. Not go to the press right away, before even going to the team. Someone looking for a payday.

Still sick though. Leave the kids alone.

[CoryB]

It is one thing when an idiot is yelling at a child, it is completely different when it moves into a physical assault like this case (intentionally pouring beer on him).

[drew]

The thing that gets to me the most though is it seems like no one thought to step in. To me, that's horrible.

(I'd like to think) if I saw someone pour beer on a child, or heckle a kid to tears I would intervene.

[CoryB]

^^ The published reports of the incident with the child specifically reference going down stairs. The only way that happened would be if the boy and his mom were in the upper deck at IGF. The stairs tend to be a bit more isolated than other areas as most people use the ramps over the stairs. That could explain in part why no one stepped in. Depending on the exact set of stairs and the time this happened they could be even more isolated.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by CoryB

^^ The published reports of the incident with the child specifically reference going down stairs. The only way that happened would be if the boy and his mom were in the upper deck at IGF. The stairs tend to be a bit more isolated than other areas as most people use the ramps over the stairs. That could explain in part why no one stepped in. Depending on the exact set of stairs and the time this happened they could be even more isolated.

She said she was sitting in the "Fanatical Fan Zone", i.e. the north end zone.

To be frank, this is a factor in the situation. The north end zone is the equivalent to the old student section/section S at CanadInns, where security lets a lot of things go that would not fly in the rest of the stadium. She said she got the tickets from someone she knows. It's not a place for kids to sit, certainly not for a kid wearing green on Banjo Bowl day.

If the Bombers want to have a place for heavy drinkers to be loud and rowdy, maybe they need to insist on fans being a minimum of 18 years old to sit there.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

She said she was sitting in the "Fanatical Fan Zone", i.e. the north end zone.

I didn't see these aspects of the story. That said the reality of the Fanatical Fan Zone should strike the Bombers. One of Miller's plans was to recreate the atmosphere of the old Winnipeg Stadium "Section S". Part of that plan was to make those seats the cheapest in the whole stadium. As both end zones are somewhat slow selling at IGF the Bombers should look at doing something other than the Red River Co-op vouchers to lower the cost in the family zone in the south end zone.

I still feel the Bombers really missed an opportunity with the Rum Hut and the move. Without a big change to their building they could have either had the north end zone more and open wall and had a dedicated standing room only area for the Rum Hut and specifically sold tickets there, or alternatively done a smaller version on a raised patio in the north end zone similar to the Enns Brothers area in the south end zone.