GDT: BC @ Hamilton

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by Paolo X » Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:59 pm

Wumper wrote:I'm a CFL O coordinator I'd have one receiver run into the defender, that way I'd always have a CRAP opportunity to drop the yellow flag.
It's easy, get your defender turned then run up his back, voila, PI.
Junks up a decent game.
Time to loose it.


This is a fine point. The rule needs to be augmented with clarifications and exceptions and improved.

It would be far easier to explain such a clarified rule with video examples than as described via text, but here's the best I can do now with one example.

Personally I'd be for a rule, BEFORE the ball is thrown AND beyond five yards from the line of scrimmage, with which any player on defence and any eligible receiver on offence may take a position at least one arm's length away (not quite one yard) from another player such that if contact ensues, the burden is on the player moving in the direction of the other player to not make illegal contact or commit offensive pass interference.

On that play for example, if Lawrence had established position at least one arm's length away and Arceneaux ran into him, offensive PI.

As it looked to me on the review, Lawrence had not established position, whatever the distance, and ran into Arceneaux. The turning of his back is also not relevant, for contact is contact.

Under a clarified rule, Lawrence in that situation would have had to stay stationary or take a position at least one arm's length away from Arceneaux so as to avoid illegal contact should contact be made.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8529
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by Paolo X » Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:01 pm

drummer_god wrote:Collaros is garbage. Horribly inaccurate. Looks the way I remember him with the Argos : needing his defence to get him field position or points, cause he's useless.


With such a poor offensive line, narrow receiving corps, and poor running game? I'd hold out for Collaros given those disadvantages that are not his fault. He does not have much time to throw and does not have as big of a field on which to throw.

I posted more about this matter in the QB 2017 thread.
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 8529
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Easton, PA

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by robsawatsky » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:08 am

Paolo X wrote:
Wumper wrote:I'm a CFL O coordinator I'd have one receiver run into the defender, that way I'd always have a CRAP opportunity to drop the yellow flag.
It's easy, get your defender turned then run up his back, voila, PI.
Junks up a decent game.
Time to loose it.


This is a fine point. The rule needs to be augmented with clarifications and exceptions and improved.

It would be far easier to explain such a clarified rule with video examples than as described via text, but here's the best I can do now with one example.

Personally I'd be for a rule, BEFORE the ball is thrown AND beyond five yards from the line of scrimmage, with which any player on defence and any eligible receiver on offence may take a position at least one arm's length away (not quite one yard) from another player such that if contact ensues, the burden is on the player moving in the direction of the other player to not make illegal contact or commit offensive pass interference.

On that play for example, if Lawrence had established position at least one arm's length away and Arceneaux ran into him, offensive PI.

As it looked to me on the review, Lawrence had not established position, whatever the distance, and ran into Arceneaux. The turning of his back is also not relevant, for contact is contact.

Under a clarified rule, Lawrence in that situation would have had to stay stationary or take a position at least one arm's length away from Arceneaux so as to avoid illegal contact should contact be made.


Firstly, it was illegal contact.

Secondly, your suggested rule clarification is an expansion of the way the rule is already interpreted and is pretty much how it works in basketball.

Thirdly, offensive PI is given a lot more leeway than defensive PI and probably always will be because complete passes and increased scoring are consistently deemed more interesting to the audience than an incomplete pass.
Veteran
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 6:52 pm
Location: Richmond, BC

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by Aerial » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:30 am

Just able to watch this one and Lulay was fantastic. Not much to say about the Cats but right now with that o line and defence, looks like a playoff position isn't going to happen if they keep this play up. Certainly not all of Collaros' fault that's for sure.
Resilience is accepting your new reality, even if it's less good than the one you had before - Elizabeth Edwards
User avatar
All-Star
 
Posts: 2932
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:22 pm
Location: Hamilton, ON

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by yougottabekidding » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:04 pm

robsawatsky wrote:
Paolo X wrote:
Wumper wrote:I'm a CFL O coordinator I'd have one receiver run into the defender, that way I'd always have a CRAP opportunity to drop the yellow flag.
It's easy, get your defender turned then run up his back, voila, PI.
Junks up a decent game.
Time to loose it.


This is a fine point. The rule needs to be augmented with clarifications and exceptions and improved.

It would be far easier to explain such a clarified rule with video examples than as described via text, but here's the best I can do now with one example.

Personally I'd be for a rule, BEFORE the ball is thrown AND beyond five yards from the line of scrimmage, with which any player on defence and any eligible receiver on offence may take a position at least one arm's length away (not quite one yard) from another player such that if contact ensues, the burden is on the player moving in the direction of the other player to not make illegal contact or commit offensive pass interference.

On that play for example, if Lawrence had established position at least one arm's length away and Arceneaux ran into him, offensive PI.

As it looked to me on the review, Lawrence had not established position, whatever the distance, and ran into Arceneaux. The turning of his back is also not relevant, for contact is contact.

Under a clarified rule, Lawrence in that situation would have had to stay stationary or take a position at least one arm's length away from Arceneaux so as to avoid illegal contact should contact be made.


Firstly, it was illegal contact.

Secondly, your suggested rule clarification is an expansion of the way the rule is already interpreted and is pretty much how it works in basketball.

Thirdly, offensive PI is given a lot more leeway than defensive PI and probably always will be because complete passes and increased scoring are consistently deemed more interesting to the audience than an incomplete pass.


Disagree on your 3rd point. Since both players (O and D) have equal access to the ball then neither receives preference. The reason you see more DPI is because the receivers know where they're going and can turn to the ball before the DBs can....which results in DBs making desperate attemtps to stop a catch more often. Down field officials are taught to watch only the players, not the ball. Contact is permitted but once one player gains an advantage illegally you've got a flag.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:01 pm
Location: Kits

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by robsawatsky » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:20 pm

yougottabekidding wrote:
Disagree on your 3rd point. Since both players (O and D) have equal access to the ball then neither receives preference. The reason you see more DPI is because the receivers know where they're going and can turn to the ball before the DBs can....which results in DBs making desperate attemtps to stop a catch more often. Down field officials are taught to watch only the players, not the ball. Contact is permitted but once one player gains an advantage illegally you've got a flag.


I agree that is the way it SHOULD be and DBs are going to have the more obvious PI infractions generally - it is the subtle. one-sided push-offs that receivers seem to be able to get away with that I was trying to point-out. There doesn't seem to be any motivation to enforce that more strictly.
Veteran
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 6:52 pm
Location: Richmond, BC

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by Argofan_1000 » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:52 pm

Aerial wrote:Just able to watch this one and Lulay was fantastic. Not much to say about the Cats but right now with that o line and defence, looks like a playoff position isn't going to happen if they keep this play up. Certainly not all of Collaros' fault that's for sure.


also saw that Brandon Banks looks ordinary these days. Heard one of the announcers say that the lions OL is NFL size and you could see the Ticats DL couldn't get through. With the CFL being a passing league, is this the future of O. L. in Canada?
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:38 am

Re: GDT: BC @ Hamilton

by yougottabekidding » Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:52 am

robsawatsky wrote:
yougottabekidding wrote:
Disagree on your 3rd point. Since both players (O and D) have equal access to the ball then neither receives preference. The reason you see more DPI is because the receivers know where they're going and can turn to the ball before the DBs can....which results in DBs making desperate attemtps to stop a catch more often. Down field officials are taught to watch only the players, not the ball. Contact is permitted but once one player gains an advantage illegally you've got a flag.


I agree that is the way it SHOULD be and DBs are going to have the more obvious PI infractions generally - it is the subtle. one-sided push-offs that receivers seem to be able to get away with that I was trying to point-out. There doesn't seem to be any motivation to enforce that more strictly.


Well, there may not be a more judgement-y kind of call than PI so that's probably what's got you bugged. I'll also offer that the view for the official, who is usually/hopefully only a few yards away from the players gives much more accurate information that the view from TV...even when close up.
User avatar
Veteran
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:01 pm
Location: Kits

Previous

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests