Your application of the rules is correct. I too went ‘hrmmm …’ when I heard that the Cats thought that a mere 20 yards was worth a point. To be fair, I’m sure that at least half the teams in the league would do the same (rightly or wrongly) even if I don’t necessarily agree with it myself.
Time for another rule change! One which, when a no yards penalty is flagged in the end zone, regardless whether it accepted or declined, any end result will not reward the kicking team with a point. If the penalty is accepted the ball, barring further penalty calls, should be scrimmaged from 35 yard line. Declining it should, barring further penalty calls, result in the ball being scrimmaged, the next play, from the point of advancement on the play of the no yards infraction, or, if the play terminates in the end zone, scrimmaged next play from the 35yard line.
The kicking team must not be able to realize a point from a “no yards” infraction in the other teams endzone.
Yep, 300 yards passing and zero TDs, can’t finish off drives. It’s nice to have the Banks return weapon but the offense needs to put points on the board.
He made a Big mistake…who is tar and feathering him???..certainly not me, but as I stated…I was disappointed with the call. Who cares if we win by an extra touchdown or just 2 points? (maybe the pro-line players who bet tie)
This was an “ego inspired”, call that should not have been made. Period. Austin, more than anyone should know that. We will see if he “owns up” to it. I just hope we don’t see that again!
No one is tarring and feathering here…and you can call it “hindsight” if you want, but there comes a time to play the percentages. We snap the ball on the incomplete pass to Grant with 58 seconds left in the game…we snap the ball for Medlock’s punt at 53 seconds…if we just fall on the ball instead of throw the incompletion, the clock runs from 54-55 seconds, we can take a time-count penalty and it gets the clock down to 34-35 seconds and he’s got 10 extra yards to play with on the punt. But the fact that Grant didn’t make a TOUGH catch, and Medlock punted into the endzone were two more plays that we needed to make, that we didn’t and that others seem to make against us.
I do agree that OS does get too “prevent” at the end of games…we were making Mitchell nervous and VERY inaccurate with blitzes, and then we rush 3 and watch him step into a throw. Yes, it should have been defended, but it wasn’t…again, a time when WE needed to make a play, and we didn’t…
We’re moving in the right direction, but we still CANNOT come up with the plays we need to make, when they need to be made, and as long as other teams (Calgary and Sask, in the recent past) make these plays, we aren’t gonna beat them…and Austin comments on this all the time…he sees it.
I agree that there is no tarring and no feathering happening here. If someone says "Austin is a lousy coach" or "Austin needs to go" then you can play the "Grey Cup Finalist" card. Otherwise, what we have is fans questioning a coaching decision after a game. Anyone willing to argue that no decision can ever be questioned because, hey, we went to the Grey Cup?
Personally, I'm not sure if the long pass was the coach's decision or the QB's. I assume that there are different possible outcomes for a given play, including a short throw and a long throw. It's the guy with the ball in his hand that needs to decide in the moment.
Either way, this is why I think it was the wrong decision. Besides being a low-percentage play (perhaps 10-20% chance of success?), a 30-yard pass is no better than a 10-yard pass. In each case, we get a fresh set of downs with under a minute left and no timeouts for the opponent. Meaning we can essentially run out the clock by taking a knee three times. It makes no difference if you do that at the opponent's 40-yard line or their 15-yard line.
A 10-yard pass is by no means a sure thing either. But it's probably 75% likely. I could accept those odds - a 75% chance of locking up the game.
The other acceptable decision was a run. I would estimate that we'd have had a 5% chance of getting a first down on second and nine, but a 98% chance of keeping the ball and running down another 20 seconds before punting.
Nobody seemed to have a problem with the other 6 passing plays on the drive. We arent a run focused team. The play call might have been a short pass which has multiple options on it, Zach should know better than to throw deep, however, he was wide open.
Not directed at Expat - but as Mr Lancaster always said, many plays/decisions contribute toward a loss (not just 1):
Pick 6 on the opponent 10 up 8
illegal contact on the sack on Calgarys final drive
3rd and 17 defensive play call after giving up 3rd and 20 something earlier to the same play.
Punt going into the endzone
Punt snap over medlocks head costing 2 points
Overall we were the better team last night, and its the CFL. This was essentially another preseason game.
I can easily forget about this one quickly and move on to the next. I saw enough to know we are going to be a very good team.
A short pass is problematic in that situation because it is EXACTLY what the defense expects in that scenario. And because it has to develop quickly, it can be a much lower percentage throw when it is expected because of all the extra bodies in the intermediate zone. That was the rationale for going long.
This is why the optimal situation is to have a running game with a higher percentage chance of surging all the way for the first down, and the second best option is to run the ball with your “token” running game with just a slim chance at the first down because it’s still worth it to burn the additional 20 seconds off the clock.
If one is to insist on blaming loss on one or two things in the last minutes of the game then his interference call and getting beat like a mule by Fuller was the game.
I am fairly sure the Cats understood replacing Delvin Breaux would be a difficult task. However, if you live by the pass you die by the pass. Most teams will have a balanced attack and run the ball 20 -25 times per game. You need the run for play action, clock control and to keep the defence honest. My only knock on Austin and Condell are their inability to try to have a balanced attack.
By and large I love our short pass, ball control offence with Collaros at the helm; mostly because it’s proving to be quite successful. That said, I too would prefer to see more running game incorporated. It’s real easy for me to give Austin and Condell a pass for not running this week when (1) they were using their FOURTH string RB and (2) when they had tried to run the ball they had virtually zero success.
As for the last offensive play, my personal opinion (and I’m no guru!) is that I didn’t like the second last play call when Holley ran for bubkuss setting up the 2nd and long that is proving to be the boiling point on this forum. I’d have preferred to have seen them continue to chip away with short high percentage passes that were working. Quite frankly, Collaros has earned my trust in those situations. When playing to a strength I prefer to play to win.
I just hope we don’t see that again!