Still doesn't really address the problem of the fishing expeditions. I'm wondering if a better rule change would be to require the coach to describe the incident being challenged. If it's defensive PI for example, he would have to give the number of the allegedly offending player.
I suspect that may already be the case, given the success rate of these challenges. I don't think they are actually fishing expeditions, i.e. somebody somewhere must have done something bad. I think the coaches know that there was contact, and know where it happened.
I'll bye into the "right call" argument when I see a coach challenge an erroneous call that the official made in favour of his team, or a missed a call that would have favoured the opposition.
When all the coaches are watching the game on tablets, and getting a view that the official do not have, the whole concept becomes a joke. As I said on another thread, let the players play, the officials officiate, and I would add, let the coaches coach. If the coaches want to call penalties and throw flags, I'm sure there are job openings?
A coaches job is to win games, and he will challenge anything that will give his team the advantage. Or maybe I should be saying "should".
I disagree. The coaches have personnel specifically looking for ANY infraction on every play; and the HC doesn't even know there's an infraction until the video-guy tells him. The two worst coaches for this, IMHO, are Popp and Jones (big surprise there). The fishing expeditions are exactly the thing that tick me off the most with the challenge procedure. In fact, a perfect example of this is the "hold" on Speedy B that took away an INT for the greenies...
Credit to the CFL officiating and league for listening to their fans, better rules will hopefully make an improved game and more balanced.
GO CATS GO!!!
I think thats what CFiO meant by coaches.
The holding call on the greenies was right though. They were quick to challenge which made me think Banks might of been the first look for Zach and the coaching staff
If they would only do something about the "staff" at the Control Centre.
As I believe Jake "The Snake" Ireland still runs the place. :thdn:
Hard to figure that someone from "just down the road" in the Simcoe area
would be..and always has been, so very bias against the Cats.
There are currently seven referees in the league, and only four games per week. That leaves three inactive referees every week. Let's say a couple of them are backups in the games. How about making one of the inactive referees the review official for that week? It would rotate through them all so no one official's style (or bias?) would affect any team more than the others.
Too good of an idea for the league to do :rockin:
I like the current change. While it doesn't solve all of the problems, it's a start. :thup:
I know how to solve the issues, DITCH THE BLOODY challenge!!!!!!!! The game is dragging and it's a farce. Train the officials properly and just roll with it. Perhaps maybe just use it in the playoffs. I'm sick of it and how guys like Jones use it. Oh what the hell we don't stand a snowballs chance in hell. lets toss a flag and hope for the best.
The other advantage of this is that the active referees, at least some of them, know what judgment and discretion mean. Rather than sticking with the letter of the rules, they might be more willing to consider whether the infraction actually affected the play.