Browner hit on Heard

Yah, to me it seemed as though he knew he was within 5 yards was caught flat footed and decided what the heck, I may as well full on tackle him. I think it was unsportsmanlike of him but not dangerous or vicious in any way because he wasn't moving fast enough to hurt him.

I'll chirp it up and talk smack with the best of them but I don't like spinning something out of nothing. I don't even mind Riders fans defending beer can throwing or Edmonton fans defending the hit on Glenn or Lions fnas defending Jiminez. At least there is something to debate. A controversy is always fun to trade jabs but creating a hate thread over a nothing play is just weird to me?

First, the play does not warrant a suspension but a fine isn't out of the question. But likely just an additional 15 yard rough play, maybe a DQ would have been appropriate. Of course as a multiple offender, stronger responses may be needed.
But you are dreaming if you think he stopped at the 41. He does have to take a brief sidestep to get around the block, but basically, he runs full tilt right through the play. No attempt is made to slow down or avoid the 5 yard zone---which should always be flagged for additional yardage. I think you need to watch the play again and try not to hit the pause when he gets to the 41 this time...(it will be funny if it turns out you based your observation on the TSN replay which does in fact freeze the action at the 41 so they can see if he is inside the 5 yard zone)

From the CFL release

penalty / Illegal act, check
Substantial and unnecessary risk of injury, check

Mandatory suspension?

What am I making up? Why can't you just understand that under the new guidelines, that hit/penalty is subject to mandatory suspension? Your ignorance sickens me. You still seem to believe that war was about Saddam Hussein's human rights violations and not about the oilfields. You still believe that the fans attacked the Lion's bench because of a call by the official and not because they saw one of the players throw something at a fan. And you don't seem to think that going for somebody's head while they're looking up at a football doesn't cause substantial and unnecessary risk of injury. I like to share what I find with people, and have open discussion about it. You seem to like to see it from your angle and say everybody else's opinion is worthless.

without a doubt

.
[/quote]
You still seem to believe that war was about Saddam Hussein's human rights violations and not about the oilfields.
[/quote]
Spin the story zbest. Somehow you know what I think about the war? Wow! I don't know how to respond to that???? You need some anger management buddy. Does anyone else get this guy?

What I don't understand is why we're talking about a war...

The only reason they put the new rule in was to protect Ray against the Bombers. Nothing will happen to Browner!

I believe that his play was legit. There would be no reason for reprecussions regarding this play.

The play was not legit. In fact it was penalized. The only question is whether the penalty was severe enough--but until now, nobody had even suggested it was a "legit" play....

Borwner is agressive, without a doubt. I can see him getting suspended for something in the future by his reckless abandonment type of play, but not here. Sorry, doesn't even warrent a fine. Proper officating from the start would have prevented this from occurring. Maybe the head offical should as his ref if he had his glasses on during thegame. :wink: