If Dickinson will be throwing his challenge flag 3-4 times a game and winning each time it will be because the refs are not calling the game competently. Illegal contact is illegal contact. I'm willing to bet that Dickinson will not have that opportunity because either the refs will catch the illegal contact [therefore no need to challenge] or Dickinson will get it wrong.
...as I said before, if the coach of the team I support is not doing everything within the rules to win a game he is not doing his job and should be canned...glad you all think Dickenson is doing his job...
However, if Dickenson only has 1 challenge per game do you think he will send a receiver to deliberately create contact on a pass play so he can waste his 1 and only challenge due to a dropped pass? No he won't so that play will no longer be part of his playbook. If he can keep his challenge if correct he willgo back to sending receivers out to create that contact to use in a challenge.
This is not about getting a call right it's about a coaches ability to abuse the system because he can. And CFL coaches, not just Dickenson, have shown they will abuse the system in this way when they have challenges to do it with. Don't blame the officials for trying to manage the game and being undercut by a coach trying to manipulate the system to their favour. This is a professional sport so the coaches willmanipulate the system anyway they can. That's their job.
...you do see the logic flaw in that statement I hope....
No flaw in that statement at all. This is a pro league and if my teams coach was refusing to abuse the system (legally and within the rules) then I would expect he would be jobless soon. I have no problem with Dickenson doing what he did, I would have a problem with a league that does nothing to stop it.
You stated "If he can keep his challenge if correct hewillgo back to sending receivers out to create that contact to use in a challenge."
If a coach is able to "create" an illegal contact situation and refs miss the infraction and Dickinson challenges the call and wins ...and keeps winning.... the problem is officiating, not abuse of the challenge flag.
If the refs are doing their job and doing it well they will call illegal contact. Dickinson won't have to throw his challenge flag. It doesn't matter if Dickinson "creates" the infraction or not.
...my point was if it is within the rule then it's not an abuse of the rule...if that's not what the rule intended then that's the fault of the rule creator, not the rule interpreter...your statement made it sound like the coach is at fault, but I think you restated your thought in the reply, if I read it right...
IMHO, There is always a degree of judgement call that a ref must use on PI, IC, RTP.
Once the call is sent to the Command Center and plays are microscopically analyzed searching down to the nanosecond, freeze framed from multiple angles frantically searching for an infraction like a player touched an opponent on the back of the helmet while going for the ball, the command center makes the call by the letter of the rule, taking the judgement out of the judgement call while the Ref who is in position and looking right at the play felt there was not enough of an infraction to flag it.
They say that holding could be called on every play, but the ref's allow for some judgement on it.
This is why the official that was responsible for that judgement non call or call and the head ref should always be consulted by the Control Center to come to the right conclusion.
mod edit: keep it civil and stick to your points instead of trying to insult
Illegal contact on a receiver is a flawed penalty and was being abused by coaches like Dickenson and O'Shea (at least those two) because it is difficult for officials at full speed while observing the entire field to sometimes discern who created the contact thus getting a penalty that was the responsibility of the receiver not the defender. Also, it is only a penalty against receivers and by definition cannot be called against defenders opening this moronic ploy to benefit offences up to abuse.
When the call is correctly not called by the official the CC gives the penalty because once a play is slowed down to frame by frame contact can be found on every play but at that speed it can't be determined the extent or sometimes who initiated the contact. Coaches know this and abuse it especially with the challenge.
To increase a coaches challenges just pushes back towards to slowed pace and fishing expeditions we had prior to the rule adjustment. The last person involved in the game that should be able to initiate a video review is a person with a personal bias to the outcome. It just invites abuse of the system which is bad for the game.
Video review is still killing the game and you want to speed up the process by giving coaches back the opportunity to abuse the system, fish for penalties, deliberately create a penalty where the defender has done nothing wrong (Illegal contact on a receiver is a phantom call almost half the time by nature) and slow the pace of the game and kill the flow?
Isn’t it better to get it right with a challenge then to continue with a wrong decision?
Go back to the 1 challenge per half and yes it can carry over with no loss of time outs period.
The point of allowing extra challenges is that the coach will have to make sure that the call is clear-cut. PI/IC/and in some cases Holding can be judgement calls. I don't think a coach is going to waste his one challenge on an opinion. Unless it's at an absolute critical point in thegame. My original point was that a coach can be denied an useful tool (challenge) by a terrible/biased ref making a ridiculous call early in the game.
Personally, I do hope that video review gets scaled back to possession, scoring, and out-of -bounds calls.
I totally agree with you Oskeeweenee!
Then the problem is with IC not challenges
But is that is the case....why are the refs not calling them?
Again a challenge should be to see if the knee was down etc not because the refs are incompetent
The perfect example is the OOB catch thisweekend...
Should a team really lose a challengebecause of a call that bad?
Either it is so far away from the play to be inconsequential to the play or the officials likely see it as receiver instigated which isn't a penalty for IC. As some posters are aware some smart coaches were sending receivers on routes to deliberately initiate contact knowing that if they need a challenge the CC will call it IC once they look at it slowly enough. That is a big part of why they changed the number of challenges coaches had. That change hasn't even been in affect for half a season and already people want to give them back the ability to return to their fishing expeditions.
Coaches don't need any challenges if the league allows the on field officials to call for a review when they have a play that was close or they were screened out on.
Yes they will. They did when they had more than 1 challenge so why would they not return to their old bad habits if they get all their challenges back.
People have forgotten how stupid 3/4 of the challenges were and that was only about 2 months ago. :
That's my point ro. Now the coach is denied a challenge because of complete incompetence. My other point is if the coach is only guaranteed one challenge per game then he probably won't be using it on judgement calls.
You don't think Dickenson or O'Shea wouldn't deliberately set up an IC and use their flag? PI absolutely not. Different standards and they change from play to play, but IC is the easiest call to get from the CC.
DC, I don’t if they would do it or not. I’m not in their heads. Anyhow, that’s my opinion on the subject, just as you have yours. And others have theirs. It is interesting to hear other voices on the subject.
...so basically moses, what you're saying is that Dickenson has his regular footgame game plan so damn finely tuned that he can spend all his free time on dreaming up special plays that explore the untested boundaries of the rules...that is awesome...13-1-1....