I may be wrong here, but did anyone else think forward progress was stopped long before McDaniel's fumble? That play was the difference in the game, and I believe it was a blown call.
I haven't seen the play again, but I remember thinking at the time that he was still moving forward a bit......much as I hate to admit it I thought it was a clean takeaway....
Did you watch the Gang Green vs Nags game? Blown call that Chick hitting Hank when the ball was still live results in a tie, as opposed a Sask win.
But you're right, its the Zebra's affecting the game outcome in both games.
Both calls favoured the home team.
Coincidence? I think not.
Thats what I was thinking,but I have only seen the play once.
Too late now to do anything though lol
SIGN CHRIS DAVIS??
It did look that way. A few of us in the game thread noted this. I would like to see the replay of that again.
I would say its pretty darn close to the whistle should have been blown as forward progress had stoped .
But we cant dwell on that .....He played a great game and it was not like he held the ball out in a dangerous area . He was held up and stripped during a great effort on his part ..
I admire trying to fight for extra yards after the catch, but you also have to know where you are on the field and protect the ball. People can say Cox made a great play but that’s only because McDaniel allowed it to happen by playing dumb. Watching the replay it almost looks like he turns to respond to some trash talk from Cox and puts himself in position to be stripped. DUMB!!!
No, it was a clean fumble. The fumble WAS the turning point of the game, a 14 point swing, from being possibly up 8 to down 6, but it was not a blown call. McDaniel needed to protect the ball in that situation. He scored two TD's, so he did some positive things, but you can't make mistakes like that against Montreal. We had to be flawless today to beat them - mission nearly accomplished, but that was the game lost on that play.
You can relax and "wonder" about that play for a long time.
There's a lot to be said for the chat we have had on it. Forward Progress was certainly stopped, and you had a receiver out by himself in a crowd of defenders, who were making every effort to strip the ball, rather than tackle and ground him.
So its a great question to throw at Ned Flanders over there in League country...
On such a play, is this the "intent" of the rules? If so, when a running back is stopped and being driven back by a crowd of defenders, do we get a "forward progress" whistle, or do we see defenders wrippind away at the arms and hands, looking for a "strip" as opposed a "tackle"?
Another such "incident" happened in the Regina/Calgary game, in OT, where John Chick got penalized for hitting Henry Burris in a "live ball" incident, where Steve Baggs had flattened Burris but not maintained contact, and this would have meant the Riders would have stuffed them and been able to take away a win by scoring even so much as a single point. Chick was "airborne" and "aimed", (and he's really a big guy!) but landed rather "lightly" on Burris, but got penalized. Another game decided by the zebras, rather than the players, to the discatisfaction of the "payers" (read "Fans")
The "challenge" flag thing has been, to some extent, a successful improvision to the game, but allows for more laxitude in officiating, as you cannot "challenge" a "non-call" as in "forward progress" or "facemasking" as happened to cause the fumble by Hamilton this afternoon.
"Funny", isn't it, both of these "questions" were arguable "mistakes" in favour of the home team....
I get just a tiny bit tired of the officials...
Unlike most.. or alot here.. I agree with the RTP call on Chick.... Burris was making no attempt to get up but rather the opposite.. laying back is conceding, All Chick had to do was touch him, play is dead, no worries of any penalty.. but no.. he decided to jump on him.. not "lightly".. don't give the refs a reason to throw the flag!!!
The forward motion issue with tonights game is more MB's fault, he could have challenged that call stating forward motion was stopped, but rather decided to wait and challenge a down by contact issue for the Als TD on the resulting play. .that challlenge was up held but it was futile in the end. IMO McDaniel did not fumble and it's wrong to pin that on him!
Just to point out, it wasn't a 14 point swing. It would have been 3rd down and a field goal chance. Reagrdless, McDaniel has to cover up and take the easy 3 at that point. He's 3 yards away. Rookie mistake. Looked alot like Mike Morealle on that play. There's a time and a place to go for that extra yard. But that was neither.
The throw/play was dumb.
Once again we need x yards and threw a pass short of how many we needed.
Of corse the receiver is going to fight for extra yars. It was 2nd down and we threw a pass short of the yardage we need
The call, or non call, was fine.
Looked to us like forward progress was stopped too. It was actually a poorly officiated game (as usual), but thems the breaks.
Actually Mr. tc 1991 if you add the points they didn't get (7) and the points the Als got (7) that seems to me a 14 point swing agree?
I didn't think McDaniel had good control of the ball, nor did I think his forward progress was completely stopped. Had the official ruled that Marquay's forward progress WAS stopped, I felt that it would have been an arbitrary call that might have gone either way.
Marquay later redeemed himself with two touchdowns and this is certainly to his credit.
I don't care for his method of running back kicks. He has the speed for it but after receiving the ball, appears very tentative as to which direction to run in and the next thing you know, he's tackled.
This is a waste because IMO, if he wasnt quite so tentative, he could usually make more yards.
He has enough speed to take a kick all the way. Needs to get over his shyness.
Ron Lancaster used to hate it when his kick returner ran in any direction other than straight ahead.
Just out of curoisity, how many were in this "crowd"?
The whole forward progress stopped - dead ball is too arbitrary a call. I know both the NFL and CFL reserve this call for safety reasons but it seems as if the call is made much more often and less judiciously in the CFL.
It all comes down to blocking. Or, in our case, the lack of it.