My take on the game and "the call"....

So it took me a full day to fully recover from that game, re-watch it and visit this message board. I had a lot of fun reading the "ROBBED, ROBBED, ROBBED" was exactly what I expected. (Not saying I think we got robbed, because we didn' least to my understanding of the rules, the right call was eventually made.)

I'd like to talk about the whole game....not just the one play/one call that was made near the end.

The Good:

  • You have to like the fight that the Cats showed. Yet again we stumbled out of the gate in the first quarter (which we have done in all three games so far....even the Argos game), but we really rebounded and had a very strong second half. I'm starting to like the make-up of our team.

  • Lumsden was just unreal again. Obviously that was a huge fumble, but he bounced back and just tore up the Riders D. He is something else and that combination we have with Printers is unreal.

  • Our Special Teams were solid all game. Tre Smith is the real deal and I love watching that guy play. Not only can he contribute to the offence, but he is elusive on kick returns and makes something out of nothing every time. Also, our return coverage was very solid....not really any big plays and we had good field position as a result.

The Bad:

  • Dropped balls. Cohen had a bad one. Miles had one and another where I could've sworn Craig Yeast stole his jersey and jumped on the field for the play (I'm sure you all know what I'm talking about). Mitchell sort of dropped one, although it would've been a nice catch had he made it. Bottom line, you can't have this many miscues and lack of plays from the receivers as a whole in a CFL game and expect to win. If Lumsden didn't run wild in the second half, we could've been in trouble.

  • Missed opportunites. On both sides of the ball we had opportunities to make big plays and we didn't. For example, Miles and Printers not connecting on a for-sure 6 points in the first half. Our CB's not making plays on the ball when they are basically stride-for-stride with the other team's receivers. (Sask had two big gains on plays like this.) If we make these plays, we don't have to worry about a last second fumble ruling.

  • Our defence. I'll try to be as easy on these guys as I can, but that was an awful showing for our D. Forget the fact that we were playing a rookie QB because the last time I checked, half of our defence is made up of rookies. (However, he was still a rookie QB....and that has to be the hardest position to step into and try to contribute/lead your team, but anyways...)

It all starts at the line and the Riders have the best O-line in the league....combine that with our young and inexperienced D-line and the Riders pretty much did whatever they want the whole game. Cates could've driven a Mac truck through the running lanes he had.

To me, the weakest spot on our team is our outside LB's and our HB's. Those screen plays / inside hook patterns that they ran all night were rediculous. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 17 times....well, you get the picture. How we could not adjust to that is beyond me. Aside from the first pass of the game, I don't think Durant threw a pass over 10 yards.

  • The officiating was sub-par again, but not just for one team. Excluding the fumble debate, three major calls/missed calls stick out in my mind:
  1. There was a pass interference call on Sask that I thought was bogus that lead to a TD. Casey Printers lobbed a pass up to Scott Mitchell who drew the flag. IMO, the pass was not catchable to being with and I also though it was incidental contact. I thought it was a lame call and it extended the drive and ended up leading to a Cats TD. (Not that I minded, but it was still a weak call.)

  2. The roughing the passer call on McKay was a joke. Naut runs by Durant a split-second after he throws the ball, barely hits him with his arm and that warrants a 15-yard penalty? At any rate, that extended this drive (as it was also a second down play) and again led to 7 points.

  3. Consistentcy is always a problem. On one play, they call Thompson with a personal foul fasemask while he is trying to break up a pass......then five minutes later, they miss one when Lumsden has his head twisted right around. Are they both penalties....Yes. But in my opinion the obvious one was missed. Generally you don't see a facemask while a CB is trying to break up a pass, but you always see them on RB's when LB's are trying to take them down. So how was this one missed?

  • Now on to "the call." Sorry Cats fans (and Ted Michaels who was going nuts about it on the 5th quarter) but the right call was made. The ball looked like it hit Dressler's shoulder pads and went right through the back of the endzone. According to my understanding of the rule, the call was right.

Is it a stupid rule? That's a different question. I don't like the idea of rewarding a player for fumbling the ball through the end zone. Without even thinking about this game, the rule should be changed to something similar to the NFL's ruling. (That's just my opinion....for this particular ruling, the NFL has it right.)

Now my HUGE problem with this whole play is again the refs incompetance to being with. How do you signal a TD when a player fumbles the ball on the 2-yard line? It wasn't even close....this was another horrific call on the field. Not saying this changed anything because the ball went out of the back of the endzone pretty fast, but what if the ball had sat there a few yards into the endzone? His whistle changes everything. It stops the play and gives nobody an opportunity to recover the fumble.

And then there is the explanation the ref gave to the fans. "Sask fumbled the ball prior to reaching the endzone, by rule the ball will be placed on the 1-yard line. 1st Down Sask." The he goes over to the sidelines and chats with Charlie, then says "Hamilton wanted to challenge the play....the play in not challengeable."

Fine....but can you take a few seconds and say why? Tell us why Sask has the ball (because the ball hit Dressler's shoulder pad and went through the end zone) and tell us why the play is not challengeable (because you can't review a fumble recovery.)

Would that have been that hard?

Sorry for the novel, but I'll finish up with this comment: I don't think we were supposed to win this game. I guess the football gods thought we had enough with our one win last week. For example, Conji bouncing his first field goal attempt in the game off of the post, off of TC's head, lifted by the sound waves from Jason Farr's voice, then off the Millennium Falcon and through the uprights.

That pretty much sums it up right there. We will have better days, I'm just not sure it will be this week in Calgary. (Man, those guys are good. IMO, better than the Riders.)

What reward? There’s no reward.

The rule has been around and enforced forever.

A fumbled that goes out of bounds without being touched is scrimmaged at the point of the fumble.

It’s not an uncommon occurence, and it makes perfect sense.

Actually it wasn't challengeable because the coach can challenge a play in the last 3 minutes of the game.

casey has to put a little air under some passes and hit open recievers when they are open. He needs more touch and let the reciever run under it. Miles had two touchdown passes that printers missed him on. The one where it looked like miles sucked out was a td also, he had them beat long and only came back to the ball cus it was so underthrown and the other one, was a bad pass all round.

Missed opportunites. On both sides of the ball we had opportunities to make big plays and we didn't. For example, Miles and Printers not connecting on a for-sure 6 points in the first half.

You're right. It has to come from upstairs inside three minutes. I knew that, but again it's something the ref could've announced.

Agreed. I'm not saying Printers had a good game because obviously he didn't.

However, it's not always an exact science with the passing game. Look at Woodcock on that long pass he caught. One heck of an adjustment and a great play by the WR.

Both ends need to be clicking, but when Printers hits a receiver in stride he has to catch the ball. The drops I'm talking about were bad drops.

You're right. It has to come from upstairs inside three minutes. I knew that, but again it's something the ref could've announced.
Can you imagine the fans would have went ballistic!!!

Honestly, I believe that is a bad rule. The coach should be able to throw the challenge flag inside 3 minutes for cases just like the fumble call.

AMG, good post. I agree with you but I'd also second Beetlejuice's observation about KP too. He missed his receivers several times during the game. Nothing kills drives like missed passes. I don't know if it's a timing issue, KP's passing or badly run routes but they need to correct it.

Bottom line to me though was the team's competitiveness. It's been missing for too long but it is back. The East will be really interesting in 2008.

An Argo-Cat fan

The reward is that you get to keep the ball even though you fumbled it through the endzone. (That's a huge reward.)

I know it has been around and enforced forever...not arguing that at all.

It does make sense, and again I'm not arguing what the rule states. I'm saying I don't like it, and fumbles through the endzone should result in a possesion change. Fumbling it out of bounds inside the five is a different story.

I have one question.

When has a fumble ever been taken away from the offense simply because it was fumbled. To think otherwise is just stupid, the play should be dead as soon as it's loose? No sense either team trying to recover, after all it was fumbled. Why is it called a fumble and not a turnover if the ball carrier loses control? Because it's only a fumble, nothing more. It cannot imply that possession changes hands because no one on the opposite side has yet to do anything to WARRANT that they gained control or possession of the ball.

The call on McKay Loscher is the right call. Any contact above the pads no matter how weak is Roughing the passer and will always be called that way.

Why? it makes no sense at all.

Any posession change should be earned. You have to recover it in order to lay claim to it. It's like saying an incomplete pass should be awarded to the defense.

Fumbling it out of bounds inside the five is a different story.
Why is it different? It's not different in the least. A fumble is a fumble. Why make two distinct and contradictory rules for the same event? It makes no sense to me at all.

y, with under a min left and sask deep in thier own territory, did the defence allow that huge pass that brought the riders to the goalline?

play prevent defence...dont let anyone behind u..make them dink and dunk and run for the remaining min....WTF.

Never in this league. Nor did I say it ever had been in this league.

If you fumble the ball through the endzone, IMO you should't get it back and a first down to boot. I like the NFL's ruling on this and that's all I'm saying.

I see your point. I understand your point. But out of the two rulings (CFL and NFL), I'll take the NFL's. (Please note, it is not because of this game. The topic came up because of this game, but I have never liked this rule.)

Completely disagree. I've watched the play a few times and McKay barely touched him. Not only that, but he hit him in the chest, not the helmet.

It wasn't first down because it went out the endzone, it was placed at the one because it went out the endzone. First down yardage was gained and it was fumbled at the one. That's why it was called that way. I'll allow you to argue that possession should change, but the basis for that argument is ridiculous.

BTW, watch that play again, Loscher grabs facemask and it's blatantly obvious.

Kirk, check out Shultzie's opinion on He agrees with me. (Not that I care, but he does.) It's in the video section when the TSN crew talks about the "crazy" ending to the game.

If a possession change should be earned, so should a TD. Giving the team that fumbles the ball through the endzone a first down on the 1-yard line is almost equivilant to chalking up six points.

Now, if Dressler had fumbled the ball out of bounds at the 1-yard line, I believe that is a different story. At face value, it's the same thing. But if you think about it, there are never fumbles in the endzone because all you have to do is break the plane of the endzone and the play is over. IMO, you have to rule it differently when you fumble into the endzone as opposed to between the goallines.

Anyways, take a look at the NFL's ruling. If it "makes no sense to you at all" why would the #1 football league in the world rule it that way?

(I'm not trying to get into a CFL/NFL debate because I love both equally, but when it comes to officiating and rule management (correcting rules and modifying rules), the NFL is second to none in the world of football and that is a fact.)

Exactly! It was a 60 plus yard gain! The defense did not recover the fumble. No one was rewarded with anything. The ball was scrimmaged where it should have been, right where it was lost since no one established a change of possession. It was a non event with a neutral result.

A 60 plus yard gain is usually a first down.

They awarded it at the one because he EARNED it by carrying to the one.

THen on the next play they EARNED the TD with a hand-off and plowing through the D-line.

Riders earned their TD, Ti-Cats did not EARN possession.

It worked for Sask. after they scored. They played prevent and stopped us cold.

The fact of the matter is that the proper call was made, according to the rules. I am a Rider fan, would I be mad if it was the other way around? You bet! But there were a ton of positives to take from that game, Lumsden was amazing, Moreno was Moreno, awesome like usual, the cats showed lots of fight and never gave up,which is one of the best traits a team can have. The Cats are my fave team besides the Roughies, the only thing that worries me is the lack of TD passes by Printers. Belfool used to be the OC here and his trademark was the shotgun draw , Keith left or right, that was about all he had. He lacks imagination IMO,that is where the passing problem lies. What do you guys think? Im not here to troll or slag the Cats in any way. I just think a change of your OC would do wonders

Buddy, I'm not saying I don't understand why it has to be a first down considering the rules are the way they are. (Yes, he picked up a first down about 62 yards before he fumbled so there is no question about that.) My argument is that he fumbled through the endzone. Now ignoring the fact that the ref completely blew the call and called it a TD, Sask didn't recover the ball either. Sure, I understand the "possession" rule and agree with it from goalline to goalline. Just not when the ball goes through the endzone. (Also, please note again that I understand the right call was made after the review. I understand the rule.)

What is rediculous about the basis of my argument? My argument is that in this situation I like the NFL rules. If you think the NFL's ruling is rediculous, then that's your call.

And it's far from blatanly obvious that he "grabs his facemask." Not too mention, "grabbing" would imply that the contact Mckay made was more than a brush by....which it wasn't. (At least not from what I can see on TSN's broadcast or from what I remember from the game.)