Re: Thoughts on OTT/HAM Game as well as Burris/Laurence Feud

I can't open the soundcloud links on this playbook so I'll try it at work later

Regarding the first link, I think you can do better, needs more breakdown than just pros and cons

And I'm not sure due diligence is the right words.

Also, it's "Money" Medlock :wink

Simoni appears to be committed to the tackle before Henry releases the ball outside the pocket,bad call by one of my favourite officials .

Even more disconcerting is the fact the TSN panel never mentioned the helmet to helmet hit on our QB !!

I have lost a lot of respect for the biased TSN panel for all ganging up on Simoni and falling for the poor Hank story.

Austin was right ,officials and TSN wrong !

Emotional game or what?

The officials didn't call a penalty on Lawrence for the hit outside the pocket. They got that one right.

Later in the game (Q3 4:28), Lawrence did get called for Roughing the Quarterback. In that case, he hit Burris below the knees when Burris was still in the pocket. They got that one right too.

The one they got wrong, in my opinion, was the Illegal Block on Stewart's pick-six. From what I could see, the block was above the waist - totally legal. But it didn't make much of a difference, as Butler's block from behind on a player away from the play would have negated the touchdown anyway. We would have started from ten yards closer, but probably wouldn't have changed much. (Maybe, maybe not. Would we have advanced the ball into the end zone and not thrown the pick to end the drive? No way to know.)

if its away from the play it should be added on the kick off imo

That's what I thought too, but the rule book says:

NOTE: The Rules Committee has declared its total abhorrence of Rough Play
and Unnecessary Roughness. Officials are instructed that no tolerance
whatsoever is to be given to infractions under this Section.
Article 1 – General Application

(d) If the foul occurs after a change in possession, the non-offending team
may elect to have the penalty applied:
b from the point where the ball was held when the foul occurred or,[/b]
(ii) from the point where the ball became dead on the play.[/i]

Here's what burns my @ZZ.... two COMPLETELY obvious calls that were missed that had to be overturned on review. (the pass interference and roughing plays.) Now... these weren't issues that occurred away from the play.... THEY WERE THE PLAY. so..... exactly WHAT were those refs looking at anyways? :x

Aren't they generally looking across the field to see if they can spot some irrelevant, incidental contact that will enable them to nullify the play?

The officials should use some common sense and I realize that won't happen. They should let minor stuff go if it is away from the play and in no way affecting the outcome of the play. The worst ones are the contact on a receiver that is 25 yards away from where the ball is going, all it does is slow the game down. Some holding calls well away from the play that don't affect anything. In reality the officials could call something on every single play, and it seems like some games they do. They make way too many on field mistakes that the command centre backs up, I'm not sure what video they are looking at but some of the calls just puzzle.

In every game there are penalties called that aren't seen, or aren't obvious to the spectators. There are marginal calls which rely on the referee's judgement and may or may not result in a flag being thrown. It evens out over the course of the game, or over the course of a season.

However, there were a couple of plays last week, that made me wonder whether the refs were even watching the game.

The first was the Matthews fumble which, from my vantage point in the upper west stand looked like a pass that was batted down. Even if Matthews did not actually release the ball, it was quite clear that his arm was in a forward throwing motion and the play should have been called an incomplete pass. I am surprised that the fumble was not overturned by the TV refs - aren't they supposed to review all turnovers?

The second was the roughing call on the Banks fumble, which was given only after review. How could the refs on the field miss such a blatant illegal tackle to the head and face mask?

I agree with your entire post, but, upon review, the ORB player reached over Banks' shoulder and grabbed the inside of his pads. At first I thought it was a facemask or "classic" horsecollar (ie: from the back) penalty. It was actually a horsecollar from the front. Still, it should have been caught the first time. The other review (the DPI when a DB ran through Fantuz) should not have been needed, as the play was so bleedingly obvious. Too bad Simoni was fined for speaking the truth after the game. If we, as fans, are disgusted by the extremely poor officiating, I wonder how difficult it is for professional athletes to tolerate THAT level of incompetence...

How come the refs added the yardage from both penalties to the play even though the one on Simoni was declined by Ottawa?

I didn't get to watch this weekends games. So, if I understand right, SL did indeed cheep shot burris with probable intent to injure on a second hit, yet gets the benefit of the doubt on the first hit???

If by his own words he always goes low, that would make him a morally dirty player if not a legally dirty player.

Burris was right to complain. Also, if there was two hits, why do people assume that burris was complaining about the first hit and not the second? Sounds to me like he had just cause.

Because Burris complained at halftime and the 2nd hit hadn't happened yet.

The ref first announced Lawrence's penalty was declined. I don't think Ottawa declined it, I think Proulx incorrectly ruled that it had to be declined in order for the other penalty (which was 15 yards) to be accepted, and Ottawa would obviously want the larger penalty. Afterwards he did the announcement again and corrected it, and also corrected the number on the other penalty (28 instead of 45).

What I would like to see.

Before a ref throws a flag, he should be able to answer yes to 2 of 3 questions about the infraction

  1. Was there an infraction on the play?

  2. Would it have had any possible affect on the outcome of the play?

  3. Would a players safety be compromised on the play?

I suspect they do answer those questions on every play. They let a lot of holding go, mainly because the player being held had no chance of making a play. Major fouls, they never let go (if they see them) no matter where they happen, as those rules are mostly about player safety.

The one that I'm not sure about is illegal contact on a receiver. But who's to say that contact on the far side of the field didn't affect the play? Could the receiver have come back toward the ball if not for the contact? Would the receiver have drawn coverage away from the intended receiver if he had been able to complete his route? Was he the primary or secondary receiver on the play, but the QB rolled to the other side after finding him not open because of the contact?

I agree with the contact on the receiver calls when they do affect the play, it's really just pass interference, but the officials are throwing flags away from the play when the ball is in the air going the opposite direction, they have to use some common sense on plays like that. I've seen the flags thrown on uncatchable passes as well, not the close sideline ones, but the way out of bounds passes. They just seem to be interfering with the flow of games, missing the important calls and then making mystery calls. It happens every game. It's not going to change though and coaches can't call them out on it without getting fined, then what happens, the next time that official is calling the game he gets even.

Is that right? If that IS what happened then Burris was at fault and should be ashamed.

Fixed it for you.

Tackling low doesn't necessarily mean he is either a morally OR legally dirty player! Would you prefer that he tackle high and risk head shots? I don't know if there is a way to see individual penalty stats but it seems to me that Simoni is not often penalized on his tackles - probably one of the least penalized players at his position.

According to Simoni he was pushed into Burris on the second tackle that was low when Hank was in the pocket. Not saying the penalty shouldn't have been called - it should - but it certainly doesn't indicate "probable intent to injure".

Burris played with Lawrence two years ago and he KNOWS (or should know) what kind of player Simoni is. Plain and simple, he didn't like getting hit, and took the first opportunity he had at half time when a mike was shoved in his face to malign the rep of a former team mate. As if that wasn't bad enough, he added more fuel to the fire at the end of the game. Looks like he was just itching for an opportunity to "stick it" to the team that let him walk in place of a younger QB.