Speaking of Calgary's gameplan...

Last night, I was in the stands and could not benefit from the replays nor the comments on TSN. So there might have been something I did not see or understand, but in my perspective there was something really wrong with Calgary's first of three fake plays.

From what I saw (and I was sitting pretty far from the action), the first fake went accordingly with the plan. The placeholder received the ball, sent it directly to Wes Cates, who ran wild for a TD. No mishandling. No fumble. Just the play.

Then the play was called back because it was illegal.

Now with my question:

  • If the play was well executed, it means it had been practiced.
  • If the Stamps practiced it, it is because the coach made them do it.
  • But if it was an illegal play... it means Tom Higgins and his special team coordinator did not know the rules... Right?

I mean, they did make the team spend time in practice to perform something they can't do anyways. Am I correct?

Wasn't that called back because of an illegal receiver? That could be nothing more than positioning!

IMO, that play should have not been can’t back, the ref even didn’t know what team was playing cuz, I swear to god you can watche it for yourself, he called Calgary “BC”!!! :o

Thankfully Calgary won.

.....I think I have this correct but I was BBQing on the deck at the time and while Mrs. RedandWhite called me in for the TD when I came back in I saw it had not counted....I asked my darling what had happened and, well, I love her dearly though.....

...I believe it was a positioning error on behalf of Cates who had lined up inside of the end of the line, and with his number had made him ineligble, had he lined up outside of the end of the line I think it would have been o.k.....so my gut feel is this is what they had practiced (lining up outside of the end) but in the chaos of the game Wes put himself ineligble by placing himself wrongly...

That would make some sense.

Shame on you for taking care of the grill when your team is in scoring position, though.

I agree R&W, the chaos of the game just messed it up for the Stamps, I'm sure they practiced properly and Higgins and his staff know the rules with numbers and that.
But that being said, even if Higgins didn't know all the rules, remember Craig Stadler hitting a ball from under the trees once in a tournament with all on a blanket on his knees? He didn't even know a rule like this so I don't think we should be too hard on all pro players or coaches to know everything, they should probably, but they all don't.

he was the last guy on the left side, and over a yard back from the line of scrimmage so he was technically in the backfield and thus should have been eligible. even if he wasn't in the backfield, he was on the end of the line and thus still should have been eligible.
i think it's some convoluted thing about reporting your eligible special teams numbers before the game, but i never heard all of dunigan's explanation.

Higgins said the stamps were flagged for
an ineligible receiver for reasons that were too complicated to explain in one night. LOL

Hey third did you enjoy the "bobsled" ??

Prior to the play, players are listed eligible Cates was not listed! An over site on the coaching staff!

You are right!

Ha ha ha Redandwhite is the head of his family and his wife is the neck. The neck controls the head! Poor guy! I will have mine medium please and do not burn it! ha ha ha

The commentators said that someone in the referee booth reported that Cates did not report to the refs as an eligible receiver....FOR THAT PLAY!

Exactly and if that did not happen it is what it is called back! No problem!

The funny one was the penalty to number 25 BC! ha ha ha We must of had a Lion player on the field with us last night! New rule ref's can not have alcohol 24 hours before the game!

STAMPS 41 Not So Mighty ALs 23

Just in case some one forgot!

Hopefully the Als will fall apart like the did a few years back when they lost like 7 in a row :smiley:

The explanation in the paper today was that the coaching staff screwed up the eligible reciever list that goes to the officials at the start of the game. Apparently they're listed in units, and you can't have one person from a unit elegible and another inelegible on the same play.. Randy Chevrier and Wes Cates were listed in the same unit for that formation so when Chevrier snapped the ball it made him ineligible.. thus so was Cates. At least that's what I got out of it. One way or the other it was a paperwork problem that went down before the game even started.. it wouldn't have been an illegal play had it not been for this oversight.. and then it would have been 48-23... which doesn't matter at all. :smiley:

Oh ya the Als are not too happy! :lol:

am I like the only one on hear that heard the ref correctly? he didn't say Calgary, he said BC!!!

That he did number 26 BC :lol:

Your explanation makes sense. On fake punt plays that turn into a pass, I've seen the officials look at pieces of paper.