Stamps armour ejection

Gice me a break!!!!!!!!! The second play of the game and its over?!! Any team that wins or loses has to overcome a call like that, no matter if it goes againts them or not!! Blaming that call is a cop-out as the game went down the D'Angelis kick on the last play of the game! IMO, that call was irrelevant to the outcome of the game. TRY AGAIN!!!!

...I disagree...removing Armour from the game contributed at some level to Cates being able to rack up 136 yards rushing, which certainly had an influence on the game's outcome...

The Riders had 2 starting O-linemen tossed in Hamilton last year due to some mindfart by Andre Proulx and his crew...they carried on.

Oh I agree, removing Armour had an impact. But it would be no difference if Armour had gone down on the 2nd play of the game with an injury. It is how teams respond to these circumstances that show the character of the team.

Starting MLB > O-lineman

...Armour in and Cates still has a great game, don't get me wrong, Cates still racks up good yards, but Armour in and it influences the outcome IMO, by how much?...totally unknown...that was all I was getting at with sambo's comment....

Labinjo is a good MLB but then it's offset by the loss at defensive end.

TWO o-linemen.

And it wasn't distress over Armour's ejection that caused Copeland and the boys to drop more balls than a lawn-bowling team.

My thought exactly. I was literally thinking the exact same thing.

The facts are that Ireland only announced the penalty, he did NOT throw the flag. Neither did the Umpire #24 who was hit by Armour. The flag came from the LJ who was on the SASK bench side on the far side of the field.

The Stamp drops did as much damage as Cates' running. :slight_smile:

...I read it that way the first time, but stand by my equation...your starting MLB AL is the defacto Captain of the D, the heart of the unit, and IMO is more important than even a couple O-linemen...

...the second comment is good as gold though...

Oh come on, if D'Angelis makes that kick, it makes the ejection irrlevant-- the fact that his kick deterimes the outcome of the game makes the ejection a non-factor in the game. The Stamps had a number of chances to win. A call on the second play of the game should not factor in to who wins or loses.. if that is the case, the third play of the next game should be the TSN turning point.....

...your arguing win/loss sambo, I'm arguing overall outcome of the game itself, not just the win, but stats and the game within the game, and setting up for next week, etc.....apples and oranges...

...Armour in, different game than Armour out...I dont' see how you can disagree with that...

I would guess the rules below were used. Perhaps they felt the contact was far more serious than it needed to be. i.e. he could have avoided at least some of the contact if he had wanted to. Just a guess.

SECTION 3 – DISQUALIFICATION
A player shall be disqualified from the game, and substitution permitted, for any act
of serious misconduct, including but not limited to:

(c) excessive objectionable conduct against an opponent or an official,

SECTION 4 – OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT
A player shall be penalized for any act of objectionable conduct, including but not
limited to:
(f) unnecessary physical contact with an official,

The point is.....if the game was refless (on the field) and penalities were called from bird's eye view...THIS would have never happened...I honestly believe the fewer officials on the field the better.. less chance of them affecting the outcome of the game.... You wait... one day it's gonna happen... where a bowl game...or maybe even the Grey Cup has an incident where someone is going to trip over the ref or a football will hit the ref costing a team a championship.... Even with the refs on the field... there could of been a ref with a birds eye view...and replays that could radio down to the refs and have spoken some sense into them....
As far as I'm concerned the refs have no business putting themselves ahead of game.... If he actually purposely hit the ref....he should of been allowed to stay in the game until the police showed up to arrest him for assault.

:roll:

An ejection of one player does not determine the outcome of a game… and if it is, then you dont deserve to win anyway…

...this is an interesting comment as I was mulling the same point over...if in fact the refs ruled this call as intent to injure an official, then I beleive the Crown has the responsibility to investigate a charge of assault on Armour...

And MY point is, that I thought that was a ridiculously stupid thing to say, then I saw who posted it at which point I realized that I was no longer suprised.