Stamps armour ejection

If Armour is that important to your D, then Huf has to make more changes...

...would you say, sambo, that the game is affected in some way, and to some degree, positively or negatively - all undetermined - with Chick's absence on defense? That's all Red's trying to say...

I think it would be difficult to argue that Armour's ejection did not effect the subsequent proceedings of the game. Whether or not his ejection was warranted or not is still TBD.

...sambo, you are missing the entire point, it's not that Armour wins the game for us, it's just that he would have an influence on how the game is played out...

...let me put it another way, Cates goes down with a busted ankle second play of hte game...does Sask still rack up the exact yardage for the game?...

Do you think, then, that if we had lost Mo Lloyd, there would be no side effects to that?

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.
...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...
Every hit outside of the rules would fall into that - including the face mask near the end of the half and the piling on.

Watch the replays. If instead of a Ref it was a Rider and Armour did that hit - it would have been a 15 yr penalty, Why? Because on light contact Armour used it as a spring board to level what he thought was a Player. It was going to be a major penalty no matter if it was a player or the Ref. The fact that it ref means he was tossed. The Riders were going to get the 3 points from extra yards no matter if it was a Rider or Ref he hit - in the end he made no effort to avoid the hit and put his all into it.

Red's not wrong...certainly there is an effect when a starter is lost. Look at the Rider offence in the second half.

Having said that, though, it cannot be said that the loss of Armour cost the Stamps the game. And I don't think Red was trying to stretch the point to that degree.

I swear I saw Normie Fong trying on helmets and receiver gloves at one point there in the 4th quarter....

So then the absence of Fantuz, Dressler, and Flick affect the outcome of the game to some degree? It doesnt matter who is not there, but who you have on the roster to replace those guys, via injury or ejection....

Yes, they do.

Well of course. But none of those players were absent on account of a phantom penalty, is Red's point, I think.

It wasn't a phantom Penalty. If you replaced the Ref with a Rider it would have still drawn a flag. Just because someone behind you makes contact is not a free ticket to level the nearest player or person - that's why the flag got thrown in the first place

A good team overcomes that adversity, wether you can control it or not....

No one is saying the absence of players cost anyone the game...just that it has an undetermined effect...

If Armour hit a Rider instead of the umpire, the Rider wouldn’t have spilled a$$ over tea kettle. Armour didn’t hit him that hard.

If that is the case, then RLR's injury excuse means that is why the Lions lost to the Riders in the Western Final last year...

Read again. No one is saying the absence of players causes the losses...just that it has an effect.

The reality is we will never know what the Lions could have done with a healthy Dave Dickenson throughout the regular season and playoffs. The cards that were dealt to BC last year meant that their third string QB had to start 11 games and the Western Final. Both the Lions and Riders had injuries. If both squads were healthy who would have won? We will never know.

It wasn't a phantom Penalty. If you replaced the Ref with a Rider it would have still drawn a flag. Just because someone behind you makes contact is not a free ticket to level the nearest player or person - that's why the flag got thrown in the first place
If Armour hit a Rider instead of the umpire, the Rider wouldn't have spilled a$$ over tea kettle. Armour didn't hit him that hard.
In the opinion of the refs - it was. What you or I think of how hard the hit means nothing. The Refs on the field can call the penalty and then it is up to the League if it was intended or just a dumb move - I agree Armour didn't know it was a ref - no one would intentionally hit a ref like that. But in the end he made no effort to avoid the hit and that drew the flag

Realistically, the big bunch of drops by Stamps receivers had more to do with the Stamps loss than losing Armour.

I Agree with that but you also have to remember that instead of the riders punting they got a first down and ended up with a field goal instead of good field position for the stamps.