The Garden Gnome Strikes Again!

When in doubt, referee Kim Murphy makes stuff up. Hank gets called for roughing while he's being blocked by a huge Dlineman. Lawrence does a little sack dance and the "gnome" calls him for taunting? Murphy appears angry when he throws his little flags. I always thought the referees were supposed to be neutral arbitrators but it is as if he is getting even for some alleged slight. Bad calls can and do extend drives that can affect a game's outcome. I shudder when he's announced as the referee for TiCat games. I like garden gnomes but not when they wear stripes. :lol:

Pat Lynch(the old guy)

There was no question Burris should have been called for roughing -- he picked the guy up and threw him over his head after the play had ended (showed a lot of strength in doing so, too). That said, the officiating crew had a rough game, with lots of lengthy conferences, one flag picked up (correctly, IMO), some mangled explanations by Murphy and the insane decision to allow Austin to throw the challenge flag so he could change his team's decision on whether or not to accept a penalty. That should have been a flag for delay of game, IMO. Otherwise there were missed or botched calls in both directions.

Hank suplexed the blew team player by his helmet - good call.
The taunting penalty was another good call. There is no place in Football for that nonsense. I actually thought it was a well-officiated game.


The old guy is speechless. Mark this day on your calendar. :lol:

Pat Lynch

The taunting penalty was lame, it was very small and short, not even close to being over the top by any means,
IMHO a warning would have served the purpose and would have been sufficient.

A good guideline for "sack dances" would be to save them for when you actually get a sack, not just make a hit on the QB. (An even better guideline would be to save all dancing for your weekly salsa lessons.)

I agree Burris deserved that penalty. But I think it was a good penalty to take. First of all, the chump deserved to be suplexed for his unnecessarily aggressive blocking - and he'll have to face taunting from his teammates for getting owned by a 38-year old QB. Secondly, how often does a QB get a chance to do that to a D-lineman? I'll bet Hank will remember that aspect of the play fondly.

I agree with Pat. If the play was over why was the D lineman still slamming Hank in the chest? Got what was due.
The dance, not much there, maybe shouldn’t have done it, but it didn’t deserve the penalty. Guys have to have some joy I suppose.

the roughing penalty was well worth it, as DE English barked up the wrong Burris tree. :smiley:

I was taken aback by how angry the ref looked when he called a few key penalties on Hamilton. I thought that jumped out as being unprofessional and biased. Although maybe our D players were trash talking his ability/perception, and it got to him??????

I was at the game and missed Hank throwing the lineman but watched it on to relive the game. The penalty was a good call. As for the taunting call, IMO it was boarder line. If he had been a few yards away he might not of got the call but because it was pretty much on top of Ray the call was made.

All that matters is that we won the game and are now in striking distance of Toronto.

I thought both were good calls. Good on Hank for not taking any abuse from anyone. I'm just hoping it wasn't a case of the player getting under his skin, that it was just him letting the guy know he couldn't be intimidated. As for the taunting call, he might have gotten away with it if he had not first stepped over Ray, or if he had not done his celebratory dance while appearing to stare right at Ray.

A few missed calls (e.g. intentional grounding by both QBs, pick by Ticat receiver on a crossing route), but a well called game for the most part. I thought the tackle by Waters on Banks was clean, as he hit him across the chest, not the head, and grabbed his jersey to bring him down. I'm not sure why Austin was allowed to change his decision on whether to accept the penalty; I'm thinking that the referee may have realized that he provided Austin with the wrong information on when the clock would start, explaining why he mentioned it in his announcement.

What do you expect from a man named Kim? No disrespect to Kim Mitchell.

In general I think that outside of Andre Proulx's crew, Murphy's is the worst in the league.
But I think all those calls mentioned above were correct yesterday.

They did miss Fantuz going offside on the Cats' first series of the game (the play immediately before Hage's early snap that turned into a fumble), and maybe a couple of plays could have been intentional grounding, but besides that they were fine.

I think the reason Austin was allowed to change his decision on accepting the penalty was that it may have been explained unclearly, and he thought declining would make it 2nd down in addition to running the clock.

That's strange Pat. He speaks very highly of you.

That's syrange

Coming from a macho man called chocolatekarma

It was very close, but I think you're right. First case I've seen in a while where the officials missed an offside. But as I said, it was very close - maybe a foot, if that.

The ball has just started to move in this picture. I added a line at the line of scrimmage for reference.

There were 3 plays on the first drive that were close to being offside, and I rewatched them all in 1/15 speed later. The first 2 were okay (as they almost always are) but the Fantuz one was definitely over by a half yard.

Why do you assume I'm a man? Do you typically make ignorant assumptions?

Maybe it is half a yard. Angles are tricky in these views. It looks like his hand might be that far over the line.

So because his name is Kim, he can't be much of a man. Who's making ignorant assumptions now?