TSN ignoring a dangerous problem?

Is TSN (or some of it's moderators) trying to ignore or hide the problem with inconsistent helmet-to-helmet calls?

Re the latest Stamps-TiCats game. I tried to post the following comment (about 3pm yesterday, Monday July 21) concerning the non-call on the obvious and intentional helmet hit to Tasker after the late failed field goal attempt yet the mods seems to have refused to post it (as of 9am today so unlikely it will appear now). Anyone see anything objectionable in the content of my post below?

"rider insider, hockeydood1, 92'stamps and others... Agree that Stamps got a "lucky" break on a roughing the QB (unintentional barely brushed helmet) penalty yet the refs somehow missed and ignored a deliberate, violent helmet-to-helmet hit on Tasker after the late field goal muff. Tasker is lucky to have escaped unharmed and a penalty could have potentially changed the outcome of the game. For the doubters or those in denial, check out the TSN game highlights video linked above (about the 1:45-1:50 mark, after all the commercials). Stamps player clearly lead with his helmet and made contact with Tasker’s face mask. Not that it matters now unless the League comes out with an after-the-game fine or suspension but doubtful."

Game story link http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=457481.
Game synopsis video link http://www.tsn.ca/VideoHub/?collection=72&show=401591.

As others have observed, it seems some questionable calls or non-calls (especially involving QBs) are being made, or not, while other obvious ones are ignored.

Consistency would be appreciated before someone gets seriously injured or worse, besides affecting the possible outcome of the game.

(I tried posting it again today about 10am but it was still "rejected" while others have since been posted. ????)

Speaking of double standards, running backs initiate head-to-head contact on every play, either plowing headfirst into the tackler or blocking a LB or DL. But if a tackler leads with his head, that’s verboten. To only sure way to eliminate head hits is to ban football entirely. Even if they switch to flag football the RB’s will still lead with their helmet, risking head contact and concussions.

Did you include the links in your comment at all? If so - it may have automatically been rejected for that reason. I know other comment areas I've put comments on do not allow any links within your comments.

Otherwise I have no idea why it may have been rejected.

I have had the same problem on some sites as well. That could be it. Try removing the http:// from the beginning and insert the links as text. Anyone interested can copy/paste to get to the sites.

Thanks for the suggestions and I've noticed that issue with some sites (re including links) but I had not included the active URLs in the original submissions, just the content between the quotation marks (from "rider insider" down to "doubtful.").

I included the 2 links for anyone reading my "confusion" post wanting to access the online story and relevant video I was referencing on the TSN CFL site. (Again, see 1:45-1:50 in the video to see an obvious, possibly game-outcome-changing, head shot not called.)

With all the unrelated (to the actual game story) back and forth banter and arguments in that thread amongst the Riders, Stamps and Esks fans, I don't know why my concern posting about inconsistent or uncalled helmet-to-helmet head shots is being "censored" by the mods. :roll:

The problem I have with trying to have a blanket rule is that there is a tendency to penalize the winner of the contact as opposed to penalizing the initiator of the contact. With the example provided, I felt that the helmet to helmet contact on that play was very mutual and I thought that the correct call (in this case a non call) was made. It would have been wrong to penalize Calgary simply because the Calgary player got the better of the contact.

I appreciate your POV but I disagree.

Tasker was already being tackled from behind and was on his way down (pretty well defenseless) and the Stamp DB lead with his helmet, making full contact.

A classic case of a helmet-to-helmet call that wasn't... IMO :slight_smile:




Looks to me like Tasker's forward motion had been stopped, or at least slowed, when Johnson grabbed his ankle, and started to bend forward as a result. So yes, his head dropped slightly from where it was when he was motioning to pass a moment earlier. So what would have happened had he not dropped his head? Moniz would have hit Tasker in the chest - with his helmet. Still a 15 yard penalty (Rule 7, Section 2, Article 3, Paragraph f - "Using the helmet to butt, ram or spear an opponent").

It looks to me from the pictures that Moniz is leading with his shoulder, the helmet contact is incidental and mutual. It is not spearing if you make contact with the shoulder and then there is a clash of helmets, which I believe happens here and with the Willis contact against Hamilton.

Unfortunately, trying to snag the exact frame off the TSN video is almost impossible. Moniz's helmet has already deflected off Tasker's helmet, and Tasker's helmet has snapped backwards by the third frame.

So easy to hit pause and dissect a hit frame by frame, that happens in less than a second in real time. We have no clue how fast professional football is and really don't have the expertise to judge. The game is fast and big hit's are going to happen. CFL and NFL are more aware than ever about head injuries and have made huge strides in educating and treating head injuries from where things used to stand in decades past. Maybe they should just start getting players who decide to turn pro, to sign a waiver acknowledging the risk of head injuries playing pro football? It's up to that individual player to weigh the risks .

Agreed, it's a fast game, and I can understand to some extent how some hits such as this one get missed by the officials, given how far away they are and what angle they're seeing it from. Perhaps it's that I'm upset that it's the fourth time a Hamilton player has been the victim of a helmet-to-helmet hit. Fortunately this time, the blow was more of a side hit so Tasker was able to walk away from the hit without suffering a concussion.

I am wondering if the black helmets are part of the problem, that the officials aren't seeing the head snap back as easily as they would with a brighter coloured helmet. Time for the Ticats to go back to the yellow helmets of the 60s and 70s perhaps? Or at least add a stripe?

This one may also have been missed because of the location of the officials with 2 under the goal posts expecting a kick. The effectiveness of the fake may have also caught the officials.