Two Third Quarter Harris TDs Seal Eskimo's Fater

BC Lions
#1

Another solid win by the Lions. They were better in all three phases that Edmonton, not a huge surprise to the majority of BC fans. Other than the early interception, Lulay played pretty well and the O-Line blocked well for Harris, the star of the night with three rushing TDs. He is so patient, willing to wait that fraction of a second for a crease to open or a block to be set. He was making cuts in a phone booth all night. Great catch and run by Arcenaeux and a good night by the Lions receiving corps. Edmonton killed themselves with penalties...again. A bit less emotional reaction by Kavis Reed after this loss.

The BC D turned in another solid performance, giving up a "prevent defense" mean-nothing TD in the last minute or so. They gave up a couple of good runs but made the Edmonton offense go two-and-out many times.

Special teams were better: No blocked kicks, better punt return blocking and Harris made better decisions than Williams did in games 2 and 3.. Paul McCallum looked like he never missed a practice.

BC is off for 10 days until they're back on the road to Toronto on July 30th. Then they're home to the Blue Bombers six days later. Toronto may be without Ricky Ray when we play them in Roger's Centre. Their backup looked really green against a game Bomber D. Without Ray Toronto will be forced to rely even more on Chad Owens and Chad Kackert and play smash mouth defense. Toronto always play a really physical game at home.

Calgary is now down to their 3rd string QB, the confident but inexperienced Bo Levi Mitchell. He came in after Kevin Glenn got hammered trying to get the ball away. And Goltz was in for the injured Buck Pierce this week. Right now the only teams with healthy # 1 QBs are BC, Saskatchewan and Montreal. I'm not counting Reilly because he was Edmonton's # 2 guy guy before Matt Nichols got knocked out for the year in game one.

So, Calgary, Toronto and Winnipeg with rookie pivots look likely to get beat ugly for the next couple of weeks. No reason why BC can't go into their bye week at 5-1. Go Lions Go!

-Dooger in Surrey

#2

Oops, sorry boys. I forget Burris. My face is red. -Dooger

#3

A very nice win for the Lions for sure though I must admit I was concerned when the teams went into the dressing room at half-time all tied up at 10 points a piece. The better team won for sure.

I'm most impressed with our receiving corp; Moore, Arceneaux and others. I wasn't really all that concerned when the Lions traded Simon but with the loss of Arland Bruce I was expecting a bit of a hole. The Lions are going to do just fine.

Brown and Williams still need to elevate their game on punt returns. Maybe they should put Harris back there for a few returns and see what happens.

McCallum is back to his usual self and that is good to see but I don't think his leg is as strong as O'Neill's. Maybe they should use O'Neill on the kick offs and punts and McCallum exclusively for the FGs. Can they alternate kickers like that throughout the game. [Gosh I wish O'Neill would lose the beard :roll: ]

The refs have got to get their act together. Close calls are forgivable but there was one no yards missed call where the Lions punt returner caught the ball in the air and the Esk defender almost had his arms around the guy before he even caught the ball. How could the refs not call that??

McCallum's CFL record of most consecutive FG's was in jeopardy of being tied when Paredes [Cgy] missed a 35 yarder in an earlier match up between Calgary and Montreal. McCallum must have had a bit of a grin on his face and breathed a long sigh of relief when Paredes' FG attempt was blocked by Montreal. Unfortunately, for McCallum, the word is that it is not considered a FG attempt because the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage so McCallum's record remains in jeopardy.

Okay, now I'm really confused. How does Montreal get credit for "blocking" a field goal "attempt" when by
CFL rules definition it was not considered an attempted FG because it did not cross the line of scrimmage? That rule needs to be looked at because it has given Parades another crack at McCallum's record. I can understand a faked FG attempt no longer being deemed an attempt or a FG attempt being nullified because it had to be aborted but once the kicker has made contact with the ball with his foot I figure it is a FG attempt and if it doesn't make it through the uprights it is a "missed" FG no matter where it ends up on the field.

All in all I'm delighted with what the Lions are doing so far. I think the big test will be their first meeting with Saskatchewan. The Roughies are on fire. The Roughies dined on Tiger meat for the entire game today. The Tabbies could not put up a single point.

On a closing note it was great to see two classy guys, Damon Allen and Don Matthews be inducted into the Wall of Fame at half-time. I was moved by Matthews acceptance speech where he exhorted the spectators to starting bringing their friends to fill the stadium. He reminded the fans that when he was coaching '83-'87 he remembered BC Place filled. And he remembers well. It was! Many games had 45,000+ with some home games bringing in 59,000+ fans. And those were not playoff games!

#4

The main point of the rules is to regulate how the ball can be played not for the purposes of personal statistics.
A blocked ""KICK" (not the same as a FG attempt) by definition is always behind the line of scrimmage.
When and by which team it is touched before/after the line of scrimmage also impacts on/off-side players and their legal ability to play the ball.
The main reason is that each play is counted as only ONE type (pass, rush, FG, punt, kickoff) and a BLOCKED punt or kick can evolve into another type of play. The specific rule is:
"(b) Kicks that do not cross scrimmage line:

  1. If a kicker should attempt a kick from scrimmage and the ball fails to cross
    the line of scrimmage, this will not count as a punt but will be considered the same as
    a lateral pass behind the line of scrimmage. If legally recovered by a player on the
    kicker’s side, the eventual outcome of the play will determine the way it should be
    recorded, that is, if a forward pass is thrown it will become a passing play; otherwise,
    it is a rushing play.
  2. If recovered by the defending side, the kicker will be charged with a fumble
    lost and the yards lost from the line of scrimmage to the point of recovery will be
    charged as a Team Loss.
  3. If a blocked kick is recovered by the kicking team, the kicker will be charged
    with a fumble. The events after recovery will determine whether the play shall be
    recorded as a rushing play, passing play or Team Loss play.
  4. If such blocked kick is recovered by a defending player, the kicker will be
    charged with a fumble lost. The yards lost from the line of scrimmage to the point
    of recovery will be charged as a Team Loss under Section 5. Yards gained by the
    blocking team after recovery will be recorded under Fumble Returns, See Section 11.
  5. The name of the defending player blocking the kick will be recorded in the
    space provided on the statistics reporting forms. The type of kick attempt blocked
    should also be indicated (punt, convert or field goal)."
#5

"The name of the defending player blocking the kick will be recorded in the
space provided on the statistics reporting forms. The type of kick attempt blocked
should also be indicated (punt, convert or field goal)."

Then Paredes "kick attempt" will be recorded as? It wasn't a punt. It wasn't a convert. It was a FG attempt was it not? A missed field goal. I can't see how it could be anything else if the type of kick should be indicated on the stats reporting form.

#6

What can I say - consistently inconsistent. It is one type of play from team "A" perspective and an "attempt" at another type of play from team "B" perspective. Strange but true. Oh well. But really, this is how the rule has historically been so if you change it NOW then you have to retrospectively re-examine ALL the previous records to judge them on the same basis.

#7

Let's once and for all address this Parades issue. Was it a blocked kick or missed field goal attempt.

First, interested parties can easily find the CFL Rulebook online. The rulebook is quite clear on this subject. See Page 41, SECTION 3, Article 1

"A blocked kick is a kick from scrimmage in which, after being kicked, the ball is prevented from crossing the line of scrimmage because of contact with an opponent or a player of the kicking team who is offside."

So for a place kick to be an actual attempt, it must cross the line of scrimmage, which Parades' kick clearly did not. This language isn't open to interpretation. It works just like a fumbled hold whee the ball fails to cross the line of scrimmage.

I don't care how many people want to keep this story alive; it's not a missed field goal. End of story. Please, everybody move on. Parades has the rest of his career to try to beat McCallum's record.

Dooger in Surrey :cowboy:

#8
:thup:
#9

You've missed my point Dooger. I said, " That rule needs to be looked at..." given the wording.

Don't take this personally Dooger but I really find it annoying when someone decides that the conversation is done because they've grown bored with it. We are all learning and there are different ways of seeing things. This requires some discussion. You don't have to participate if you don't wish to.

"So for a place kick to be an actual attempt, it must cross the line of scrimmage, which Parades' kick clearly did not. This language isn't open to interpretation."

But the language can be [should be?] changed because in fact it IS open to interpretation.

"A blocked kick is a kick from scrimmage in which, after being kicked, the ball is prevented from crossing the line of scrimmage because of contact with an opponent or a player of the kicking team who is offside"

What happens if an opponent did not come in contact with the ball but pushed a player of the kicking team into the path of the kicked ball and that player was not deemed offside? The player on the kicking team was not offside nor did a player of the opposing team come in contact with the ball. Neither criteria is met for it to be deemed a blocked "kick" and yet it is. If it is still deemed a kick then what kind?

What different kinds of "kicks" are there in the CFL? Punts, drop-kicks, kick offs, converts, FG attempts. Did I miss any? When players do convert "attempts" are they no longer convert "attempts" because the ball does not cross the line of scrimmage? Does a kicker's convert streak remain intact even though his attempt was blocked at the line of scrimmage? If it does, I don't agree with it.

I still believe that once the kicker comes into contact with the ball in a FG attempt that unless it clears the uprights it is a failed attempt no matter how far the ball was kicked.

While Paredes has his whole career to break McCallum's record I don't think the rule is fair to McCallum.

If the ball has to cross the line of scrimmage for it to be deemed a "kick" then why do we always see and hear, " blocked punts", "blocked convert attempt", "blocked FG attempt" in cases where the ball did not cross the line of scrimmage?

#10

Because that's how the rules state you deal with recording the play from a "Team A" and "Team B" perspective.

The terminology is inconsistent but if we want to look at "fairness" and change the rule then we have to go back and look at EVERY record to see if there is a similar inconsistency or unfairness that may have extended a streak in the past. There are so many things that can happen on any given football play that results in it changing from an "attempt" of one type to a actual execution of another, which then gets into who is responsible or to blame for the failed attempt and whether or not it should impact an "innocent" parties personal stat's.

It SEEMS like an obvious and straight-forward matter but any change will almost certainly result in some other manifestation of unfairness.

#11

Quote by CFL statistician Steve Daniel; "A blocked kick that remains behind the line of scrimmage may be recovered and advanced legally by either team as in a fumble (which the kicker receives)." Quote by Daniel; So yes, Peredes was of course kicking the ball... but was prevented from making a legal attempt by defensive effort. So in the end, prevent may well be a better term here than block."
In the NFL it would have been ruled a blocked kick - different kind of game mind you.

#12

No doubt there would be ramifications but I don't think they would have to go back into the archives and re-examine every past record set. I don't know if for example if one of McCallum's FG "attempts was blocked and didn't cross the scrimmage line during some game. If so and the scrimmage line criteria were not applicable then McCallum's record setting 30 consecutive FGs would be less. So in a way the current rule may possibly have been a benefit to McCallum.

When the CFL went from 16 regular season games to 18 it impacted record holders of rushing,passing and most TD passes in a season who had set records under the 16 game format. An 18 game format allowed players an extra two whole games to break previously set records. I would not consider this unfair to those earlier record setters simply because it is the nature of the game. Any rules changes will affect players in different ways.

Personally I cannot see implementing a rule being a problem saying that it is deemed a FG attempt if the ball contacts the kicker's foot provided it is not a botched play where he attempts to punt the ball away.

I've never heard of rule changes being retro-active.
Anyways, Paredes gets another crack at it. I don't think he should for the reasons I've given but such are the rules and I can live with it.

#13

I was being somewhat facetious in light of the endless arguments about "fairness" and personal stat's. I know the league wouldn't re-examine records but I can assume someone, sometime here will find some other perceived unfairness created by this (or some other) rule change and launch another campaign for an asterisked (*) record for a current or historical stat.

#14

Oh well...it's all moot anyway. I'm wondering if McCallum is secretly crossing his fingers that Paredes misses his next attempt. Hopefully if Parades gets the tying FG he will have worked extra hard to get it, like from 45+ yards out.

#15

Anybody can interpret anything any way they want ... except for the officials in an actual CFL game. As per the rule I quoted above, it was a fumble not a missed field goal, because the ball didn't cross the line of scrimmage. Had the ball been blocked and then either bounced, flew or been carried over the line of scrimmage, that would be a missed field goal. Got it? Can I possibly be more clear on this point? Read your rulebooks guys.

As I write this it's about 10:40 AM, or about 5:28 before kickoff in Hogtown. I'm done thinking about missed field goals or fumbles.

I'm focussed on Tuesday's game against the Ricky Ray-less Argos, who may also be without running back Chad Kackert. So, double cover the Flyin' Hawaiian everywhere he goes, even to the bathroom. Make the Argos win the game with someone other than Chad Owens. Win the line of scrimmage. Get three or seven out of as many drives as possible. Out play the Boatmen at the physical game. The defense must outplay Toronto's offense and force Collaros into making throwing mistakes, for sixty minutes. And show improvement on special teams.

That's what the Lions need to do to get to 4-1.

Dooger in Surrey :cowboy: