We Saftey our way to a loss

I never believed in giving up a safety in football. The CFL makes a mokery of the game by allowing teams to continue to give up the safety. As it was today, it was the key to the ticat loss. Even though the Cats came back and took over the lead. In the end the two points conceded were the margin of victory for Sasketchewan.

Again, the defense could not stop the Riders during the last 7 minutes. Something that has happened game after game in the last minute of the halfs and the games. The Cats definitely need some linebackers. Sasketchewan run little slants, dropped the ball off and ran QB sneaks the time after time for gains of 10 to 15 a play. On the other hand when Hamilton tried the short passes during the last five minutes they effectively gained 4 yards a play and did not make enough for a first down which would have iced the game.

Even with the turnovers the defense got today, we need big changes here. I think the core of the offense is now good enough to compete and if we had a defense that would shorten the field and play tough we would have a chance next year.

I hear what you are saying, but we had them at their 14 after the safety...and let them drive for a TD with that long pass to Getzlaf...how do we let a white Canadian guy get behind us?

I was thinking the same thing. Hear we go...give up the safety. As soon as that happened I knew it would bite us in the *ss.

Would you score on your own net on purpose because the opposition had a two man power play. Probably not!

That wasn't the only reason we lost, but I don't beleive in giving team points for free. The defence gets paid too. Maybe they force a fumble or get an int. You can't just give teams points.

I'd like to see a stat on how many times a team scores after being awarded a safety. My guess is it is more then 60% so in reality your giving up more then 2 points your giving up 5 or 9. I don't like that strategy at all.

This team needs some serious coaching help.

It certainly was the defence that messed up then. They had the Riders all the way back to their 14, and two points were given up so that would be far less likely to give up three or more. And they blew it.

It's easy to say it was a bad call now after it's over. But if the Riders offence only gain 20-30 yards, we would not be discussing this. And if Setta punted, and the Riders got the TD, quite a few people here would be saying we gave up 7 when it could have been only 2.

I agree that was Cost us a win
also a Agree with Glen Sutior the rule for Safey needs to changed
He said make teams kick from the 20
I say This Give Two you have to kick from the 15 yardline

the H.C has to have confidence in the Players, the kicker, the defence! giving up the safety, announces to everyone, that isthe safe thing to do, imo setta had the wind behind him, they should have punted, and ran the HB blitz every play on D

As I recall, that is not true. The punt would have been against the wind. There are many things that need to be considered when deciding whether or not to concede the safety, and the wind is only one of these. Also, the probability that the strategy would backfire had to be considered. But the Riders were at their own 14, and so that probability turned out being rather low. The decision had to be made to certainly give up two points, and be much less likely to give up more, as the Riders seemed to be much less likely at the time to get points when they had that much of the field in front of them. By not giving up the two points, they would have been more likely to give up at least three, again when you consider the wind situation.

The TD after the safety did more to lead to a Rider win than the safety did.

There is no way of ever knowing if the safety affected the final outcome of the game , positive or negative.
There is what's called the Butterfly effect.
By giving up the safety, Hamilton kept the game close.
You do not know by not giving up the safety, Rider return for a touchdown.

You have know idea, nor does anyone what outcome would have transpired because of it.

Right decision or wrong, we will never know....ever.

Guys, this was a well-coahed, well played game by our Ticats. The coaching and players both gave us a chance to win the game on the last play. You can't ask for more than that.

Actually, we do know that the Riders scored 9 points before our offence got the ball back. That's pretty much the worst possible outcome.

Had we punted, there were essentially 4 possible outcomes before our offence got the ball back: Riders score 7, Riders score 3, Riders score 1 (punt single, missed FG), or Riders score 0 (e.g. turnover). All of those outcomes are better for us than what actually happened, and all would have increased our chances of winning, given that we lost by 1 point.

its a good call and they all do it. a punt and they START IN FG RANGE. You give up two and give them a longer field and hope your defence holds them. Games ebb and flow and had the defence held it would have worked out and they didnt but.........what makes anyone think that giving them an even shorter field starting IN field goal range is the better call? Its just not and that is why its the popular call.

One play didn't lose the Ticats the football game. Allowing the Riders QB to gain 125 yards on nine plays cost them the game IMO.

Against the wind... lol.

exactly, I think they guy had already hit a 55 yarder or something didnt he?

Actually there's a million things that could have happened , which is my point , including punting and a fumble, punting and they fumble on 1st down or, we conceed the safety and kick to them and they fumble it or kick to them and they fumble on 1st down.
My point (which some don't understand ) is that as soon a something different occurs , it changes EVERYTHING.
Just because we lost by 2 points , doesn't mean the rest of the game would have remained the same if we had punted. The safety didn't cost us the game, what happened after the safety until the final whistle is what determained the final result.

I agree with some of the other here when I say I don't like to give up safteys. You can't give away points.
However, that being said you need to go back to what happend before the safety - the 2 penalties is what killed them.
On the punt the Cats had the Riders pinned on thier on 15 yard line or somethinng like that, but the No Yards call moved the ball out the the 30 or just past. Cats held them and made them punt losing a little bit of the field position as the Cats could have taken over on their on 30, but a Holding call moved the ball back to around the 10 yard line.
The saftey was the effect of nondisciplined play
Hamilton doesn't take one of those 2 penalties they probably don't give up the safety
Taking both penalties cost them 40 yards in field position and 2 points
Penalty yardage will come back to haunt you everytime

Exactly!

And its not like the coach says to himself "Well, I better not give up a safety here because then when we do kick it off to them they are going to get another 7...for a total of 9" NO! He thinks giving up two is better than giving up three for a FG right off the bat.

Its quite the opposite that the coach doesnt beleive in his players when he does this. What the coach does believe is that putting them in a position to score an almost automatic 3 is not the best choice when he can only give up 2. What the coach believes is that he can change the field position game..Pin the other team back in their own end...stop them..and get the ball back in decent field position for us.

The coach does not give up the safety thinking the team will march down on them

All CFL coaches give the safety in that situation.
It actually worked to perfection pinning Sask to their 14 yard line.

Essentially buying 25-30 yards in real estate for 2 points...sounds like a good deal to me!

What a ridiculous statement. :roll: white Canadian guys bet behind people all the time. We had Getzlaf and trade him in the Corey Holmes debacle.

I thought we should have gone for 2 when it was 20-12, but we didn't. Jyles and Cates literally ran all over us in the 2nd half. Something was missing there, but I can't quite put my finger on it. :wink: