Lions 35 - Riders 32 -- Post Game Stats and Comments

[Ravi]

About the objectionable conduct penalty, the rule as written is clear and the penalty call is automatic. The players know that. There are no excuses for taking that penalty. The coach can challenge defensive pass interference. If a player thinks there was interference, he can look to the sideline and point to the replay screen to get the coach's attention. As far as I know, that's not considered objectionable conduct. Players who try to show up the refs are just hurting the team.

Agreed. The players should know better than to throw a faux flag. Even if it wasn't an automatic penalty, the gesture pisses off the refs and that does your team no good.

I wouldn't say that there was a discipline problem with this young team, but I would call it a discipline concern at this point in the season.

This isn't a "new" rule either as it was in effect last year. Players need to stop making this stupid "flagging" motion. It is as simple as that.

[VictoriaFan]

Back when I lived in Van, if I saw a live game I always stayed till the end just because of endings like last night. After watching Federer and Murray on the old pvr last night I was so bagged out but continued into the wee hours to watch the lions game. Oh how I wanted to turn it off with 2 minutes to go and go to bed after another high penalty, bad defensive game , but nope I got a can of Coke to help perk me up and like the days of old watched to the end! Hail the mighty pvr to fast forward through the endless Wendys commercials ! I thought Manny, Lulay, Collie, and Harris were rockin' . D-line were sieve like against the run again, ( bring back Eric Taylor) Refs blew especially the horse collar on Gore and the low hit on Morrah , as far as the objectional for wanting a flag, that's the rule don't do it. All in all I went to bed with warm fuzzy feelings.

[pennw]

I agree with the TSN panel to a degree. Something has to be done to reduce the number of penalties that disrupt the flow of the game. If players can't stop taking objectionable conduct and illegal contact penalties, perhaps the rules should be rewritten to make them discretionary but that's for next year. For this year, players have to learn to live with the rules as written.

I actually like the new illegal contact rule and would like to see it called every single time until all teams stop committing the infraction . I would like to takeout ref discretion as much as possible on that one as it was one of the biggest complaints of fans , the inconsistency of calls and often gave the impression of ref bias because they're angry at one team or other due to whatever chip on the shoulder they may have . Ref discretion appeared to be the factor for the non call on the OT horse collar tackle as it looked to have been only 10 feet in front of him . How can that kind of infraction be at the refs discretion ? Horse collar tackles have been out lawed everywhere for years , and this one was blatant and in plain view .
As for illegal contact , the clutch and grab routines of DBs was getting so bad that you no longer knew what PI was and seemed to be completely arbitrarily called , allowing refs to make too much impact on a game choosing when to call it .The PI gesture rule seems to be only about making the refs feel good , as players complain about all sorts of other violations that are not called .
In this time of dwindling fan bases the CFL needs to be more concerned how their officiating effects fan bases , you don't want to P O casual fans with calls like these because your refs have thin skin and are getting upset at a certain coach or players and are using their discretion to punish that coach or player because they are also doing it to the paying customer at the same time . When a ref is officiating from a position of anger , he is no longer objective and fans may see him as biased ,which is unacceptable .If casual fans see their team lose to what appears to them as biased reffing , are they coming back ?

[B.C.FAN]

Defence? Soft. Soft. Soft. Vanilla. Glenn sliced it up at his leisure early in the game. We failed to stop the run. One got the impression that the Riders could have run the ball all game long. No pressure on the QB. Little or no effective blitzing observed. Soft zone coverage eaten up by Dressler, defensive players following their cues, Dressler moving into holes. It is one thing to run a conservative defensive package, but it is another to give fans the impression that we will play a pressure, attacking defence. (I believe we heard from Mark Washington that we will play an attacking defence. I could be wrong about that. Mike Benevides also had talked about running an attacking defence, with all kinds of looks and schemes. It seems to me that we are running a defence that Wally always preferred: conservative, play it safe, bend and sometimes break.) Might as well call it like it is: We play soft zone. We do not attack the pocket. We do not attack the LOS with blitzes and overloads. We like to go 3 man rush on passing downs. We do not like to blitz. We are undersized in the middle. We ask our LBs to play way beyond the system, relying on individual brilliance. It seems to me that the best defences in the CFL are attacking defences. Just the observations of a fan ...

Well said.
One example stood out for me. On Dressler's second touchdown catch from the 10 yard line, the Lions played a soft zone. Lee and Yell blew the coverage as they did on Dressler's first TD. This time they both went deep, leaving Adam Bighill as the only player defending the goal line on the short side. Dressler gave him an inside move, slid outside and made an easy catch. I love Bighill but he had no chance. Dressler will make that catch 10 times out of 10 against a zone defence, even if the Lions don't blow the coverage.

[David]

I know those rules were enacted last year Ravi, but the league had to anticipate a massive spike in flags due to the draconian "no contact on the receiver after 5 yards" rule (and to a lesser extend, requiring the ball to be punted before the linemen on the kicking team can leave the LOS). Therefore, they needed to loosen up on all these we're-bigger-than-the-game ticky-tack discretionary calls, at least for this season until players get used to the new rules.

I am not saying the players are blameless. I am saying officials have to maintain a level of common sense. Two returns for touchdowns (which is what fans pay to see) got wiped in Ottawa last week by two phantom holding calls away from the play - that absolutely no bearing on the touchdown returns.

The sad part is, as exciting as the last 5 minutes of regulation (and OT) was last night, I can't say the fans that left early felt thoroughly entertained. Not with all the penalties. Excessive flags make the game look sloppier than it actually is, and leaves a negative overall impression to the new fans the league is trying to win over.


DH

[jcalhoun]

About the objectionable conduct penalty, the rule as written is clear and the penalty call is automatic. The players know that. There are no excuses for taking that penalty. The coach can challenge defensive pass interference. If a player thinks there was interference, he can look to the sideline and point to the replay screen to get the coach's attention. As far as I know, that's not considered objectionable conduct. Players who try to show up the refs are just hurting the team.

It may be the new rule , but how endearing is it for the fans ? A rule so anal for such a minor gesture is not going to make the game more attractive to prospective fans . It's only going to invite ridicule instead . As the panel at the half said last night , get rid of it and fast .

I respectfully disagree. This is the short term pain for the long term gain; the CFL had the same problem when they first brought in the 'no-removing-your-helmet' rule, and the players adapted very quickly. I'm all for emotion in the game, but the drama/behaviour that some of these fellows indulge in needs to be actively restrained by the league --recall the ridiculous choreographed endzone celebrations of the Stamps a few years back, the chest thumping remove your helmet after every play and nod aggressively to the camera routine of so many in years past, and the once flagrant use of the term "*beep*/nigga" by players on the field. The league brought in a zero tolerance policy and behaviour changed.

It's a good thing that the players can't mime throwing a flag anymore --but it has become so ubiquitous there is going to be a transition period. But frankly, I'd rather there are a few weeks with way too many flags than a game that becomes more and more theatrical to the point it resembles soccer: where lightly grazed primadonas roll around on the turf like they've been shot.

James

[WestCoastJoe]

Defence? Soft. Soft. Soft. Vanilla. Glenn sliced it up at his leisure early in the game. We failed to stop the run. One got the impression that the Riders could have run the ball all game long. No pressure on the QB. Little or no effective blitzing observed. Soft zone coverage eaten up by Dressler, defensive players following their cues, Dressler moving into holes. It is one thing to run a conservative defensive package, but it is another to give fans the impression that we will play a pressure, attacking defence. (I believe we heard from Mark Washington that we will play an attacking defence. I could be wrong about that. Mike Benevides also had talked about running an attacking defence, with all kinds of looks and schemes. It seems to me that we are running a defence that Wally always preferred: conservative, play it safe, bend and sometimes break.) Might as well call it like it is: We play soft zone. We do not attack the pocket. We do not attack the LOS with blitzes and overloads. We like to go 3 man rush on passing downs. We do not like to blitz. We are undersized in the middle. We ask our LBs to play way beyond the system, relying on individual brilliance. It seems to me that the best defences in the CFL are attacking defences. Just the observations of a fan ...

Well said.

One example stood out for me. On Dressler's second touchdown catch from the 10 yard line, the Lions played a soft zone. Lee and Yell blew the coverage as they did on Dressler's first TD. This time they both went deep, leaving Adam Bighill as the only player defending the goal line on the short side. Dressler gave him an inside move, slid outside and made an easy catch. I love Bighill but he had no chance. Dressler will make that catch 10 times out of 10 against a zone defence, even if the Lions don't blow the coverage.

http://www.bclions.com/video/index/id/112615

Great locker room post game. Lots of love. And some coaches bring that. That seems to be part of what Jeff Tedford brings.

Loved the chant: "Loo lay. Loo lay. Hoo ray Loo lay." On and on. And rightly so.

Pretty amazing atmosphere. What they call a good locker room. Many leaders.

Wins will still be hard to come by. But this is a team in the making.

With Tedford, Lulay, Harris, Manny, Solo, Biggie we have outstanding leadership. It will grow.

[sj-roc]

About the objectionable conduct penalty, the rule as written is clear and the penalty call is automatic. The players know that. There are no excuses for taking that penalty. The coach can challenge defensive pass interference. If a player thinks there was interference, he can look to the sideline and point to the replay screen to get the coach's attention. As far as I know, that's not considered objectionable conduct. Players who try to show up the refs are just hurting the team.

Yes, that was pretty much as I suspected after seeing how it unfolded after the PI was applied with the successful challenge. It's not completely unlike another scenario in hockey. Sometimes a goal gets scored and the ref misses it, perhaps because the puck might quickly deflect back out of the net after striking the inside of the goal frame without rippling the mesh — so as to make it look like it simply struck the crossbar — with play continuing. Any subsequent penalty that gets called on either team before the goal can be reviewed and counted at the next stoppage still applies, even though the game clock will be rewound to the time of the goal, with the penalty deemed to have occurred at this same time.

But in this case the player was correct in his protest of the initial non-call that was subsquently overturned on challenge, so if there were ever a situation where you'd rescind a penalty for arguing with officials, logically that would be it.

[sj-roc]

On a positive note about the officiating , they' seem to be getting the challenges right instead of worrying about saving face for the ref .

The challenges are adjudicated by the command centre in Toronto, aren't they? So I don't know how much loyalty they would have to the crew on the ground when their own hides are on the line. They probably feel a responsibility to overturn some amount of calls to justify their job, you know what I mean? Kinda like the trope of how cops have quotas when it comes to handing out speeding tickets.

[sj-roc]

After the turn over on downs on the Bighill play, there was a penalty against the Lions that would have backed them up 10 yards yet the Riders declined the penalty not wanting to give the Lions another down. IIRC, a few plays later Leone kicked the 55 yard FG for the tie.

By declining the penalty, this meant the game clock would resume ticking with the official's signal to start the 20sec play clock, as opposed to on the snap. Thereby allowing our O less time to mount a GWTD drive. All in keeping with what has been acknowledged both here and on the riderfans board as conservative decision-making from Ssk HC Chamblin in the late stages of the game. They seemed more concerned with not allowing the TD FTW and almost indifferent relatively speaking about allowing a FG to tie it.

[sj-roc]

With 12 seconds left in regulation why did the Riders go to Victory Formation to go to OT instead of trying a long pass or 2 with the possibility of a completion or penalty and no real problem if intercepted on a long bomb throw with so few seconds left?

This surprised me, too. You've got a Lion killer in Dressler who'd already collected 100 rec yds in the first 11 minutes, why not send him on a 35-40yd route and see if he can come down with it in FG range? I'm not sure if they have anyone on the roster well-suited to do it, like a Bret Anderson or Dave Stala type, but heck, they could have even tried a quick kick play to boot a game-winning rouge.

[pennw]

With 12 seconds left in regulation why did the Riders go to Victory Formation to go to OT instead of trying a long pass or 2 with the possibility of a completion or penalty and no real problem if intercepted on a long bomb throw with so few seconds left?

This surprised me, too. You've got a Lion killer in Dressler who'd already collected 100 rec yds in the first 11 minutes, why not send him on a 35-40yd route and see if he can come down with it in FG range? I'm not sure if they have anyone on the roster well-suited to do it, like a Bret Anderson or Dave Stala type, but heck, they could have even tried a quick kick play to boot a game-winning rouge.

They would of had to get down to the 30 yd line for that kicker they got for a fg .

[David]

But in this case the player was correct in his protest of the initial non-call that was subsquently overturned on challenge, so if there were ever a situation where you'd rescind a penalty for arguing with officials, logically that would be it.

But if I'm not mistaken, the flag was thrown for the receiver mimicking throwing a flag - which was instituted last year as "objectionable conduct" (although I'm not sure how else a player on the field is supposed to encourage his coach to throw a challenge flag?).


DH

[dupsdell1]

Just heard Andrew Harris Saying on 1040 that to all the fans that left his quote is " they gave up on us" , Way to go Andrew that is exactly how it is to many fickle fans in this city they are known to leave early. should be ashamed of yourselves. ( I had to work all night so do not come back on me saying were was I . )

[David]

Great locker room post game. Lots of love....

Wins will still be hard to come by. But this is a team in the making.

Yea, that was fun to watch! Amazing energy in that locker room.

I actually don't think we're far off. Just 3 players would make the world of difference:

We need two new import defensive tackles. I don't blame Craig Roh for getting rag-dolled out there. He's undersized for the position. He was a hybrid DE/linebacker at Michigan! He was a rush end that would occasionally drop into coverage....IMHO he's not currently built for an interior spot, and Brooks is just not starter material.

We also need a speed burner wide receiver. Someone like Maurice Price or Jeff Fuller, that can create separation and force defenses to respect the long ball (which I now believe Travis is capable of throwing). I am not yet sold on the H-back, at least how it fits into this offense.


DH