Lions 18 - Argos 17 -- Post-Game Comments

[B.C.FAN]

Just wondering if the ball was kicked
Out of the endzone at end of game and no yards was called on Toronto.would Lions have had one more play with os on the clock. BB

Yes, and if I recall correctly that happened to the Lions once at B.C. Place about 15 years ago and they lost the game as a result. If kicking the ball out of the end zone, players have to try to kick it out of bounds.

[Hambone]

Just wondering if the ball was kicked
Out of the endzone at end of game and no yards was called on Toronto.would Lions have had one more play with os on the clock. BB

Game can't end on a penalty unless the penalty is declined.

[Robbie]

Just wondering if the ball was kicked
Out of the endzone at end of game and no yards was called on Toronto.would Lions have had one more play with os on the clock. BB

Yes, and if I recall correctly that happened to the Lions once at B.C. Place about 15 years ago and they lost the game as a result. If kicking the ball out of the end zone, players have to try to kick it out of bounds.

Lui Passaglia also punted on a missed field goal out of bounds on the last play of regulation in a game in Winnipeg on July 19, 1991 to preserve the tie and force overtime. The Lions eventually won in overtime 26-23 and it was one of six games the Lions played in overtime that season with a 3-3 record, but unfortunately only one of the three wins were at home.

This short clip is from early on that game.

[Toppy Vann]

I caught TSN Team 1040 shows btwn 12 and 1 and then Sekeres later when he had Suitor on and both times these idiots were trashing the single point walk off win EXCEPT for Karen Surman who tried to get the blowhard Sekeres to understand the nuances of the CFL game and actually spoke to the strategy - such as do you give up a single in the 3rd Q or not.

Give some decent air and showtime to these upcoming young women who actually demo some love and breadth of appreciation for the CFL game versus the likes of Sekeres who stomp on the value of the brand they're supposed to promote. Talk about an inferiority complex.

Suitor was on the defensive due to Sekeres and his big mouth and missing the point of the rules here in the CFL. Suitor thought they could play some British comedy music when big football players are chasing a punted football around with no one running it back.

Remember the Lions blunder back in Regina (2006) where the Riders missed a FG on their first OT possession so the Lions had Paul McCallum punt it out through the end zone but miss hit it:

After Luca Congi missed a 32-yard field goal on the Riders' first possession of overtime, Buono elected to have Paul McCallumattempt to punt the ball through the Saskatchewan endzone on B.C.'s first play. But McCallum didn't get enough on the kick and the Riders easily brought the ball out of the endzone, denying the Lions the winning point.

"It was ugly," McCallum said of his overtime punt. "I wanted to put it to the backside of the end zone, through the corner, but it came off the side of my foot and went to the middle of the end zone. Plain and simple, I had the wind at my back and I missed it."

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/ride ... t-1.606059

[WestCoastJoe]

I caught TSN Team 1040 shows btwn 12 and 1 and then Sekeres later when he had Suitor on and both times these idiots were trashing the single point walk off win EXCEPT for Karen Surman who tried to get the blowhard Sekeres to understand the nuances of the CFL game and actually spoke to the strategy - such as do you give up a single in the 3rd Q or not.

Give some decent air and showtime to these upcoming young women who actually demo some love and breadth of appreciation for the CFL game versus the likes of Sekeres who stomp on the value of the brand they're supposed to promote. Talk about an inferiority complex.

Suitor was on the defensive due to Sekeres and his big mouth and missing the point of the rules here in the CFL. Suitor thought they could play some British comedy music when big football players are chasing a punted football around with no one running it back.

Remember the Lions blunder back in Regina (2006) where the Riders missed a FG on their first OT possession so the Lions had Paul McCallum punt it out through the end zone but miss hit it:

After Luca Congi missed a 32-yard field goal on the Riders' first possession of overtime, Buono elected to have Paul McCallumattempt to punt the ball through the Saskatchewan endzone on B.C.'s first play. But McCallum didn't get enough on the kick and the Riders easily brought the ball out of the endzone, denying the Lions the winning point.

"It was ugly," McCallum said of his overtime punt. "I wanted to put it to the backside of the end zone, through the corner, but it came off the side of my foot and went to the middle of the end zone. Plain and simple, I had the wind at my back and I missed it."

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/football/ride ... t-1.606059

Points well made, Toppy.

Sekeres can be a blowhard. I agree that it is dumb of him to go so hard against one of the unique characteristics of the CFL game. Embrace the game, Sekeres. I don't usually mind him. He does his homework.

IMO the rouge adds a lot of fan interest and fun to the game.

This fan likes Suitor as a commentator. "Suitor thought they could play some British comedy music when big football players are chasing a punted football around with no one running it back." Ha Ha

This fan, as you do, gives credit to "these upcoming young women who actually demo some love and breadth of appreciation for the CFL game." In other sports also. They do their homework.

I don't really mind any of these announcers/commentators. I like Matt Dunigan. I like Suitor. I have even, after years and years, come to find some acceptance of Rod Black. Ha ha Usually. He does go off into some dumb tangents. I like Duane Forde. I see they have Benny back on the panel, talking a hundred miles an hour. But he is a good guy, and he needs some work. Not sure he will ever be a good DC, let alone HC.

Just imo. Others will see things differrently.

[David]

For the record, Matt Sekeres cherishes the CFL as a Canadian institution and promotes it often. He was merely pointing out that a game shouldn't end with a rouge as it's a cheap way to decide a game (i.e. kicking or punting the ball through the endzone to guarantee victory). He doesn't believe in "rewarding failure."

As for the Benny Hill music and big men waiting for a ball to stop bouncing, Suitor was making fun of the NFL (and those that take shots at CFL quirks).


DH

[WestCoastJoe]

It would be unsatisfying to see a team, as the Lions could have, punt the ball for the single to win the game. Perhaps a rule modification is in order. Must go for the FG from within a certain distance, yardage marker, at game end, for example in the final 3 minutes. The details would be tricky to work out, but manageable. A monster punt from a great distance to win the game? Sure. Let them run around. Ha ha

Just imo, loosely held.

[B.C.FAN]

One of the major advantages of Canadian rules over American rules is that kicked balls are live. This creates some of the most exciting plays in the game.

Punts can't be "fair caught" or "downed." Returners have to pick up the ball and return it. Otherwise they can be recovered by the kicker, as happened in the Winnipeg game on the weekend to set up a TD.

Onside kicks don't have to touch the ground before being touched and recovered by the kicking team, as Calgary did against B.C. last week.

Kicks into the end zone have to be returned, lest the kicking team score a point. The rouge rewards field position and becomes a matter of strategy. A missed field is one of the most boring plays in American football. In Canadian football, it can set up the most exciting play of the game, with a returner trying to run the ball out of the end zone, potentially for a touchdown, or kick it out to avoid giving up a game-winning rouge on the last play. If Rainey had been more careful with his foot placement, that last play could have had a range of exciting outcomes. As it was, the Lions were rewarded for getting close enough (barely) to win the game with a rouge. They earned the victory.

Live balls in Canadian football make for an exciting kicking game and a variety of scoring plays. That beats the dead balls in the American football kicking game hands down.

[cromartie]

This idea that the rouge "rewards failure" is garbage and needs to die a horrible death.

The rouge rewards a team that prevents the opposition from getting the ball out of the end zone on a surrender of possession. And a field goal, like a punt, is a surrender of a possession.

Now, you can make the argument that it isn't always a reward; for example, you'd often rather a punt pin your opponent in deep than result in a single, but people who don't understand the rouge don't understand either the game's roots in rugby or actual honest Xs and Os strategy around Special Teams.

The "end of game" argument isn't valid either. Toronto had the option, rather than going for it on third down earlier in the quarter, to simply try for the punt single if they had no faith in their field goal kicker. A successful try would have resulted in a point for Toronto and no change in field position over the failed third down conversion.

If the rest of the game plays out as it did, the missed field goal only ties the game, not results in a BC win.

Single point game enders might happen, what, twice a decade? The criticism is nonsense.

[BC 1988]

Sekeres can be a blowhard. I agree that it is dumb of him to go so hard against one of the unique characteristics of the CFL game. Embrace the game, Sekeres. I don't usually mind him. He does his homework.

I have listened to his show since he first came on the air in the 10am time slot. (I have found it harder to get the whole show when he moved to 3pm start, somewhat easier with the 2pm start now.) The point that is sometimes missed about Sekeres is that he is playing a role. The "blowhard" persona is just that, a role. I've heard him go full-on Jim Rome for an entire show adopting a counter-intuitive view--it's all theatre. The other show hosts regularly mock his "high horse Sekeresy" manner, and they are using this to promote next week's cross-over of hosts.
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040 ... %7E1723917

[WestCoastJoe]

This CFL fan likes the rouge, and all of its historical origins.

Is game end, the final 3 minutes, different? Maybe.

20 yard line. Or 30. Or 40. Tie game. A FG has been blocked by the defending team earlier in the 4th quarter. Punt it for the win? Is it easier to block a FG attempt than a punt? Maybe. Can more things go wrong on a FG attempt? Maybe. A bad snap on a punt? We have seen Lui perform magic, corraling the tumbling ball, scrambling, getting off a punt.

This fan might prefer forcing the team, through the rules, to go for the FG, at game end, rather than the punt. Many possibilities still exist. Live ball. Dead ball off the upright. Kicking it back out. Running it out. 3 points. 1 point. 0 points. Et cetera.

I seem to recall Ken Lehmann, who came over to the Lions from Ottawa, hitting a FG attempt off the post or upright, and running to recover it.

Not getting my shirt in a knot over this. But it is interesting. And rules do get adjusted over time.

By the way, I did not hear Sekeres' broadcast. Don't know what precise changes he was advocating.

Keep the rouge.

Just imo.

[WestCoastJoe]

Sekeres can be a blowhard. I agree that it is dumb of him to go so hard against one of the unique characteristics of the CFL game. Embrace the game, Sekeres. I don't usually mind him. He does his homework.

I have listened to his show since he first came on the air in the 10am time slot. (I have found it harder to get the whole show when he moved to 3pm start, somewhat easier with the 2pm start now.) The point that is sometimes missed about Sekeres is that he is playing a role. The "blowhard" persona is just that, a role. I've heard him go full-on Jim Rome for an entire show adopting a counter-intuitive view--it's all theatre. The other show hosts regularly mock his "high horse Sekeresy" manner, and they are using this to promote next week's cross-over of hosts.
https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040 ... %7E1723917

I think he is good at what he does. And I agree he loves the CFL. He does a good job promoting the CFL. Taking a strong view does provoke reactions and comment. We see it on here. Ha ha

[The_Pauser]

For the record, Matt Sekeres cherishes the CFL as a Canadian institution and promotes it often. He was merely pointing out that a game shouldn't end with a rouge as it's a cheap way to decide a game (i.e. kicking or punting the ball through the endzone to guarantee victory). He doesn't believe in "rewarding failure."

As for the Benny Hill music and big men waiting for a ball to stop bouncing, Suitor was making fun of the NFL (and those that take shots at CFL quirks).


DH

Here’s the thing: it’s not really rewarding failure. It’s a single point rewarded to a team that advanced the ball beyond the goal line. What other sport out there doesn’t count a point when you advance a ball/puck/object beyond a marked goal line (aside from the NFL)? I think the NFL is the league that has this off.

[Robbie]

Here’s the thing: it’s not really rewarding failure. It’s a single point rewarded to a team that advanced the ball beyond the goal line. What other sport out there doesn’t count a point when you advance a ball/puck/object beyond a marked goal line (aside from the NFL)? I think the NFL is the league that has this off.

American football has origins from rugby and I'm sure that's how the various point system with regards to kicking the ball originated. With regards to advancing the ball over a marked goal line, a counterargument is that for sports that have a "net" then the ball must enter the net before any points are given, and for American Football the uprights act is the net and must be kicked through for any points to be allocated. And if you use the term goal line, well both ice hockey and soccer uses that term as well but of course the ball must cross the goal line while INSIDE the boundaries of the net to count.

-----------------------------------------

I'd say if there's going to be an issue of unfairness then the issue of conceding a rouge vs. successful field goal is a more controversial matter. I think it's fair to say that the more options there are, the better in any situation. Suppose Team A has a successful field goal scored against. Then Team A has THREE options that they can choose for continuation of play:

1) Scrimmage from their own 35-yard line.
2) Receive a kickoff from Team B's 35-yard line, at the risk of an onside kick from Team B.
3) Kickoff from their own 35-yard line.

Option #3 is very unpopular as it doesn't make an sense to give possession back to Team B, so that option is never chosen but is an option nevertheless. Suppose after Team B scores a FG to tie the game with seconds left, then Team A can opt take their chances on a kickoff TD return to win the game which will likely have a higher chance of success than to scrimmage from their own 35-yard line one last time.

On the other hand, if Team A concedes a rouge, then there is only ONE option:

1) Scrimmage from their own 35-yard line.

You would think that conceding a rouge (1 point) is less severe than conceding a field goal (3 points). But yet, why is Team A "punished" more for conceding a rouge as opposed to conceding a field goal as at least Team A is given the choice of 3 options to choose from to continue to the game after giving up a field goal, but there is no option at all for Team A after a rouge?

[Toppy Vann]

It's not about punishing a team when a FG try is missed - it's about keeping the ball in play and making it exciting.

Why was Argos Chris Rainey mad and tossing the ball into the turf when his foot was out on the back line?

It was not just because of the loss but because he was in a brilliant position with the field on both sides of him sufficient for him to run it out. Quite honestly I suspect he would have made it out but even if not, it'd have been a helluva play from those blocking for kicker to now all of sudden get onto the kick returner.

Rainey had two choices:

a. run it out which would have been exciting as it would be a good bet on the game he was having for him to do just that.

b. Punt it back out of the end zone and hope it goes out of bounds once out of the end zone a play that could result in several things:
1. go out of bounds in the end zone - and a single for BC.
2. go out of bounds outside the goal line and thus OT.
3. remain in play and the Lions could try to run it in or punt it back in - and again the Argos try to punt or run it out.

But in the NFL the small end zones and no run backs of kicks if the receiving team doesn't wanna to run it out makes most kicks boring.

=====

A bit of other history on two point Safeties in the CFL. It used to be the team giving up the safety had the ball back but coaches starting wasting time with the safety so they changed the rule to force the team giving up the Safety Touch to kick off.

I think one of those coaches was Don Matthews that led to that change.