Chris Schultz's Comments, and his rebuttle on TSN.CA

[Supersonicsfreak]

Now Chris Schultz has never been my favorite Analyst (though the rest of the TSN crew leaves much to be desired as well). But I found his comments at half time of the Winnipeg/BC game truly despicable even for him. I have watched the replay of Murphy's tripping penalty dozens of times and can see no intent to injure. Was it tripping? Yes! There were multiple players on both teams penalized yet none of them were called out by a suit at half time, and none of them were accused of dirty play.

Schultz has released an article on TSN.ca concerning his comments that I found particularly interesting. He starts off by saying, "One of the touchiest aspects of being a panel member on the CFL on TSN is criticizing players, coaches, management and team owners. If you come on too strong, you give the impression you know it all and, consequently, look like an idiot." Nothing like self realization!

Though he goes on to try explain his actions and justify his words from last Friday, in the end his self fulfilling prophecy came true... he just "looks like an idiot".


READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT http://www.tsn.ca/tsn_talent/columnists ... ?ID=220233

[Shaggy]

I don't have a huge issue with a lot of his comments, but I do disagree with the use of "leg whip" when it was a trip in my mind.
I don't have a copy of the rule book, but going from memory, wouldn't a leg whip fall under objectionable conduct or intent to injure and be a major penalty ( 15 yds ) ? Maybe someone with a copy of the rule book can clarify?

He tripped the guy. Schultz was an O-Lineman and obviously still feels it's a leg whip in his mind, so while I disagree, I respect his professional opinion.
I've never been a CFL O-Lineman and he has. He's been in the trenches and knows what goes on better than most of us.

Walby and his blather, however, is a different story. His reactions to the dust-up in Gainerville were a purrfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm sure anyone who lined up against Walby got similar treatment on a regular basis. He was a "dirty" player who I can remember hating, and at the same time wishing he played for the Lions.

Schultz and his opinions I can live with, but Walby can keep his to himself.
The best part of the Calgary/Sask game was no audio in the first quarter and not having to listen to Walby the Walrus babble on.

[Tighthead]

FWIW, I thought it was a leg whip.

[Rammer]

Leg whip is the wrong term, it was tripping. That isn't an uncommon ploy by an OL who is looking to delay a defensive player, but it was called for what it was and really no need to get into the dirty player tirade that Schultz did during the game. That was almost premeditated on his part, waiting for a Lion OL to take a penalty and be able to use the media coined dirty Lions moniker, as it had been a topic within the local papers earlier in the week. I wonder if he ever took a tripping penalty, and if he considers himself a dirty player, or a player who made a dirty play, a huge difference in reference IMHO.

[Rick James]

it looked like somewhere between a trip and a leg whip to me.

[joesports]

In his rationalization, Schultz says he's just commenting on Murphy's call for a leg whip. The call was tripping, not a leg whip. I still don't think it was a leg whip, and didn't look that different than anything else that happens each play on the field.

It just seemed Schultz's comments at half-time were a bit opportunistic. Other penalties were called during the game. Some calls were missed (spearing, anyone?). Too bad Schultz singled out one penalty and one player to berate.

I generally don't have much issue with what he says one way or another, and he's right, he's played in those situations, so his opinion has to be considered. I just don't agree with it in this case.

[sj-roc]

I don't have a copy of the rule book, but going from memory, wouldn't a leg whip fall under objectionable conduct or intent to injure and be a major penalty ( 15 yds ) ? Maybe someone with a copy of the rule book can clarify?

The phrase "leg whip" is nowhere to found in the rule book. Is there a more technical term for it?

[Sir Purrcival]

I haven't seen the play since the game so I am going on memory but since I couldn't find it on Youtube.

I consider tripping when you stick your leg out in front of someone and they fall over it. Not what I recall in this circumstance. Murphy went for the chop and kinda got the Dlineman off balance but not quite down. He then swung his leg into the player from behind, hitting him in the back of the leg. That seems like a leg whip to me. It was somewhat charitable to call it tripping IMO. It could have gone either way.
Having said that, it didn't look like there was any vicious attempt to injure or hurt, just trying to get the defensive player down by any means possible. Definately a penalty and he got one. Don't really have much opinion either way on Schultz's commentary. Probably valid in terms of an opportunity to show people why something is illegal. Perhaps done with too much gusto however.

[Hutch85]

It just seemed Schultz's comments at half-time were a bit opportunistic. Other penalties were called during the game. Some calls were missed (spearing, anyone?). Too bad Schultz singled out one penalty and one player to berate.

Exactly... I just find the whole topic (and seeming focus on Murphy) a little frustrating. Look at the Montreal/Hamilton game, when Popp said at halftime that his players were called for 7 (?) pass interference penalties - no one talking about that, no commentators speculating on 'dirty play' or lack of discipline there, nosiree... (and yes, that's a little different from 'leg whipping', but still...).

[joesports]

I don't have a copy of the rule book, but going from memory, wouldn't a leg whip fall under objectionable conduct or intent to injure and be a major penalty ( 15 yds ) ? Maybe someone with a copy of the rule book can clarify?

The phrase "leg whip" is nowhere to found in the rule book. Is there a more technical term for it?

I don't see "leg whip" in the rules, either. Maybe it would fall under this category?

Article 2 – Rough Play
A player shall be penalized and subject to disqualification for any act of rough
play against an opponent, including but not limited to:
(a) striking an opponent with the fist, hand, knee or elbow in an excessively
rough manner,
(b) kicking an opponent or,
(c) any other act of excessive roughness considered by the Referee to
warrant disqualification.
PENALTY: L25 and disqualification of offending player

And here's just "tripping" which is what was called:

Article 5 – Tripping
A player shall not use a leg below the knee to hinder the progress of an
opponent.
PENALTY: L10 PLS, PBH or PPG

Here's one I'd loved to see consistently called:

Article 4 – Roughing The Passer

(f) Contacting the passer if either the initial source of contact, or
primary source of contact, is the defender’s helmet.

[No Ordinary Joe]

From my memory, it looked like Murph was off-balance and the trip was incidental. It didn't look intentional at all IMO and therefore shouldn't be viewed as malicious. Just my .02

[Blitz]

From my memory, it looked like Murph was off-balance and the trip was incidental. It didn't look intentional at all IMO and therefore shouldn't be viewed as malicious. Just my .02

It wasn't incidental in my view but it was also not malicious nor was it any serious leg whip! The defensive player was going down and so was Murphy. Murphy curled his rear leg into the back of the Winnipeg's player leg.

However, there are shades of everything. This was not a vicious trip or a viscious leg whip. However, when Murphy moved his leg into the back of the Winnipeg player's leg he was able to increase the defenders momentum in falling forwards.

I don't have a problem with the call! However, Shultz knows the difference between a vicious leg whip and the manner in which Murphy used his leg. Shultz's verbal attack on Murphy was the only thing that occured that was viscious and it was very over the top. In fact, Shultz used the 'momentum' of the the attacks on Murphy this season to his advantage.

I would have found it much more courageous if Shultz had pointed out that there are all kinds of subtle things that happen on the line of scrimmage but not featured Murphy. It's easy to stick another dagger into someone that everyone else is trying to wound..it's a gang mentality.

Even worse Shultz looked like he was a homer in that he went so over the top when his old home team was playing! To make matters even worse there is a brotherhood among offensive lineman and to attack one of his own unfairly was not admirable...especially a quality offensive lineman like Murphy that has added so much to the profile of the offensive line...something that Shultz himself has always wanted.

Shultz has always felt that offensive lineman are underappreciated and no offensive lineman in recent memory in the league has done more to appreciate the importance of an offensive lineman to a team than Murphy.

If it had been a serious leg whip, malicious or viscious, then Murphy deserved to be called out. It wasn't. Shultz has a responsibility to be impartial and to have balance. He failed at both!!!!!

[Shi Zi Mi]

IIRC, Chris Schultz never played for the Bombers at any time......I believe he was an Argo for his entire CFL career.

[Lion Guy]

IIRC, Chris Schultz never played for the Bombers at any time......I believe he was an Argo for his entire CFL career.

Which could explain just about everything when it comes to him.

[Rammer]

IIRC, Chris Schultz never played for the Bombers at any time......I believe he was an Argo for his entire CFL career.

That is what IR as well, former Cowboy turned Argo.

At any rate, lets put this in some perspective, the league hasn't fined him for the supposed "leg whip", yet felt compelled to on Jason Clermont in 06. That in itself is a good indicator as to the severity of "dirty play".

Does anyone recall if JC won his appeal of the fine he received last season?