Division Finals/108th Grey Cup

[SammyGreene]

Went in today thinking the best thing for the league is the Ti-Cats playing at home next week against the powerhouse Bombers. CFL just does not need at this time a week of Argos are in the Grey Cup and “nobody cares.”

Argos will look back at the East final at their early failures in the red zone when they had the opportunity to jump out to a big lead.

Was also thinking Dane Evans might be a good 1-2 option with Rourke next season for a decent price should Reilly retire. Not anymore. He has been lights out since Masoli got yanked after that horrible fumble. Evans will be Hamilton’s #1 QB in 2022. Masoli will join Harris as vet QBs looking for a new team.

[TheLionKing]

Entertaining game. Dane Evans was lights out, going 16 for 16 leading the Ti-Cats to a 27-19 victory.

[B.C.FAN]

West Final is anybody’s game after the Bombers uncharacteristically turned the ball over 5 times in the first half. Saskatchewan led 10-7 at the half.

Update: Saskatchewan turned it over in scoring position on the first drive of the second half on a Jackson Jeffcoat strip sack of Cody Fajardo.

Update2: the Bombers gave it right back on an unsuccessful fake punt. Neither of these teams deserves to be in the Grey Cup.

[SammyGreene]

Whoa! Figured Harris TD was momentum swung for good.

[B.C.FAN]

The Bombers survived 6 turnovers to edge the Riders 21-17 and set up a rematch of the 2019 Grey Cup against Hamilton.

Zach Collaros oddly threw only 1 incomplete pass but threw 3 interceptions on 21 attempts. Andrew Harris had 138 yards rushing in his first game in 6 weeks.

Winnipeg safety Brandon Alexander will likely face supplemental discipline and deserves a suspension for throwing a brutal elbow to the head of a sliding Cody Fajardo in the first. He got a 15-yard penalty but it should have been 25 yards and an ejection.

[SammyGreene]

How is Shaq Evans completely ignored in the Riders offence? Zero catches today and I can’t even remember him being targeted. Crazy for a 1,300 yard receiver 2 years ago.

Oh well intriguing Grey Cup with Bombers now needing to win essentially a road game to repeat as champs

[Sir Purrcival]

No thanks to the officials or the review booth on the Duke Williams "catch" in the last 3 minutes. How do you get that wrong on replay? I know'll they'll say that is was inconclusive. I call horse hockey. It was exceeding clear that Williams had the help of the turf bringing that ball in. I can forgive officials in real time for that but the replay booth? That was a pile of crap and fortunately it didn't turn the game.

As for the TiCats/Argos. I'm may be in the minority but frankly, I had a hard time watching that game as it felt like certain players should not have been in the game. Had that result gone the wrong way, it would have been another case of what the heck is the CFL thinking.

The CFL has to do better on all fronts to be credible.

[Hambone]

As for the TiCats/Argos. I'm may be in the minority but frankly, I had a hard time watching that game as it felt like certain players should not have been in the game. Had that result gone the wrong way, it would have been another case of what the heck is the CFL thinking.

The CFL has to do better on all fronts to be credible.

I'm of mixed opinion on the Argo thing. Sticking by the protocols set would have been effectively handing the TiCats the Eastern berth to the GC on a silver platter. The reality is those protocols should have been adjusted weeks, if not a couple months ago, to accept the reality of Covid in October and late November versus early August. To attend that game both the Argo players and everybody else in attendance had to be double vaxxed and able to show proof of that to enter the building.

[TheLionKing]

Hamilton better not count on the Bombers turning the ball over 6 times next week.

[tedbear]

No thanks to the officials or the review booth on the Duke Williams "catch" in the last 3 minutes. How do you get that wrong on replay? I know'll they'll say that is was inconclusive. I call horse hockey. It was exceeding clear that Williams had the help of the turf bringing that ball in. I can forgive officials in real time for that but the replay booth? That was a pile of crap and fortunately it didn't turn the game.

As for the TiCats/Argos. I'm may be in the minority but frankly, I had a hard time watching that game as it felt like certain players should not have been in the game. Had that result gone the wrong way, it would have been another case of what the heck is the CFL thinking.

The CFL has to do better on all fronts to be credible.

Totally agree

[DanoT]

On Duke's catch, the ball can touch the ground as part of the catch but it cannot help you make the catch. Very hard to tell if the ball actually helped make the catch, so the claim by TSN that there was not enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field was correct and the call would also have stood up if it had been ruled no catch.

I suspect that the ground helped with the catch but there was no clear video evidence of this, so the ruling on the field stands.

[Sir Purrcival]

On Duke's catch, the ball can touch the ground as part of the catch but it cannot help you make the catch. Very hard to tell if the ball actually helped make the catch, so the claim by TSN that there was not enough video evidence to overturn the call on the field was correct and the call would also have stood up if it had been ruled no catch.

I suspect that the ground helped with the catch but there was no clear video evidence of this, so the ruling on the field stands.

After looking at the CFL Rulebook, this is what I found.

"Article 6 — Incomplete Forward Pass
A forward pass shall be declared incomplete and the ball next put in play at the point of last scrimmage with downs continuing:

when the ball strikes the ground, goal post assembly, an official or any object on or back of the Dead Line or Out of Bounds, even if previously touched by a player,"

There is no qualification or exception that I can see. Nor have I ever heard that the ball can touch the ground during a catch. If that were to be the case, it would put officials in a ridiculous position of trying to decide "did the ground help or not". We have a bad enough time with inconsistency on calls that it surely wouldn't make sense to add another judgement scenario to something that should be clear-cut.

I have an image of it but I can't figure out how to make it show in this post.

[Sir Purrcival]

I'm of mixed opinion on the Argo thing. Sticking by the protocols set would have been effectively handing the TiCats the Eastern berth to the GC on a silver platter. The reality is those protocols should have been adjusted weeks, if not a couple months ago, to accept the reality of Covid in October and late November versus early August. To attend that game both the Argo players and everybody else in attendance had to be double vaxxed and able to show proof of that to enter the building.

I hear that. But there two things that come to mind in my feeling about this.
1. Whatever the situation was with regards to the protocol, the fact remains the league didn't change it. It was still in force. You can argue that maybe they should have but they didn't. The policy was known and regardless the choice was made to flaunt it for whatever reason be it ignorance of the policy or a "oh it doesn't make sense any more so why follow the rule" situation.

2. Honestly, if someone or a group of someones does something stupid, they should be the ones that bear the brunt of the consequences for those actions. If that meant handing the game to the TiCats, that would be preferable to having a team that had violated protocols win the game. Anything else unfortunately lessens the reputation of the league. That is what I struggle with here. It would have seemed monumentally unjust for a team to win this game knowing that they had broken the rules whether you agree with them or not. They don't get to make the choice about which policies to follow and which to ignore.

What it brings back to mind is the infamous, Troy Davis now, Jason Maas next year trade that basically powered the Elkimoes to a Grey Cup in 2005. it was a trade that the league shouldn't have sanctioned at the time and it still rankles that that team ended up getting rewarded for it.

The League has a responsibility to make sure that policy is appropriate at all times and that violations of those policies are treated with consistency. Otherwise you lay yourself open to criticisms that we are all too familiar with. You know the things that get said about the league, that it is amateurish, semi pro at best, etc, etc. We have all complained about how the league seemed out of step with Covid from the get go including that disastrous meeting with the Fed's to try and secure funding. I'm not sure that ping ponging policy is a good thing at any rate. Given recent increasing numbers and a new variant that isn't completely understood yet it would appear that some form of isolation for players is still prudent. At any rate, you get where I am coming from. The Cats won, the Argo's are done so things worked out but it is the future that is far from certain in this league that I worry about. The League needs to start tending to its house. There is too much inconsistency evident in the way they operate.

[DanoT]

I liken the MBT at Rapters game like a ref making a mistake and the video review guys making a correction. The bottom line being getting things right even in hindsight vs being rigid with rules.

The big mistake was the CFL's outdated policy and their failure to correct but did make the correct decision after the fact. Clumsy CFL, poor publicity, but eventually get it right is typical CFL...they've been operating this way for years.

[Sir Purrcival]

I can't quite go along with the analogy. A referee is making real time choices happening at speed. That can be a hard thing to get right at that moment. It is precisely for that reason that replay was introduced. Choosing to ignore a policy currently in effect because you don't agree with it is very different to my way of thinking. It isn't like is was a life or death situation here. It was about attending a sporting event in direct contravention of current policy. It didn't happen in a split second, there were multiple people involved. It was, in essence, a direct contravention in full view of the public. If you are a boss and someone does that, you deal with it decisively or you end up sabotaging your own authority. Would it have made a difference if say, a group of players had decided to juice a few days before the game? Now who can be sure. Maybe the player(s) are too important to suspend, maybe the game is to high profile to risk having it be a stinker. I'm being deliberately over the top here but the principle is the same. It sends a poor message to fans, players and coaches. That the rules are flexible depending on who it is and when it is. If it had been a backups or 2nd stringers, can you say they would have been allowed to play. I'm not certain. I think you are correct, the league has worked hard to establish that fly by the seat of your pants reputation and has done so for years. Time to change.