View Single Post
09-15-2013, 08:07 PM
Registered User
sundog's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 288
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
Wanted to comment on this:

It was the play of the game, play of the week, one of the plays of the season. A play that is legendary in nature and the type of thing that you see once in awhile that you remember a decade later with a grin. With several players making heads up in the moment brilliant decisions to make the magical play happen. For instance Willis decision to kick the ball down field is the kind of on field thinking we love about the CFL. Next, Howard managing to keep the ball in play before going out of bounds leading to the TD.

All that magic erased with one arbitrary made up call that Howard had interfered. Watching the play at the game it was clear the Bombers screwed up, pooched the snap back, and Howard was being held onto in his rush to get to the ball. To call joint interference on that play, bring the ball wayback on the play, and actually award Bombers 10yds differential on the play is beyond ridiculous. Really I would love to see these idiots try to be in a press conference and back up such a call.

Of course the players can't comment on that so I will.

**** CFL, I pay to watch the players make great plays on the field several of which happened on this play. Not to watch some group of **** ups defer on the play and come up with another idiotic resolution to the play that actually transpired on the field.

Trained monkeys with slide rulers out there.
As much as I can appreciate a good rant like yours, I have to tell you that you are wrong on this play.

1) The Bombers were guilty of interference on a loose ball (the QB waterskiing behind the Willis (I believe) after he kicked the ball

2) The Esks were guilty of the same infraction later in the same play as Howard clocked a Bomber as he neared the loose ball.

3) in this situation, the penalty that happened first is applied first: the Esks are given the option of declining the Bomber penalty (which they wouldn't do as the Bombers would get the ball because of the later penalty)

4) the Bombers are then given the option of declining the Esks penalty; which they wouldn't do because it would give the Esks a TD.

5) The first penalty (against the Bombers) is applied from the point where the ball is at the time of foul, (at this point, the ball was travelling downfield after the Willis kick). The Esks retain possession because of the Bomber penalty 1 and 10.

6) While this was a great play to watch, and I would have loved to have seen the Esks get a TD on the play, the fouls called were legitimate and the application was correct

7) it wasn't a great play by Willis to kick the ball. Had the Bombers recovered the loose ball they would have had a 1 and 10 situation; the kick by Willis interrupted the continuity of downs and the Bombers no longer had to make the yardage to retain possession. Simply recovering the loose ball would have given the Bombers 1 and 10.

sundog is offline