View Single Post
Old
09-15-2013, 10:44 PM
  #821
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 35,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundog View Post
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.
Nice rundown. Thanks. I follow what you wrote but it still seems odd that the Esks after everything is said and done scrimmage at least 10yds back of where the original infraction occurred (The Bomber interfering.) I don't have it PVR'ed but that was way up field from where the Esks ended up with the ball. How could the penalties not just be offsetting in terms of yds? The Esks should have scrimmaged around Center field at worst.

Next, while I was watching the telecast I replayed the play several times and saw no indication of Howard interfering with anybody. I didn't while watching the game either. I don't know that he did anything more than incidentally touch somebody in what was a mutual pursuit for the free ball. Lets be clear here. The bomber got the penalty because he was flagrantly skidooing off the eskimo. I'm still wondering what Howard got flagged for a day later. This was a judgement call that negated a brilliant play.

As far as the kick it was a great play because the ball was kicked well, 40yds, he got all of it, and if it goes out ob bounds its our ball, at worst if it goes back its anybodies ball in poor field position which was more important at that stage of the game then possession.

Finally, lets not forget that if the Eskimo didn't kick the ball, and a Bomber decided to grab it and run with it, or lateral or pass it, whatever, the Bombers could still have got a first down on a broken play. The potential is always there in the wacky CFL for something like that to occur and I've seen things like that happen against the Esks too many times. With the Esks in the lead by a few scores it was big to get the ball downfield at that point through whatever means.

Replacement is online now