TBURGESS

Duke is a great add for the Riders. Makes them more dangerous when we play them again in the western final.

Collaros is THE difference between Winnipeg being an average team like they were last year before he started and the dominant team they are today. He's the QB that some around here thought that Nichols was. The one who changed our teams destiny.

Calgary had a great 5 minutes at the beginning of the game and managed to ride those 14 points to a win. 2 successful on side kicks, one called back, against didn't hurt them because the Riders tried to go deep into double coverage on third down. Bo got hurt yet again. Calgary is a mere shadow of it's former glory, not the biggest competition in the west. That's still Regina.

BC doesn't really need another game changing receiver. They need an upgrade at RB and OL. Toronto's already blown the budget this year. Hamilton might have the money and they're contenders. I'm gonna guess he's coming home to the Elks.

Reilly will take the hit to make the play. He beats the blitz with reads and release, not by running. Blitz him and Whitehouse will have a big game. Send 4 and cover.

Leg strength is nice and all, but I'd rather have accuracy.

Burn-em and Whitehead can kill our DB's if we give Reilly time to get it to them. To do that, IMO, they'll have to establish the run, and I haven't seen them do that this year. BC lives and dies on the big play. Bombs and speed on offence. Picks and pass break-ups on defence. It will come down to how many 50-50 balls they complete on offence and how many picks they get on defence. I like out chances.

Suitor aside, the kids played great.

I thought it was Faj-jj

That line extended to nights out after the games all the way to the late 80's. The white players at their tables and the black players at their tables.

Still no sure how good BC is. 2 of their wins have been against Ottawa and their D looked terrible against Montreal. This is a huge game for them and a huge game for the Riders. I'm looking forward to it.

I disagree for what it's worth. That was just 17 and I finishing the subject, not starting anything back up again.

Sigh... Why do you try to restart crap after it should have been over?

RE: Arbuckle I read somewhere that he didn't want to play in PLAP's offence.

Happy to oblige.

Same attitude as you and Booch and others.

It should be no clean sample - no play.

Someone on here said that a player should have been thrown out for an arm bar on the sidelines because it could have broken his arm. Folks rightly left the comment alone. If I'd typed that, I doubt the same 3 or 4 guys would have left it alone, so yes, sometimes it's JUST about my name. Most times it's about my opinion on the few, not most, things we disagree on like 2 specific penalties in the last few games. It may seem like lots of differences because the stupid arguments go on and on.

I'd give the job back to Leggz and cut the other 2. Neither are a big upgrade. Hopefully, the more work Leggz gets, the more consistent he gets. However, if a vet kicker becomes available, not crappy, then bring him in.

They're still talking about the Harris face mask on TV last night, a week after the fact. Naylor said it will be discussed off season as an automatic DQ. The current rules allow for it to be a DQ but not an automatic one. I know why people get upset at me. I never pretended not to. That doesn't mean I start arguments or that I go personal first. If my name wasn't attached to a lot of arguments, folks would just let it go.

Alford - His pick 6 turned the game back in our favour. Bighill - His TD was the last nail in the coffin. Demski - That TD was amazing. HH: Adams - His 2nd first TD was a thing of beauty.

Adams should have been thrown out and he was given a 1 game suspension for the play. Hope you're not suggesting that Harris should have received a one game suspension too. Ooooo he got paid to play (Sarcastically) I don't start attacks. I don't back down either. I simply said that I'd have thrown Harris out. It could have died right there, but I was asked why, so I posted the rule and why I thought it applied in this case. Could have died there too and I'd have been quite happy with that. You're the one who took it to the personal level because I didn't agree with your opinion which you backed up with 'rules' that don't exist. When that didn't work, you went with your usual 'I used to be someone' schtick. To which I said 'so what?'. I don't need to hear my own voice. I don't need to relive my past glories. I don't expect my opinion to be the end of all arguments. I don't get upset when others disagree with me. I think you're projecting your own insecurities onto me.

I'll wait for you to find an example of a player doing what Harris did way after the play was over and wasn't thrown out. Good luck with that too. I didn't say you wouldn't be tossed. I said it's not a black and white rule. It's part of exactly the same rule that I'm quoting as a reason for Harris to get DQ'd. If you can find a rule that says you'll get thrown out specifically for tossing a helmet or even using one as a weapon, then you can call it black and white. If not, you can't. The reason I'm disagreeing with your opinion is because I'm biased against you? 🤣 Nope. Because my Mommy didn't hug me enough? 🙄 Nope. The reason I disagree with you on this point is because you're making up rules that don't exist and then using the 'OOOoooo I used to be somebody' "reason" that everyone should agree with your opinion. Maybe you peaked in High School and you miss the adulation now that you're an adult or maybe it's because you can't physically bully people on the internet. Cheers!

I originally thought you just didn't know the rule when you said it was cut and dried, so I posted the rule. Now I know that you're simply lying about it like you did when you said throwing the helmet is a DQ or hitting a player with a helmet is a DQ. Both of those are part of part 3 of the rule and are up to the Ref's judgment. Note that's the same part of the rule that I'm using to say Harris should have been thrown out. We all know you played football at a higher level than most of us. You bring it up every time you want to shut up other people because you actually think it means that you are the be all and end all on knowledge. It reminds me of that ad.... 'Oooo he's a Sir'. One week you argue that the refs got it wrong and you know cuz you played at a high level. Next week, it's the refs got it right and you know cuz you played at a high level.

Here we go again. We agree that it should be a penalty. We probably agree it should be a fine (It was). We agree he shouldn't lose the next game for it. We disagree that he should have been thrown out. At least this week, you're on the Ref's side. It was more premeditated than grabbing a facemask during the play. Sometimes you can't grab anything else. Sometimes you just don't let go. Sometimes you target the face mask, but intent isn't part of penalties, so you can't be DQ'd for intent. After the play, during a scrum, Harris went directly for the face mask. He wasn't trying to tackle anyone. He didn't grab it by mistake. He didn't just not let go. He specifically targeted the face mask. Grabbed hold of it (Penalty). Threw the guy to the ground by the face mask. All of it was way after the whistle. All of it should be enough to use the disqualification for any act of rough play against an opponent and was an act of excessive roughness which is the black letter definition of a DQ'able play. I didn't call it an intent to injure. IMO Harris' intent was to control the other player by grabbing his face mask then throwing him to the ground by that face mask. Not sure if he intended to rip the helmet off of the player. Now you want to make it about something that Johnson did instead of something that Harris did. I just saw the clip and he should have been thrown out too.