TBURGESS

Lots of young QB's look good on great teams but can't lead a team of their own. Take Arbuckle for example. He was going to be the next big QB then fizzled out when he was forced to do it on significantly worse teams. If I'm a team in need of a starting QB, I'm not pinning my hopes on a guy like Brown. I'm hedging my bets and bringing in two young backups and letting them both compete for the starting job.

We only know what Dru looks like on a great team with a great O line, Receivers and Running Back. We & the other teams have no idea if he can do it on a lesser team.

Of course it doesn't. No one said it did.

Everyone is going to run on the Lions. The key to beating them is to stop their deep ball offence.

Losing your top 2 QB's is a real excuse. No team is going to do well having to start their 3rd string QB. Just ask Ottawa or Hamilton this year.

This year, the West is the weaker division. Montreal & Hamilton have more wins than Regina and Calgary. Ottawa & Edmonton have the same number of wins as each other. I'd like the CFL to go back to every team playing every other team twice with the 2 extra games played against your own division.

If Tor beats Skn & BC beats Cgy, then we get to decide on if Cgy or Skn gets the last playoff spot.

We only need to win 1 game to clinch the west because we have the tie break against BC.

The battle of the undeserving teams was just what I thought it would be. If Toronto beats the Riders next week, then Calgary can get in with one more win.

How I imagine it looks in some members places when I post anything.

Literally, no one is saying that you can extend the ball after you are marked out. You're right in that instance. (I've also reffed). Furthest point forward. It doesn't matter if it's the ball or the foot. Amend from: Marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. to Marked at the furthest point forward when the foot goes out. Doesn't really change anything in the case of the play we're talking about, the ball was clearly ahead of the foot so it is the furthest point forward. If Adams was out before he extended the ball then it's still where the ball was when he went out. If Adams didn't extend the ball until after he was out then the mark was good. I've seen zero evidence that his foot was out before he extended. Booch says he has, but can't or won't share that evidence & he says you can see it on the replay that I posted, which no one can because the right leg is behind Bighill's head. Best you can say is that you guess his foot was out behind Bighill's head. It's a Red Herring argument anyway. It's not where you mark the ball when you go out. It's where was the ball when Adams stepped out or touched the line.

A foot out = End of Play. Marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. Sideline's don't have any special marking rules, it's always marked where the ball is, never where the foot is

It's simple, but you've got it wrong. The placement is always where the ball is, not where the foot is when the player is down, or out, or in the endzone. You can't advance the ball after you or the ball are down or out. If the ball goes out first, it's where the ball is. If the foot goes out first, it's still where the ball is.

When the foot goes out, the play is dead, but it's not marked where the foot went out. It's marked where the ball is when the foot goes out. Extend the ball before the foot goes out, it's where the extension of the ball is. Extend the ball after the foot goes out, you don't get the extension, it's still where the ball was when the foot touches the out of bounds. I took a quick look at the rule book and I didn't find anything definitive regarding marking the ball at the foot when going out of bounds or where the ball is when the foot goes out of bounds. Think of TD's on the sidelines. Player dives while his foot is in the field of play. Ball goes over the line = TD. Player dives, when his foot has touched the sideline = no TD. Neither case needs the players foot to go over the goal line. In both cases, the ball is marked where the ball is when the player touches the sidelines, not where the foot touches. Lets say the VAJ dove instead of pushed the ball forward. If he stepped on the out of bounds line before he dove, he wouldn't get the field advantage of the dive. If he started the dive before he touched the boundary, then he gets where he lands, assuming a head first dive.

The ball placement is where the ball is when the foot goes out, not where the foot is when the foot goes out. Example: TD's. Lots of time the knee is down in the field of play, while the ball is over the goal line. That's a TD every time. You can't see the right foot on the TV feed. Does the all 24 have an angle that shows both the foot and ball?

Disagree. No way to see where his foot actually went out of bounds (Behind Bighill's head) on any vid that I've seen. His foot goes out of bounds somewhere between 9:41 & 9:42 of: https://www.cfl.ca/2023/10/07/recap-winnipeg-34-bc-26/ I thought it should have been a first in real time and that we'd lost the game. The attached video shows that is should have been at least 1/2 yard closer to a first than the refs gave him, but not a first. Being as they missed the first by 3 inches or less, they'd have made the first down with a proper mark with 1:50 left on the clock @ the BC 52. That would have meant they drained at least another minute from the clock and we couldn't have stopped them. Even making zero yards, they'd be able to punt the ball on third, which they should have done due to the mark anyway, & we'd have been inside our 20 with about 45 seconds to get the tying FG. One first down and they'd have drained the clock. Maybe you can share a better video that shows your opinion of where the ball should have been spotted?

Thank dog the ref made a terrible spot on VAJ's 2nd down scramble or we'd be looking up at first place right now.

I thought it was pretty consistent last night. Both teams pushed players out of bounds, neither got a penalty. Both teams held, neither were penalized. The Refs let early hits by DB's go both ways.

VAJ doesn't struggle from the pocket any more & he'll only run when he has to.

The CFL hall of fame is the highlight in Hamilton.

And yet it's not me arguing.

None of the top 3 have completed 30 passes in a game. We destroyed the Lions without VAJ. They destroyed us with him. VAJ is the leader in yards thrown & rushing yards. VAJ is the only one of the top 3 with any 400+ yard games with 2. Picks are a problem for VAJ but, he's not as bad as folks are making him out to be. One horrible game doesn't define the season unless it's a playoff game. VAJ - 16, Collaros - 14, Kelly - 11 VAJ should be in the MOP conversation.

That's why we need first place. BC place is warm and cozy.

Dimwiddie knows what it's like for a QB to have to make their first start in a huge game. He made sure that won't happen with his backup QB.

The 2 points is all that matters. Keeps us tied for first in the West and sets up the biggest game of the year (so far) next week against BC. Great reverse return followed by not so great reverse return. Shows how quickly Toronto can adjust on the fly. We started great with a TD drive, then had to settle for FG's. We proved we could beat Toronto with their 2nd string QB, third string RB and 3 starters missing from the defence. Actually, they were still in the lead with their 2nd string QB et al, so we didn't even prove that. Note that Calgary beat them without their starting QB too & they suck this year. Toronto proved that they can hang with us even with a bunch of backups in.