TBURGESS
-
Posts
5,014 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by TBURGESS
-
-
If the 3 of you could have said that a month ago, we'd all have been better off.
- Noeller, Fatty Liver, Pickle Rick and 1 other
-
1
-
3
-
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.
-
9 minutes ago, do or die said:
None of this completely explains what happened to the Rider D...
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.
- Noeller, rebusrankin and Bigblue204
-
3
-
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.
-
-
-
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.
1 hour ago, Booch said:if foot touched at 5 yard line...ball still in field of play....then crosses out at 6...spotted at 5.....no ambiguity there at all...I ref football....so kind of know a bit of how to spot a ball...well used to ref I should clarify
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.
-
1 hour ago, Booch said:
not if foot is out before ball crosses plane of the sideline....as the the ball carrier is determined out of bounds already...thats the key part of the "stretch" tactic...player needs to still be in field of play
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
-
14 hours ago, Doublezero said:
Let's keep it simple. The play is over when either 1) the player, or 2) the ball, goes out of bounds. So in this case, placement depends whether 1) the foot, or 2) the ball goes out of bounds first. If a player steps out of bounds first the spot is where he stepped out. If the ball goes out of bounds first (while the player remains in-bounds) then the spot is where the ball went out of bounds. In this case VA stepped out of bounds before the ball went out of bounds. Therefore the spot is where his foot was, since the play is dead at that point. There can never be a case where the placement of the spot is where the ball went out if the player previously stepped out.
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.
-
31 minutes ago, Doublezero said:
When the foot goes out the play is dead. Doesn't matter where the ball is at that point. Can you show me where it says in the CFL rule book that placement is based on where the ball goes out and not the foot? I understand that this would apply to a goal-line play. In that instance it is only when the ball that crosses the plane of the goal that a score is recorded - that's whey you get players diving and extending the ball for the corner marker - like Sheed did so amazingly last year. But I'm not sure that applies anywhere else on the field. As I said, on the sideline for example, at the instant a player steps out of bounds the play is dead. Doesn't matter where the ball is because the play is dead. In this case, VA had already stepped out of bounds. The ball was still moving in the air during his stretch but that's irrelevant.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, Doublezero said:
Agreed. it looks on the CFL.ca highlights as if VA's foot touched the sideline just shy of the 52. And they needed to get to the 53 for the 1st down so he was a full yard short. VA said he thought he stretched and got it - but I believe the rule for ball placement is at the spot where the player steps out of bounds - not where the the ball is when the player goes out of bounds. After all, he stepped out of bounds while the ball was in his hand and still in the air. And the play is dead at the instant the players foot touches the out of bounds mark. You can stretch all the way to Saskatoon, but the ball is no longer live or in play. Someone on the other forum was saying it should be marked where the ball goes out of bounds not the foot, but I think that would be incorrect (unless we are talking about the goal line). Sometimes, if there is some doubt, the officials will give the ball carrier some benefit and mark it half way between where a knee or foot goes down and the forward point of a stretch. But in this case the sideline official was right there to see exactly where VA's foot stepped on the sideline marker. And he correctly marked it there. Great tackle by Bighill, BTW.
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.
1 hour ago, Booch said:cause I watched all 24, not tv feed....and its right foot....outside the head of Biggie...Prob can see it on a TV feed as well
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?
-
22 minutes ago, Booch said:
got a chance to watch the game footage....frame by frame....some posters were thinking that BC should have got the first down on that Vaj scramble before the 3rd and 1 denial...BC actual got a favorable spot as the Vaj stepped out about 3/4 yard further back than the spot they gave him before he extended his arm out at the marker....so the on field guys actually got it correct...basically amazingly enough
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?
-
1 hour ago, Booch said:
Thank god he's a horrible cover guy and tackler and couldn't bring down Rhymes or we would be staring up at first place right now.....
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.
- Tracker, Pepper_Brooks, WBBFanWest and 1 other
-
1
-
3
-
-
-
The CFL hall of fame is the highlight in Hamilton.
- Fatty Liver and Noeller
-
1
-
1
-
16 hours ago, Noeller said:
I was just thinking about prior to 2019.... 17to85 and I would make the joke that "even when we do finally win a Cup, someone like TBurg is gonna say 'Yeah, but you didn't win it the RIGHT way'...."
and that's kinda what feels like is happening right now.
And yet it's not me arguing.
-
1 hour ago, wbbfan said:
it begins lol.
Vaj hasn’t complete 30 passes once this year he has 4 games with 1td or less. 5 game with as many picks as tds including the big ol 6 pick game. Of his 3 best performances 1 game was a loss and another was a near collapse. 4 games under 300 passing. And they didn’t miss a beat with out him winning both games by a combined 47-9. He’s been sacked 30 times this year.
Zach also hasn’t completed 39 passes in a game. He has 3 games with 1 td or less. He has 4 games with as many picks as ints. Including the pick 6 games. Zach has 8 games under 300 this year. And we also failed ok with our Zach. Zach has been sacked 24 times
kelly hasn’t completed more than 23 passes this year. He has 7 games with 1 td or less. He has 6 games with as many picks as tds. He has 9 games under 300. Though he does have 8 rushing tds. Kelly has been sacked 9 times this year.
if you swapped vaj and Kelly, both teams would have the same record. If you swapped collaros onto tor or bc, they would at worst be as good. Toronto I think would be much better. Vaj on the bombers would be comparable, Kelly I think would be screwed.
None of these guys are markedly better, or deserving of a mop award. The real mop is Brady or defence
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.
- Fatty Liver and Tracker
-
2
-
29 minutes ago, GCn20 said:
One thing about Richie Hall is that he is an exceptional cold weather coordinator. Part of that is offences simply can't do what they want that time of year. You gotta go back to fundamental football and that's when film study loses some of its importance and a good D game plan that focuses on what offences will have available to them becomes the trump card. No one knows that better than Hall.
That's why we need first place. BC place is warm and cozy.
Winnipeg Versus the Ponies Aka Battle of the Reserves GDT
in Blue Bomber Discussion
Posted
I don't think any team gives Brown a starting job or starting salary.
Ottawa could dump Mazoli, sign Brown to compete for the starting job and use the savings to upgrade the rest of the team.
Riders could dump Harris, sign Brown to compete for the starting job and use the savings to upgrade their O line.
Montreal could dump Faj-jj... etc.
Hamilton could dump BLM... etc.
Edmonton will continue with Ford as he gave them hope this year.
Stamps will continue with Maier as he got better in the 2nd half of the season.
IMO, the most likely spot is Ottawa where Dru would get the most money and have the easiest route to starting.