GCn20

I agree to some of that. The ability to make ticky tack BS calls shouldn't be reviewable or forgive my English call downable. Turnovers/potential turnovers, scoring plays, receptions/incompletions should all be something they can do as well as getting line infractions correct. Other than that, no need. I do have to wonder about the availability of replays by TSN on that INT as well, because MOS didn't challenge what would have been the easiest challenge win of his career.

Leake would be awesome, so would getting Grant back from the Argos and correcting a big whiff from this past offseason.

On a clear and obvious mistake, other than penalties, the CC should be able to phone down and correct the call. I wouldn't want them bogging stuff down that requires multiple angles and 5 minutes to analyze but the interception was clear. obvious and could be determined as so very quickly beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can't imagine what transpired to not rule that an interception both by the on-field refs and upstairs. There was zero reason to even dispute that it may not be an interception. It was as clean as could be. The refs should be downright embarrassed already for bungling a potential turnover call that egregiously. CC getting it right doesn't embarrass them more. The proof of their incompetence is there either way.

There are markets other than Toronto that could use Pinball, and his grassroots appeal and focus. Therefore, it would suck for the Arblows but it would be the entire CFL's gain. I get what you are worried about though, in the CFL football wasteland of Toronto a guy like Pinball is necessary. Parents HAVE to take them with Chad "Diddy" Kelly lurking around.

I didn't forget, just goes without saying at this point.

So a typical Rider game then, a bunch old wieners drinking crap beer wearing ugly merch watching a team that no one hopes will be the same next year. The only thing that has grown in Regina is their crime rate and the plaque on their teeth.

The gale force wind helped for sure.

I think it as prevalent here, just more on a team by team basis. They skew to the East. One can't look at the calls in a game and blame incompetence. Take the interception by Ford the other day. I can't blame incompetence for that. It goes far beyond any logistical thinking that this was plain old incompetence. The guy got both feet down 2 yards inbounds with full control of the ball. That was a ref demonstrating bias. You will never convince me otherwise on a play like that. It was as clear an interception as one could ever have. No toe drag close to the line, no issue whatsoever with possession..nothing. When the watermelon heads are shaking their head in disbelief you know it was an egregious call against the Bombers.

Nice...losing a game to the CFL bottom feeders on fan appreciation day. Never change Riders!

The league is not PURPOSELY corrupt. However, in the back of every single CFL employee's mind has got to be a full awareness that the CFL needs the big market teams to have at least some fan interest in order to survive. Also, there is I'm sure a full awareness that only happens when their teams have success. Do these job preservation realities sometimes lead to calls going their way subconsciously. I would think so, and the proof of my statement is in the pudding. No mandate from the CFL per se, but we would have to be awfully naive to think that CFL employees don't give the benefit of any doubt subconsciously to the markets in the East.

Nothing is as clear cut as TB would like to pretend it is. He won't acknowledge that their is inherent risk to letting that ball fall to the ground.

Totally agree. However, with Montreal's defence stacking the box is what they felt worked best yesterday because of the conditions. Hard to argue that as we had trouble getting traction against it early in the game. We went away from Brady because their defence dictated that we go elsewhere with the ball to be high efficiency. They trusted their bend and don't break to hold us to FGs and for the most part it did.

You are not wrong. It's been that way for 50 years now.

Thing is that in order for a RB to be a clean 1v1 in the gap in a loaded box means that every OL has executed his blocking assignment perfectly. That is unrealistic to expect and those 1v1s are often impeded and then it is big advantage to the defence. There is a reason teams stack the box against the run. It's because it's effective. When a D is doing that the smart play is to pass against them and force them out of the box. We just weren't consistent enough in our air attack in the first half. In the 2nd half we got some traction in the passing game and the box loosened somewhat.

Especially in the West. Both teams that may challenge us are deeply flawed and exploitable in their overall team build. A GC against Montreal and Toronto is still a very winnable game but it will take as you described.

Riders stadium is not a great viewing or fan experience. Too far from the field imo.

Not particularly worried about either of them. Both have soft as butter defences. We just need to do our thing and we should be fine. The real GC challenge will come out of the East where Montreal and Toronto can match defences with us. Toronto seems to have gotten their stuff together now, and have a very deep and talented roster. Should be a slobber knocker in the East.

I would have liked to see Pinball, but I think he tarnished his image with the whole Kelly debacle. Wade would be the best choice they could make imo, IF he's interested and I'm not sure he is.

There were at least two games I saw on TV where the stadium looked half full.

I don't know what's going on over there, but there attendance has been mediocre at best this year, a year they were actually competitive. Heard rumblings of the club price gouging and charging ridiculous fees on top of ticket price. Not sure tho. Fair weather fans imo.

Yep. they couldn't beat Calgary yesterday and had a very Toronto-esque crowd watching.

It matters. As an elite running team you may have occasional success against a loaded box, but for the most part they are giving you the pass to stop the run and any OC with half a noodle in his head is going to call the game that way. BO wasn't running a lot because Montreal loaded up the box and dared us to beat them with passing on a windy and cold day. If I am going to pick apart any part of Buck's play calling it wouldn't be his lack of using BO, it would be for not taking a few deep shots earlier or using some sweeps and throws to the flats in the game to open up the run by forcing Montreal to abandon the D game plan of loading the box. For BO to get touches yesterday we needed to force the defence to spread out and we didn't do that until the 3rd Q.

Yes it is the same thing. We had 2-3 plays in the game yesterday where if players make the right read/decision they are punting instead of scoring. You are just purposely CHOOSING to ignore the first 57 minutes of a 60 minute game because it doesn't suit your argument. Part of every loss EVER is the opposition making mistakes at wrong time. You keep putting up the 61 yard FG as one such mistake when every KR ever is coached to field a short FG because they often take extremely unpredictable bounces and are a live ball.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. You could literally take every football game decided by one score ever played and what if each team to a 10 point victory on 2-3 plays. Every what if you trot out a Bomber fan can do the same and argue we should have been up by 4-7 points.

Tough to demonstrate dominance in a 30 front.