TrueBlue4ever

“Do your research!”

Assuming the complainant is completely credible, which may be too readily accepted here because it’s a Rider on the other side. “Hey, here’s a fan who chooses to get season tickets behind the opposing bench for the purpose of heckling players all the time (self-admitted) and dresses up in wrestling garb. Seems like a low key, mild mannered person would would never look to start a confrontation with the visiting team, minimize his own behaviour in inciting an incident or exaggerate a player’s response.” Hey, I have a picture of me standing beside Anna Kournikova at an autograph signing. Totally proves we are sleeping together! Look, I am not saying an incident did not happen. Ball likely did go into the stands. I was at the game and did not see anything from my vantage point, and did not hear an auditory uproar from the stands behind the Rider bench which is common when an incident occurs. So being there is not necessarily proof or a way to shout down someone who wasn’t. And being there and not seeing it is not proof it didn’t happen. Lots of fans, big stadium, and the vantage point may only be available to a few select fans. I’m just skeptical that it happened exactly the way the complainant lays it out. As was said, the victimhood portrayed in the article comes across as a bit rich to believe the throw was a violent as outlined. The kid says he was caught unaware of the throw and his uncle had to jump In to intercept it inches from his unsuspecting face. Yet he perfectly describes the “pro-level” wind-up and hard velocity throw. So did you see it coming or not? For now, we have one side of the story, and it is self-serving (gets us a picture in the paper and publicly slags those dirty Riders to the media). Gainey’s version denying it would be equally self-serving (protect my reputation, which already has marks against it, and potential liability). I’d like to hear some unbiased third party witnesses or await the league response rather than get the “scoop” from the Freep unverified. But a story slagging the Riders for alleged reprehensible behaviour is red meat to many on this board akin to Trump saying “immigrants bring in drugs and are rapists” to people in MAGA hats. I’m not ready to buy in just yet, that’s just me and that’s all I am explaining in my comments.

Players are in a no-win situation when it comes to fan interaction. Look at the post-game video of Toronto-Hamilton. Fans throwing beer at players, swearing, even throwing punches in one case, but once players go after them physically they will lose the argument in the court of public opinion every time. Players always have to defer to security and just get fans who are too abusive removed and never take it into their own hands.

No one really knows except those fans, anyone right beside them who witnessed it, the player, and the security guys who monitor all the cameras at the stadium. The whole place is monitored for fan misbehaviour, so if there is any traction to this story I am sure the club can find video of it and respond. I am not prepared to give the automatic benefit of the doubt to the fan in this case given their one-sided account. Heard versions of this type of story too many times be a nothing burger to accept it at face value with lots some independent verification. Just a vibe I got from the tone of the article.

Just avoid the edibles. I hear those things can mess up a weekend.

Actually, the article made no mention of where they were sitting or where the ball was thrown. All we know is “early in the first quarter” and is most likely after the Demski INT since that is when Gainey would have had his hands on the ball. What video there is does not show any throw into the stands, Gainey is holding the ball as he heads back to the bench. So heed your own advice if you say “did you read the article?” since your version of “it mentions sidelines by the bench” is not in there either. TBURG never said it was in the end zone himself.

Forgive me if I don’t think this kid’s version is entirely 100% accurate. Slow news day and a reporter trying to make something bigger than it is. The tell for me is the “former make-a-wish kid with the heart problem”, which tries too hard to paint a mouthy 17 year old as Mother Teresa. No, players should not be tossing things into the stands, but I am skeptical that a 90mph fastball with a “frozen, rock hard nose breaking velocity football” was deliberately aimed at the kid’s head, no video of it (presumably came after the early Demski INT play, Gainey took the ball back to his bench), maybe flipped it into the stands. More likely a Kramer/Newman “he spit on me” complaint where they admit they poured beer on the true perpetrator in the bullpen earlier. Kid getting his 5 minutes of attention and a picture in the paper to my mind, and the paper using the Rider rivalry to play up an angle.

Prolix is good because he will sometimes try to explain things a little more to the fans on the mike. Sadly his accent can cause unintentional hilarity. Like the game in Calgary where every time there was a tackle eligible play the player was required to report and the official had to announce it on the PA so the defence could not be tricked. After about five versions of “Calgary number ticksty tree is illegible on display” Bob Irving actually said “Poor Andre” on the broadcast, and the league changed the rule where it did not need to be broadcast any more. I liked the Proulx game where an Alouette got a little too exuberant after a sack and in his celebration bowled over Andre and then looked worried he was going to be flagged. Proulx pops up and says “There is no penalty on the play, it was an accident” barely containing his laughter. Judging by this thread I found not all Ticat fans may be as pleased with the referee selection. Some feel he has an anti-Hamilton bias. https://forums.cfl.ca/t/andre-proulx-take-it-down-a-notch/64657

The block was legal because it was behind the line of scrimmage. No matter, the game was over the play after Harris’ second touchdown when Theadric Hansen wiped out two Tiger Cats on the kickoff. They were broken after that.

We will be getting two or three ourselves. Look forward to seeing you there in some capacity, will keep you posted on our seats! Go Blue!

Brother buying them. Actually don’t have them yet (even with the sellout, there are a bunch on Facebook on the secondary market and prices are dropping). Will have them by Saturday. Eyeing some in the upper deck near centre field on Ticketmaster, but the extra taxes really up the posted price. Fortunately he wants good seats and said he’d but the rid of I paid my way out to see him, so he is committed no matter what he ends up paying. Probably going to run us about $500 per ticket when all is said and done. If I confirm my seat I will let you know.

Thank you for this. Wise words. I bit my tongue on a few posts since some might dismiss me as being holier than thou again, but I felt a few comments went over the line (“loser”, “weiner”, “should check his estrogen level”). I do agree that he does need to get off social media if it causes him strife, or if he expects it to be all positive strokes, because fandom is hardly all that, and fairly or not comes with the territory for pro athletes. But at least when asked a question by the media, he did not give the standard canned cliches and gave an honest, from the heart, real answer. I don’t feel sorry for him as much as I am concerned about his mental state and how hard he seems to take things. It may hinder him as a quarterback and team leader, but as a human he is entitled to his feelings and should not be mocked for it. Hopefully in the future he can find a way to tune out the internet critics or at least be at peace with it, but the pandemic has done a number on most people’s mental health. I know many who feel that the lack of real human connection and living and working in a more virtual world has led to a lot more isolation and loss of basic respect for others when you communicate mainly through a computer.

I’ll be there. Have family in Toronto who I am going with.

If O’Shea wants to be a leader of men, gain their trust to play for him, and to be accountable to him and their teammates as players, then he must be careful and choose his words wisely, so as to be accountable to them as well, as a coach, as a man. Fans don’t need to have that same accountability, so they can feel free to express their opinions, whatever they may be, with less filter or measured words.

Some random, maybe fascinating but largely useless stuff about the upcoming game: In the 108 year history of the Grey Cup, this is the 33rd time a team has returned to the championship game to defend its title. Defending champions are 21-11 in the following year’s game when they return. Since the founding of the CFL in 1958 they are 9-6. This is also the 46th time a team that has lost the previous Grey Cup has gotten back to the big game. Those teams are 22-23 overall, and 16-10 since 1958, in that scenario. Winnipeg and Hamilton are meeting for the 12th time in the Grey Cup game, including the matches where their military teams playing in the 1940’s. This is the most common match-up in Grey Cup history, surpassing the 11 match-ups between Edmonton and Montreal. Since the inception of the CFL in 1958, Montreal and Edmonton have met 8 times. With this year’s match-up, the Bombers and Cats will now tie that record in the CFL era. Winnipeg is 7-4 overall against Hamilton in Grey Cup games, and 6-1 since 1958. This is the 17th re-match in Grey Cup history, and the 10th in the CFL era (sort of, the Bombers and Tiger Cats played each other on 1957 and 58 so there was an overlap in the pre- and Post-CFL era there: the 1958 game is not counted in the “CFL era” stats). Overall, the team that won the first game is 10-6 in the re-match, but only 4-5 in the CFL era (starting with the 1959 Bomber-Cat re-match). Only 4 times have two teams met in 3 consecutive seasons. Here are the full results: 1928-29: Hamilton sweeps Saskatchewan 1937-38: Toronto sweeps Winnipeg *1945-47: Toronto defends twice over Winnipeg, sweeping the 3 games *1954-56: Edmonton goes 3-0 over Montreal *1957-59: Hamilton wins the first meeting with Winnipeg, the Bombers win the re-match, then defend their title in year 3 1961-62: Bombers win both against Hamilton (this is the first time two clubs will play 5 Grey Cups against each other in a 6 year span, Edmonton and Montreal will repeat this feat in the 1970’s) 1963-64:Hamilton and BC split with the Cats winning the first and the Leos taking the re-match 1974-75: Montreal beats Edmonton in the opener but lose the re-match 1977-79: Esks/Als again for 3 straight, Alouettes win the first, give up the title in year 2, and the Eskimos defend in year 3. 1998-99: Calgary beats Hamilton in the first one, Cats flip the script the next year 2002-03: Montreal/ Edmonton once again, Als win the first one but Esks spoil the title defence the next year 2009-10: Montreal sweeps Saskatchewan, including the infamous “13th man” penalty in game one. The Tiger Cats get a home game this year. This is the 11th time they have hosted, and amazingly only once in the prior 10 games have they not appeared as a team in the game they hosted (Toronto vs Edmonton in 1996). They are 6-3 as the “home team” in the other 9 Grey Cups held in Hamilton., although the first 8 were before the rotational system came into play. Before 1941, almost every game was held in Hamilton or Toronto (Ottawa did not host until 1925 when they beat the Winnipeg Tammany Tigers as the home team, Montreal got its first home game in 1931 beating the Roughriders), and there was no neutral site, so every year until 1941 was a home game for one of the teams (always in the east). The first “neutral site” game was in 1941 when Toronto hosted the game and Winnipeg beat Ottawa. After that game, Toronto won as the host city 6 times, beating Winnipeg in 1942, 45-47, and 50, and beating Edmonton in 1952. Hamilton lost as the host to Montreal in 1944. That game in Hamilton was the only one in a 14 year span where every other game was in Toronto. The first western Grey Cup was 1955 when Edmonton defeated Montreal in BC. After that game, Toronto and BC rotated the hosting duties, with BC essentially getting every third year. The next host city to have its team appear in the game was BC in 1963, who lost to Hamilton. But the true rotation of Grey Cup host cities did not start until 1965, with the 4 eastern teams and BC hosting. Calgary would get its first Grey Cup in 1975, Edmonton in 1984, Winnipeg in 1991, and Regina in 1995. Since the advent of the full rotational system , 11 teams have played at home in a Grey Cup game before this year. Those home teams are 6-5 overall, including the last 3 times in consecutive years from 2011 to 2013. Calgary and Winnipeg are the only two current CFL teams to have never played in a “home” Grey Cup game. Edmonton is the only franchise to never win a “home” Grey Cup. And finally, Winnipeg and Hamilton have met once before in a “home field” Grey Cup, all the way back in 1935 when the Winnipeg Pegs beat the Tiger Cats to become the first ever western team to win the Grey Cup.

The Bombers are so good…….they can’t even beat themselves, no matter how hard they tried to.

I agree, and I was not trying to defend the call. This was not ticky-tack, I am saying the mindset of both sides is “defer to the other party” so no one stands up and makes the call that needs to be made. Sorry if my post was not clear enough there. It was absolutely a blown call, and command centre has been really bad at many calls this year. An overhaul is due.

I was last row upper deck centre field, so I was as far away from the Jumbotron as you could get. Closer up it was more obvious I am sure. Which begs the question, how bad is the eyesight of the video review officials?

From the stands, it was hard to see the reply on the jumbotron. It was clear that the ball touched the ground, but from a few angles the illusion was that he caught it and dragged it back under control touching the ground, but not using the ground to trap it. My brother watching on TV in Toronto (and not biased for or against either team) said clearly no catch. The replay on sportscentre with the magnified enhanced close-up showed that the ball did indeed hit the ground and roll before he had control. So did the command centre not have access to that enhanced replay? Also, is there still a time limit on how long replays are allowed to take (thought there was a rule on that, maybe I am confusing it for the time allowed to whistle down to the on-field officials about a booth review). In any event, they should not rush to make a decision if it means not getting enough time or angles to properly review a call. One of the biggest problems with video review in my mind is what the rules governing it are. The review booth is instructed to not overturn a call if it is questionable or marginal. They do not want to take away the human element and get involved in ticky-tack penalty calls (close PI or ball spot with a weird camera angle or illegal contact) where the on-field guys are in the closest proximity to call it or not and have a feel for the play (say legal hand fighting vs PI). So unless clearly wrong, do not overturn. That leads to “deference to the on-field guys” instead of “our ruling stands no matter what”. But the on-field officials know there is an eye in the sky to cover them, and I think it leads them to be gunshy and not trust their own calls figuring a video review can get it right later. So you have officials on-field hesitant to make a strong call, a replay booth afraid to overturn them, and both sides deferring to each other as the final arbiter with no one taking charge. Either get rid of video if you want to keep the on-field officials in charge, or give it more power to be the final say, no matter how marginal.

Go back and play as a starter for the guy who he won a Grey Cup with and whose offensive schemes developed his game and showcased him enough to get him a look in The Show and over $1 million in salary? Yeah, who wants that? 🙄 He will go where the money and the opportunity (quite possibly in that order) is best. Loyalty means as much to a player as it does to a team, which is to say not much a sizeable amount of the time, especially where dollars are involved.

If you are truly torn about how to react, maybe ask yourself “if this was a Blue Bomber saying this, how would I feel?” Then ask “if it was a person or team I have no allegiance for a or against either way (real life example: Simone Biles), how would I feel?” Is there a difference based on allegiance? If so, should there be and why? If not, how are you reacting to others whose have clear opinions one way or another. No right or wrong one way to feel, but maybe this approach helps you sort out the ambivalence and what your beliefs and values as a fan and a human being are, and if those stances are the same for each role.

For once, even I am without words.

Paul McCallum’s lawn.

Coaches are not allowed to challenge in the last 3 minutes of the game, only the review booth. At least that is how I understand the rule.

You won’t get a lot of agreement on the Bomber site, but I will say Bomber home Blue and Gold and Argo road with the powder blue pants and numbers with white jerseys is easily the best uniform combo in the league. Would love to see that pairing next week in Steeltown. Some bend don’t break from the Tabbies early. Will Toronto regret those missed red zone opportunities by game’s end?