HardCoreBlue

Captain obvious, It's a ruthless sport with little to no security if you aren't the alpha male leading the pack. Good luck to him, he'll latch on with another team.

With the way the Judicial process goes at times, he'll be at the pearly gates of heaven trying to get a deal done before any of that potentially happening.

Really, didn't know of that rule. Any rule junkies out there that can confirm?

I'd also give it to Ric Campbell in electing a kick instead of taking it on the 35.

Great point. I just wish that's all it is used for.

I like what you propose all the way to where I bolded it. Don't like this part at all. Gets at why even have refs on the field then. We have the technology nowadays for that to happen and I'm uneasy with that. The bolded part can completely take the on field human aspect out of the game plus to much subjectivity and potential controversy with the word significant. Well thought out proposal though. Really like the idea of needing a timeout to call a challenge but I would still tack on a time limit for them to call a challenge (30 seconds seems appropriate). Assess a ten yard delay of game for a failed challenge as well. Also, how about taking the ipads off the field relying on old fashion vision in real time. Sure have in up in the press box but that 30 second rule to challenge will take care of that. All of this maximizes whether a coach really feels he has a case to challenge.

Putting my homer glasses on, I think our Blue and Gold hammer their Red and Black and unearth the problems they have in a more visible fashion that their tight losses may have glossed over, under emphasized.

It would be cool if he did though, sort of like Bill Belichick on steroids. Bust out his Daisy Dukes, brown loafers and a mesh muscle shirt. Sorry for the image.

Yup actually many sides to the equation but the question some of us are struggling with though is where is the sweet spot of bringing all these merits together? Looking for that balance so to speak. It appears maybe the new commish is trying to get there. He's got a tough job, he has to appease at varying levels to the common fan, to the knowledgeable fan who knows the game inside out, to the players, to the coaches, to management, to the media outlets, to the referees and their bosses, to the corporations and the list goes on. Obviously compromises have to be made no matter where you sit here. One thing for sure though is the pendulum has to be moved in where it resides now when it comes to challenges. It just moved a bit with this decision.

Draft him now. Congrats Byfuglien family.

Form tackling might drop this number.

Again, I'm being a broken record here but someone here on this board (can't remember who) said there was an actual 30 second rule to call a challenge. Sure wasn't implemented last night when Maas took forever to call a challenge. The teams were putting on personal for a kick so it took longer for the next play to get called in but that shouldn't matter if that 30 second rule is an actual rule. It's ridiculous. As soon as a play is called dead, 30 seconds begins to call a challenge. End of story. Have one person in charge of doing that. As for the length of time of reviewing challenges have a cap on how many time you review the play then make a decision.

That's actually an interesting point to highlight the diversity of how 'fans' approach the game.

He's blaming the attendance drop on MOS? Not living in Winnipeg, is there any merit to that? 'I'm not going to the game because of MOS 'type argument? He's quoted some subscribers to back up his claim. I've always found PW to be someone who thinks he's clever but really isn't.

Yea I hear you, but second best is being that lone soul spreading joy to those who want to throw me out my office window.

Coming into the office this morning downtown Edmonton feels good. Waving my blue and gold all over the place is making everyone's morning. It would have been even better if I worked downtown Regina. Well maybe not.

When a pro kicker (maybe the non gamer) has been struggling prior to that specific kick or or maybe has been struggling the past few games, I like call of a timeout. Gives the opposing players time to get into his head. Whatever little advantage you can get, I'll take.

Although I do agree with this. :-)

You're writing off your Riders this early into the season?

I think what some of us are saying is yes you are right, people playing the sport know the risk and make the choice to play. A lot of us love watching and playing aggressive, violent hard hitting football and don't want that taken away. However the issue we are discussing is at the grassroots level numbers are continually going down which may eventually lead not having enough players to field teams at the atom, peewee and bantam levels. Alberta has followed suit with other provinces in going 6 v 6 at the atom level to help with numbers, development and safety. I was at a meeting a couple of months ago with football Canada in attendance and they let us know that the peewee and bantam levels rosters must be at 25 or you can't field a team. The argument here less numbers more chance for injuries. They have suggested peewee might go to 9 v 9 to help with this. Therefore football is being forced/encouraged to change the way football has been traditionally taught e.g., teaching players not to tackle with the head leading to get the head out of the game. Obviously this hasn't reached the pro level (and it may never due to a lot of other issues but primarily being revenue) but we're talking generations down the road and what that will look like. If the number of kids wanting to play football continues to dry up there is legitimate concern for the future of our great sport of football. I remember how upset I was when my kid got called for blowing up a a defensive player who was focussed on the ball carrier and didn't see my son coming. It was a clean block but the rule that has been put in place is a player can't lower his shoulder into the oppositions's chest if that player is in a vulnerable position regardless if it is a clean block and is close to the ball carrier. Me being upset at this as a dad and as a coach is a moot point if eventually not enough youth play football that will catch up to us at some point. Alternately just build a damn good football helmet and some/most of this goes away. (maybe not, that's a whole different discussion).

I thought I would never hate the word Jet. Then Mike Kelly came onto the scene.

The way he has and is currently playing for us, I would suggest he is still in his prime. When healthy, and looking at his stats since 2008, he hasn't shown anything to suggest otherwise. He runs and catches like a beast. Blue and Gold looks very nice on him.

This looks encouraging. http://www.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2016/09/08/vicis-football-helmets-concussions-nfl-cnnmoney.cnn (sorry if the link doesn't work, just go to the CNN website if interested)

Bingo. I remember a telecast where him and Benevides were getting into it which really put this on display. It appears that's how he's hardwired.

That is one amazing stat on Collaros. There is no way one could have predicted this. What is it? Lack of confidence, support, coaching, health, combo? Or is it actually talent?