It's a hell of a day to end a curse. But.... These guys can't possibly win 5 in a row......... Can they? 

14 minutes ago, Saidin said:

Hey Mr. Dee,

 

Did you get that quote right from the Regina Post?

Everything in italics is from the Post..

It was just "hand-fighting" according to Suitor.  What the hell is "hand-fighting" really.  It seems pretty subjective.

To me, the Holley play from earlier in the game was them running side by side down the field fighting back and forth.  The Cox on Dressler, Cox had inside position and used his left hand to prevent Dressler from going to the middle of the field.  

Two completely different scenario's and I don't see them alike at all...  Hence the different in penalties.

 

5 minutes ago, Saidin said:

To me, the Holley play from earlier in the game was them running side by side down the field fighting back and forth.  The Cox on Dressler, Cox had inside position and used his left hand to prevent Dressler from going to the middle of the field.  

Two completely different scenario's and I don't see them alike at all...  Hence the different in penalties.

 

I agree, Adams and Holley was more of a swatting at each other with hands, the one at the end Cox grabbed on for a bit then put his arm across Dresslers body to prevent him getting back inside and that's all the difference in the world. For Adams to be called he would have basically had to start water skiing behind Holley but when the ball is thrown underneath you can't really block a guy from trying to come back. Watching it again it really wasn't a great throw for Nichols to be making.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I agree, Adams and Holley was more of a swatting at each other with hands, the one at the end Cox grabbed on for a bit then put his arm across Dresslers body to prevent him getting back inside and that's all the difference in the world. For Adams to be called he would have basically had to start water skiing behind Holley but when the ball is thrown underneath you can't really block a guy from trying to come back. Watching it again it really wasn't a great throw for Nichols to be making.

27 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

It was just "hand-fighting" according to Suitor.  What the hell is "hand-fighting" really.  It seems pretty subjective.

On the Adams no call, his one hand chest grab on jersey is no longer hand fighting, not that I'm complaining. On Cox's, I couldn't tell whether there was a grab.

2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

That's how I pictured the Holley/Adams situation.  

 

Trying to explain what I said earlier to a Rider Fan got me no where.   Oh well, we won.  Who gives a **** now.

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I agree, Adams and Holley was more of a swatting at each other with hands, the one at the end Cox grabbed on for a bit then put his arm across Dresslers body to prevent him getting back inside and that's all the difference in the world. For Adams to be called he would have basically had to start water skiing behind Holley but when the ball is thrown underneath you can't really block a guy from trying to come back. Watching it again it really wasn't a great throw for Nichols to be making.

The DB is entitled to the ground he is standing on. You absolutely can block someone from coming back to the ball by having inside position on them, its called coverage. You can't however push them or prevent them from doing so with your hands. If you believe that Dressler had a prayer of catching that ball from where he was standing you are wrong IMHO. If you want to argue the hands back and forth magically put Dressler on the wrong side of the DB, well that's a thin argument also. Nichols totally underthrew the ball, that's why it was picked off. I guess the question is whether or not the hands back and forth made the difference as to whether or not the receiver had a shot at the ball, IMO it definitely did not. Was there contact beyond five yards, Yes there was. Was it a pretty thin call, yes it was. Am I crying about, no I am not. Game shouldn't have came down to one play anyway. Bombers won fair and square.

Just now, Ripper said:

The DB is entitled to the ground he is standing on. You absolutely can block someone from coming back to the ball by having inside position on them, its called coverage. You can't however push them or prevent them from doing so with your hands. If you believe that Dressler had a prayer of catching that ball from where he was standing you are wrong IMHO. If you want to argue the hands back and forth magically put Dressler on the wrong side of the DB, well that's a thin argument also. Nichols totally underthrew the ball, that's why it was picked off. I guess the question is whether or not the hands back and forth made the difference as to whether or not the receiver had a shot at the ball, IMO it definitely did not. Was there contact beyond five yards, Yes there was. Was it a pretty thin call, yes it was. Am I crying about, no I am not. Game shouldn't have came down to one play anyway. Bombers won fair and square.

You obviously are crying about it otherwise you would let it go.

6 minutes ago, Ripper said:

The DB is entitled to the ground he is standing on. You absolutely can block someone from coming back to the ball by having inside position on them, its called coverage. You can't however push them or prevent them from doing so with your hands. If you believe that Dressler had a prayer of catching that ball from where he was standing you are wrong IMHO. If you want to argue the hands back and forth magically put Dressler on the wrong side of the DB, well that's a thin argument also. Nichols totally underthrew the ball, that's why it was picked off. I guess the question is whether or not the hands back and forth made the difference as to whether or not the receiver had a shot at the ball, IMO it definitely did not. Was there contact beyond five yards, Yes there was. Was it a pretty thin call, yes it was. Am I crying about, no I am not. Game shouldn't have came down to one play anyway. Bombers won fair and square.

You can occupy the space and prevent the receiver from coming back, but you can't use your arms to block him out. I never said Dressler had a prayer for catching the ball, in fact I even said if you will read that I thought it was a poor throw. What I am laughing about is that Cox put himself in a position to take a penalty with the arm across Dressler when the reality is that he didn't need to do it at all. He keeps his hands to himself it's an interception and no one says a word, but he had to get the hand on the arm and then put the arm across the receivers body and give the refs all they needed to see to throw a flag. Poor throw, db in good position, but he needlessly put himself in a position to take a penalty and blow the game for his team. No conspiracy, no missed call, just a guy getting too physical in a situation that he didn't need to. It's dumb **** like that from players and coaches that have landed the Riders in the mess they are in. 

31 minutes ago, Ripper said:

The DB is entitled to the ground he is standing on. You absolutely can block someone from coming back to the ball by having inside position on them, its called coverage. You can't however push them or prevent them from doing so with your hands. If you believe that Dressler had a prayer of catching that ball from where he was standing you are wrong IMHO. If you want to argue the hands back and forth magically put Dressler on the wrong side of the DB, well that's a thin argument also. Nichols totally underthrew the ball, that's why it was picked off. I guess the question is whether or not the hands back and forth made the difference as to whether or not the receiver had a shot at the ball, IMO it definitely did not. Was there contact beyond five yards, Yes there was. Was it a pretty thin call, yes it was. Am I crying about, no I am not. Game shouldn't have came down to one play anyway. Bombers won fair and square.

Pretty clear he hooked his arm bud

53 minutes ago, LimJahey said:

Pretty clear he hooked his arm bud

I see that he hooked his arm, but looking at it, I wouldn't be too upset if the call had not been made. It was a bit of a marginal call. Not the reason we won though.

They have consistently called that PI tho. So it was the right call. Was it marginal? Sure but that's basically the difference now between what PI is and isn't 

Sheppard should have caught the ball in the endzone, and Medlock shouldn't have missed that FG.  Craphog shouldn't have left 7 points on the field with his three misses.  Woulda coulda shoulda.  I still remember in 2007 LDC how a Bomber DB was mugged by a Saskatchewan receiver (Dominguez I believe) and basically tackled before he could make an easy interception.  No call for offensive pass interference.  Now that would get challenged and reversed.  Crap happens.  That's why you don't leave yourself vulnerable to the game coming down to one play.  This is why the Bombers have to start getting more than just FG's in the red zone, against good teams this will bite us in the tushy.

5 hours ago, Ripper said:

The DB is entitled to the ground he is standing on. You absolutely can block someone from coming back to the ball by having inside position on them, its called coverage. You can't however push them or prevent them from doing so with your hands. If you believe that Dressler had a prayer of catching that ball from where he was standing you are wrong IMHO.

Hey, so far so good...

Quote

Quote

If you want to argue the hands back and forth magically put Dressler on the wrong side of the DB, well that's a thin argument also. I guess the question is whether or not the hands back and forth made the difference as to whether or not the receiver had a shot at the ball, IMO it definitely did not. Was there contact beyond five yards, Yes there was. Was it a pretty thin call, yes it was. 

The second part of your post is wrong however. And this is what's being spouted at Riderfans. 

Hand fighting? Seriously?  Within 6 yards of Dressler running his route COX was handling Dressler, starting partially, then extending his arm across Dressler. The only thing Dressler did was have his arm extending from his body.

Do you guys at Rider fans even know what hand fighting is?  Did you know it actually takes two people to be involved in hand fighting?

Go and look at a posting in the game day thread and see for yourself, a series of pics that clearly show it was Cox who was doing all the "handling". 

 

And the funny part is, he had position, he didn't have to do anything...

Didn't see the game yet; have only seen the gif of the play that the Rider blogger dude on that CFL forum put up.

For 14 yards - from the Bomber 51 to the Rider 47, Cox has his arm over Dressler's and is applying leverage.  Not much leverage, but some.  The entire time it is his arm over Dressler's.  Not hand fighting.  And it is all totally unnecessary on Cox's part.

 

It is pass interference.  It is the bare minimum of pass interference.

I'd prefer something like that never gets called against any team.

If it has to get called, I'd prefer it get called against the Riders when playing the Bombers to cause a heart-crushing loss.

Guess I'll have to settle for my second choice...