1 Zach. Nuff said 

2 wr core. Especially Demski but they all stepped up. 

3 Wallace. Pass pro was really good most of the night across the board but in the 4th the hoggies especially Wallace went to work in the run game and took it over. 

hh zachs td scramble. Didn’t know he still had it in him 

block of the game on zachs td run Cooley had a great block 

crunch of the game. Ayers on the ko to start the second half. 
 

Honourable mentions Peterson, holm, Nichols, 

8 minutes ago, Stickem said:

.....Well the game showed Zack is back.....hope he can keep it going

....Also showed that Demski's physical problem, that made him a game time decision, kind of evaporated...Played a great game and was having fun out there

.....Liked our defensive effort mostly....blew coverage on a Elk receiver that cost us a td but otherwise a good showing....Kept Ford from revving his engine and taking off most of the game ...I believe Zack out rushed him and that's saying something ...heh heh.....AND that bull$hit call on Holm for interference was unbelievable....That was a pic that should have stood....Hope Wheatfall is good to go next game ...he took a pretty good rap and sort of disappeared after that....Can't lose his clutch play....All in all beat a a club on 4 days rest ...has to make the team feel good... 

....

If Wheatfall came back, he didn't make a catch after his crash, but also didn't notice Corcoran on offence at all other than in a short yardage blocking role.

3 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

If Wheatfall came back, he didn't make a catch after his crash, but also didn't notice Corcoran on offence at all other than in a short yardage blocking role.

Pretty sure he was out there again. 

4 hours ago, 17to85 said:

That was definitely a gripe i had. They took their sweet time when I thought reviews were supposed to be a quick yes it's obvious or no it's too close to tell so they're not spending hours trying to figure it out.

Cfl reffing is just so bush league sometimes.

While I agree with you that that is the standard they laid out a few years ago, it actually did not make sense to me at the time and still doesn’t. And while I get that in general you’d like to see them make the call in a minute or less, I do feel like what makes the CFL bush is when they have a knee-jerk reaction and say as they did a few years ago, “all calls need to be determined in one quick look at game speed“.

I mean, how stupid is that? what is the purpose of replay if you can’t look at it more than once and slow it down? 

I think there is a balance to strike: be as efficient as possible but also accept that there are going to be times where they need to take their time to get it right. I certainly would not want the bombers to lose a game where the other team “picked it off“, but they actually didn’t.

So, in sum: look at it more than once if you need to, be as efficient as possible, and truly hold yourself to the standard that the evidence needs to be irrefutable to overturn what was called on the field.

but I do acknowledge your legitimate frustration when they say they’re going to do one thing and then do another.

 

16 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

While I agree with you that that is the standard they laid out a few years ago, it actually did not make sense to me at the time and still doesn’t. And while I get that in general you’d like to see them make the call in a minute or less, I do feel like what makes the CFL bush is when they have a knee-jerk reaction and say as they did a few years ago, “all calls need to be determined in one quick look at game speed“.

I mean, how stupid is that? what is the purpose of replay if you can’t look at it more than once and slow it down? 

I think there is a balance to strike: be as efficient as possible but also accept that there are going to be times where they need to take their time to get it right. I certainly would not want the bombers to lose a game where the other team “picked it off“, but they actually didn’t.

So, in sum: look at it more than once if you need to, be as efficient as possible, and truly hold yourself to the standard that the evidence needs to be irrefutable to overturn what was called on the field.

but I do acknowledge your legitimate frustration when they say they’re going to do one thing and then do another.

 

I don't think it needs to be a minute, but it should be a very consistent review process, play to play, game to game. Give teams a challenge per time-out, and make the stoppages a time-out length. I don't think the booth should be stopping play unless it is related to player safety. 

On Zach's TD run Cooley grabs a blitzing LB by the shoulders and tosses him out of the way.

37 minutes ago, deepsixemtoboyd said:

While I agree with you that that is the standard they laid out a few years ago, it actually did not make sense to me at the time and still doesn’t. And while I get that in general you’d like to see them make the call in a minute or less, I do feel like what makes the CFL bush is when they have a knee-jerk reaction and say as they did a few years ago, “all calls need to be determined in one quick look at game speed“.

I mean, how stupid is that? what is the purpose of replay if you can’t look at it more than once and slow it down? 

I think there is a balance to strike: be as efficient as possible but also accept that there are going to be times where they need to take their time to get it right. I certainly would not want the bombers to lose a game where the other team “picked it off“, but they actually didn’t.

So, in sum: look at it more than once if you need to, be as efficient as possible, and truly hold yourself to the standard that the evidence needs to be irrefutable to overturn what was called on the field.

but I do acknowledge your legitimate frustration when they say they’re going to do one thing and then do another.

 

Football as a whole because there is pretty much 12 players on each team doing their own thing for 7 seconds at a time, and at any point any of those 24 can be doing something infraction worthy because almost everyone one is doing something that contributes to one thing specifically makes it really tedious to replay and challenge things... in that it is pretty unique compared to something like Hockey or even Soccer which has a similar amount of players on the field. Football kind of makes it harder on itself because I don't think any one can tell you everything that can go into making a completed catch sometimes... it feels like the meme for a balk sometimes. You have to make a football move... it can't touch the ground, unless you have control of it I guess? You have to survive contact with the ground... most of the time.

I think that Refs are acting to the best of their abilities in the best interest of the game. If there is something that can be seen at full speed on a camera angle, for sure overturn it. When you start zooming in, and slowing down and dissecting frames like it is the Zapruder film is where things start to fall apart for me.

Edited June 27, 2025Jun 27 by ShyGuy

1 minute ago, ShyGuy said:

Football as a whole because there is pretty much 12 players on each team doing their own thing for 7 seconds at a time, and at any point any of those 24 can be doing something infraction worthy because almost everyone one is doing something that contributes to one thing specifically... in that it is pretty unique compared to something like Hockey or even Soccer which has a similar amount of players on the field. Football kind of makes it harder on itself because I don't think any one can tell you everything that can go into making a completed catch sometimes... it feels like the meme for a balk sometimes. You have to make a football move... it can't touch the ground, unless you have control of it I guess? You have to survive contact with the ground... most of the time.

I think that Refs are acting to the best of their abilities in the best interest of the game. If there is something that can be seen at full speed on a camera angle, for sure overturn it. When you start zooming in, and slowing down and dissecting frames like it is the Zapruder film is where things start to fall apart for me.

In most sports, it seems we're getting real close (maybe even there for some sports, e.g., tennis?) where we have the necessary technology that we don't really need human referees physically on the playing field making calls.

Mind blowing.

If a play is up for review...and takes them more than a min and a half to "try" and come to a conclusion...then obviously it's not clear evidence and it should stand

But the Bonds one with 2 views was clear it touched ground...even if that obstructed one with the guy on side line was in way..u could see it was sliding out his possession and the other view confirmed it. 

Holm should have been challenged...zero contact at all..he was in perfect position...hand on the back but that's legal if no push...or jersey grab

5 hours ago, Fatty Liver said:

On Zach's TD run Cooley grabs a blitzing LB by the shoulders and tosses him out of the way.

I think Randolph got away with a hold on that play. And I'll take it!