Sask vs. Hamilton
Moderator: Team Captains
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 25103
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Vancouver
What a finish ! Hamilton leading the Riders by 1 point with half a minute left in the game. Sask threw a seemingly harmless pass to Weston Dressler who took to the house. Subsequent review indicate that a Hamilton player knocked the football loose on the 1 yard line and the ball bounced harmlessly through the end zone. Rider was given the ball on the 1 yard line. They scored a touchdown to win the game.
- prairielion
- Starter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:10 pm
- Location: Saskatchewan
Hamilton was ripped off. Hamilton knocks the ball out of bounds and they still give posession to the Riders on the one yard line. Give me a break. :x :x
Still in Riderville, hating the Riders!
- SammyGreene
- Team Captain
- Posts: 8079
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2002 11:52 am
What a find Dressler is. I thought his kick returns played a huge part in the Riders win over the Lions last week.
Nice to see Hamilton looking a lot better this season with Printers and Lumsden leading the way. Too bad they have Creehan running their defence. They will be the old Stamps of the East. :lol:
Nice to see Hamilton looking a lot better this season with Printers and Lumsden leading the way. Too bad they have Creehan running their defence. They will be the old Stamps of the East. :lol:
if a team has possession and fumbles, throws, kicks or knocks the ball through their own endzone, is that not a safety.prairielion wrote:Hamilton was ripped off. Hamilton knocks the ball out of bounds and they still give posession to the Riders on the one yard line. Give me a break. :x :x
either way, sask still wins.
Every day that passes is one you can't get back
- prairielion
- Starter
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 9:10 pm
- Location: Saskatchewan
Good point, I didn't think of that. Guess I was just a little heated up. Still not happy that Sask. pulls out another one. :no:KnowItAll wrote:if a team has possession and fumbles, throws, kicks or knocks the ball through their own endzone, is that not a safety.prairielion wrote:Hamilton was ripped off. Hamilton knocks the ball out of bounds and they still give posession to the Riders on the one yard line. Give me a break. :x :x
either way, sask still wins.
Still in Riderville, hating the Riders!
- DanoT
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 4309
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
- Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter
Sask did not fumble the ball thru the Sask end zone, it was fumbled thru the Cats end zone, so no safety. When a ball carrier fumbles the ball out of bounds, if no one touches it after it leaves the ball carrier's hands, then the ball belongs to the ball carrier and not the guy causing the fumble. I think the same rules apply when the ball is fumbled thru the back of the end zone. So the refs got it right.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 25103
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Vancouver
Had a Ti-Cat touched the ball before going out of bounds they would have forfeited a safety and a kick off to the Riders.
-
- All Star
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:24 pm
But if the Ti-Cat ran up from behind and "punched" the ball out of the Rider's grasp, wouldn't the Ti-Cat player then be the last player to have touched the ball? I mean, how do they decide which player last touched the ball on a play like that? Or is it deemed Saskatchewan's ball because the ball would have had to slide off the fingers of the Roughrider after getting punched out by the Ti-Cat?
I'm confused on the rule.
I'm confused on the rule.
- No Ordinary Joe
- Legend
- Posts: 2165
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 5:26 pm
- Location: Delta
I thought since the ball hit Dressler that it should have been a single point and a tie game with Hamilton getting the ball back.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 25103
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
- Location: Vancouver
- Sir Purrcival
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 4621
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
- Location: Comox Valley
I guess on a play like that, it is a bit bothersome that the team that makes a great play (Hamilton) to cause the fumble ends up getting no reward for their efforts. Putting it on the 1 yard line was virtually giving the Riders the TD. I also find it a bit worriesome that the official who was 10 feet away looking right at it signals a TD? That might well affect a players response to lose ball although in this case, I don't think it would have made a difference.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
Sir Purrcival wrote:I guess on a play like that, it is a bit bothersome that the team that makes a great play (Hamilton) to cause the fumble ends up getting no reward for their efforts. Putting it on the 1 yard line was virtually giving the Riders the TD. I also find it a bit worriesome that the official who was 10 feet away looking right at it signals a TD? That might well affect a players response to lose ball although in this case, I don't think it would have made a difference.
Thems the rules though, have been for a couple of seasons, so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Either way the Cats were in a tough game that a team that has been there before knows how to win, almost any other team and the Cats would likely win the game given the 2nd string QB starting.
Entertainment value = an all time low
- Honour Dewalt
- Champion
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
I can't believe how many people are complaining about this. Its like they want to give Hamilton the win just for a great play by the guy to punch the ball out. First off, to all those Hamilton complainers, their team should never have got themselves in that position in the first place. Sure its a great play by Dressler, but that should never happen at that stage of the game. They had a bunch of players in that area to tackle him and he just zips through them all.
Next, what more reward do you want after that play? Is not giving Sask the touchdown not good enough? They don't deserve anything else for that. Unfortunately for them if they try to stuff the Riders, the time would run down and they'd get the fieldgoal anyway. But thats not the Ref's fault. They let the team down to the one, not the refs.
Third, anytime a player fumbles and the ball goes toward the endzone, we all know the last team to touch it AFTER the fumble gets possession. You can't use the act of causing the fumble as saying you were the last person to touch it, cuz at that point, the player still has possession. You cause the fumble, THEN you have to try and get the ball.
I guess this is such a rare play that it causes confusion mixed with high hopes for the defending team after they thought they got a break.
My only question about this is. I am not sure that if Hamilton DID knock it out of bounds after the fumble, that they would give up a safety and have to kick it away. Wouldn't it be the same as if the Ticats intercepted a pass in the endzone and went down on one knee? That isn't a safety OR even a touchback for a single point. They just get the ball on the 35 or whatever.
Anyway, the part that annoys me about these kind of issues, is the commentators. I don't know if its because they are trying to fill dead air when they are watching the play, but they yap about the wrong things alot of the time. Making the wrong calls, or not pointing out certain obvious rules. Getting all caught up in the replay and forgetting logic and common sense. They need to take a breath, not worry about a few seconds of airtime where they might not be talking, but actually make the right calls as well. THey also seem afraid to be critical of the calls or rules as well. Sometimes the commentators don't sound like they know alot about the game. They sound like the guy at the party talkin about sports that doesn't really follow sports, so they say something kind of off the mark while watching a replay and you wonder why they even bother.
I've had my say for today. Now I feel better.
Next, what more reward do you want after that play? Is not giving Sask the touchdown not good enough? They don't deserve anything else for that. Unfortunately for them if they try to stuff the Riders, the time would run down and they'd get the fieldgoal anyway. But thats not the Ref's fault. They let the team down to the one, not the refs.
Third, anytime a player fumbles and the ball goes toward the endzone, we all know the last team to touch it AFTER the fumble gets possession. You can't use the act of causing the fumble as saying you were the last person to touch it, cuz at that point, the player still has possession. You cause the fumble, THEN you have to try and get the ball.
I guess this is such a rare play that it causes confusion mixed with high hopes for the defending team after they thought they got a break.
My only question about this is. I am not sure that if Hamilton DID knock it out of bounds after the fumble, that they would give up a safety and have to kick it away. Wouldn't it be the same as if the Ticats intercepted a pass in the endzone and went down on one knee? That isn't a safety OR even a touchback for a single point. They just get the ball on the 35 or whatever.
Anyway, the part that annoys me about these kind of issues, is the commentators. I don't know if its because they are trying to fill dead air when they are watching the play, but they yap about the wrong things alot of the time. Making the wrong calls, or not pointing out certain obvious rules. Getting all caught up in the replay and forgetting logic and common sense. They need to take a breath, not worry about a few seconds of airtime where they might not be talking, but actually make the right calls as well. THey also seem afraid to be critical of the calls or rules as well. Sometimes the commentators don't sound like they know alot about the game. They sound like the guy at the party talkin about sports that doesn't really follow sports, so they say something kind of off the mark while watching a replay and you wonder why they even bother.
I've had my say for today. Now I feel better.
This would be the case . How can you determine who's hand last touched the ball in live action if you can't even see it on replay . So the rule that the ball has to be recovered after the caused fumble eliminates such a judgment call .Kamloops Lion wrote: Or is it deemed Saskatchewan's ball because the ball would have had to slide off the fingers of the Roughrider after getting punched out by the Ti-Cat?
As for the commentators on the subject , most were confused on the call , except what sounded like Duane Ford who explained it correctly .