Game Day Thread, August 6, 2012 Lions @ Argos

[sj-roc]

Did Owens touch the ball ?

Baller thinks so. No-challenge is just unbelievable from MB.

MB just explained it on 1410. He thought there was a no-yards offender on Owens during that contact so challenge was a no-win scenario. Not sure if that was really the case, would have to look again.

[Belize City Lion]

Did Owens touch the ball ?

Baller thinks so. No-challenge is just unbelievable from MB.

MB just explained it on 1410. He thought there was a no-yards offender on Owens during that contact so challenge was a no-win scenario. Not sure if that was really the case, would have to look again.

MB said also said he didn't want to lose his challenge... but with about 3:30 left at the time his challenge was about to expire anyway. Oh well, at least we aren't talking about this as a possible turning point.

[David]

MB said also said he didn't want to lose his challenge... but with about 3:30 left at the time his challenge was about to expire anyway. Oh well, at least we aren't talking about this as a possible turning point.

Not only that but it was a scoring play so - in theory - he wouldn't have needed to challenge. The league does.

Still, I will have to watch again. It sure looked like we were within the 5 yard zone.


DH

[sj-roc]

MB said also said he didn't want to lose his challenge... but with about 3:30 left at the time his challenge was about to expire anyway. Oh well, at least we aren't talking about this as a possible turning point.

Not only that but it was a scoring play so - in theory - he wouldn't have needed to challenge. The league does.

Still, I will have to watch again. It sure looked like we were within the 5 yard zone.


DH

True, but do they always review each such play in its entirety, or only the part where the score becomes adjudged? Perhaps they might only review, e.g., the complete/incomplete status of a catch, or if the receiver was in bounds when he caught the ball, or if the ball had broken the plane, or if the offensive player recovering a fumble in goal was still in bounds (in this case Harris(?) was nearly OOB when he recovered the "fumble").

[notahomer]

True, but do they always review each such play in its entirety, or only the part where the score becomes adjudged? Perhaps they might only review, e.g., the complete/incomplete status of a catch, or if the receiver was in bounds when he caught the ball, or if the ball had broken the plane, or if the offensive player recovering a fumble in goal was still in bounds (in this case Harris(?) was nearly OOB when he recovered the "fumble").

Good question, I wonder too? For typical Coach challenges, I think the whole play gets reviewed and if any part is changed the review is 'successful'. What really is amazing to me is how often a play is so 'close' that really how it was called on the field determines the replay call too. In other words, it was so close, they go by the canard, the play stands as called on the field. So, if had been ruled the complete opposite and challenged, it would stand as called as well.....

[sj-roc]

True, but do they always review each such play in its entirety, or only the part where the score becomes adjudged? Perhaps they might only review, e.g., the complete/incomplete status of a catch, or if the receiver was in bounds when he caught the ball, or if the ball had broken the plane, or if the offensive player recovering a fumble in goal was still in bounds (in this case Harris(?) was nearly OOB when he recovered the "fumble").

Good question, I wonder too? For typical Coach challenges, I think the whole play gets reviewed and if any part is changed the review is 'successful'. What really is amazing to me is how often a play is so 'close' that really how it was called on the field determines the replay call too. In other words, it was so close, they go by the canard, the play stands as called on the field. So, if had been ruled the complete opposite and challenged, it would stand as called as well.....

Having watched again on TSN VOD (and now on TSN2 encore) the TD score that was taken away from us in Q1, I think they do indeed review each scoring play in its entirety. On that play, Geroy was deemed on-field to have fumbled a reception that was recovered by Harris in the end zone for a TD, but Geroy's role was incidental to that subsequent TD play. However, the review ruled that the pass was incomplete in the first place as opposed to reception + fumble, so it seems they DO review scoring plays in their entirety.

Now here's a hypothetical situation: what if the review had showed evidence of PI, even though there had been no such flag thrown on the play? I ask this because a PI flag, as a judgment call, cannot be coach-challenged. Is it possible to introduce (or even overturn) one on the booth review that accompanies a scoring play?

Having said all that, I re-iterate my point from last week that these reviews are TOO slow. On the play I described above, it was a good FULL minute and then some before the officials even bothered announcing that they would be reviewing the play, and then it was nearly another two minutes before they finally announced the outcome. That's unacceptable when the league has made it known every scoring play will be reviewed. The guy in the review booth should have his finger poised over the rewind button, ready to hit it soon as the official throws his two hands in the air to signal the score. This review policy will need a review of its own, starting as soon they hand out the Grey Cup in November; at the rate they're going, they'll need every available moment of the off-season to review their review policy.

[sj-roc]

MB said also said he didn't want to lose his challenge... but with about 3:30 left at the time his challenge was about to expire anyway. Oh well, at least we aren't talking about this as a possible turning point.

Not only that but it was a scoring play so - in theory - he wouldn't have needed to challenge. The league does.

Still, I will have to watch again. It sure looked like we were within the 5 yard zone.


DH

I checked it again; looks like both Shell & LaRose may have been in the five-yard halo when Owens would have touched it, but that turned out to be irrelevant as the ruling was no touch by Owens which made LaRose offside when he recovered in goal. Argos took over on their own 25 as per dribbled ball rule:

Rule 5, Kicking
...
Section 1, Definitions
...
Article 5 – Dribbled Ball
A dribbled ball occurs when the ball is kicked while not in possession or control of a player, i.e. a loose ball following a fumble, a blocked kick, a kickoff or a kick from scrimmage. Such a dribbled ball may be touched by the kicker or an onside player without penalty.
...
If touched by an offside player in the opponent’s Goal Area:
PENALTY: Ball awarded to opponent at its 25-yard line, or option.

I guess MB opted not to challenge because, as per his comments on 1410, he felt at least one of Shell and/or LaRose was no-yards-ing on the play and would been called on it had Owens been ruled to touch the ball. No-win scenario.

[Lions4ever]

In the CFL, at the 1 yard line, you QB Sneak EVERYTIME...especially when your QB is 6'5"...3 runs in a row is just being stubborn, Chaps needs to be bigger than that...

And Harris has to know, at the goal line, you don't cut side ways...

I hate hate HATE this thing that everybody does now of running in your back up QB to run your offence near the goal line. Leave your first team in! If you think your starting QB is good enough to get you to the 1, he should be good enough to get you to the end zone.

Call me crazy but I'm guessing that if, this upcoming season, the Denver Broncos are set up first and goal on the 1, they're not yanking Peyton Manning and putting in Caleb Hanie.

[DanoT]

In the CFL, at the 1 yard line, you QB Sneak EVERYTIME...especially when your QB is 6'5"...3 runs in a row is just being stubborn, Chaps needs to be bigger than that...

And Harris has to know, at the goal line, you don't cut side ways...

I hate hate HATE this thing that everybody does now of running in your back up QB to run your offence near the goal line. Leave your first team in! If you think your starting QB is good enough to get you to the 1, he should be good enough to get you to the end zone.

Call me crazy but I'm guessing that if, this upcoming season, the Denver Broncos are set up first and goal on the 1, they're not yanking Peyton Manning and putting in Caleb Hanie.

Call ME crazy but I'm betting the Jets put in their back up in the same situation.

When Lions didn't score on 1st down I thought they would put Lulay in and have him roll out with the pass/run option.

[MexicoLionFan]

I don't care if it is Lulay or Reilly, but 1st and goal on the 1 yard line should always be a QB sneak...both QBs are over 6'3", Reilly 6'5", and all they have to do is fall forward...this way you do not risk a handoff or a LOSS which happens a lot because Ds are "all in" on the goal line...

NO HANDOFFS!

[Lions4ever]

Call ME crazy but I'm betting the Jets put in their back up in the same situation.

When Lions didn't score on 1st down I thought they would put Lulay in and have him roll out with the pass/run option.

Yes, well, when you've shipped off draft picks and picked up a chunk of salary I guess you're going to want to try to find some way to justify it.

And I agree completely with you. When you send out your package everyone knows what's coming. Leave in your starter and they have to respect the pass/run option.

[South Pender]

I don't care if it is Lulay or Reilly, but 1st and goal on the 1 yard line should always be a QB sneak...both QBs are over 6'3", Reilly 6'5...."

Is that right about Reilly. On the roster he's listed at 6-3 (with Lulay at 6-2).

[TheLionKing]

When you send out your package everyone knows what's coming. Leave in your starter and they have to respect the pass/run option.

Agree 100%

[David]

I don't care if it is Lulay or Reilly, but 1st and goal on the 1 yard line should always be a QB sneak...both QBs are over 6'3", Reilly 6'5...."

Is that right about Reilly. On the roster he's listed at 6-3 (with Lulay at 6-2).

No way Reilly is 6'5". I've seen him in person and we both have very similar frames. 6'3" and about 210lbs. Mike's listed at 215lbs but I think that's being generous. He was quoted as saying he had to stuff his face every night last year with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches just to keep his weight up. I think he worked with Chris Boyko in the off-season to add a bit of bulk but he's still more on the slender side.

Still, the point remains that a QB sneak should have been employed earlier, or I'd like to see the naked bootleg or a play action pass to Baboulas coming off the LOS.


DH