October 4, 2014: Edmonton vs. Toronto Argonauts

[Will]

I agree that the offensive line played quite well tonight. The Argos rushed for nearly 150 yards, and thus didn't have to win the game through the air. Owens was good once again, but no other receiver really stood out although Barnes and Brazill both drew PI.

Oh and how about Swayze Waters?

[Wobbler]

The video replay system is a joke!!
Was plain as day that Lawrence's foot was out of bounds but the video replay crew apparently couldn't figure that out.
Might as well scrap it!

You must have watched a different replay than I did. I agree with the refs - there was no video evidence to overturn the line judge's decision.

[ArgoRavi]

You must have watched a different replay than I did. I agree with the refs - there was no video evidence to overturn the line judge's decision.

They didn't have good enough camera angles on either that play or the controversial Watkins interference early in the game. I am fairly certain, btw, that Watkins did tug on Brazill's jersey on that play but we needed a reverse angle which TSN did not have. The Argos still got the call on that anyway and it wasn't like Watkins argued the call which I thought was telling.

[Argo57]

You must have watched a different replay than I did. I agree with the refs - there was no video evidence to overturn the line judge's decision.

Yeah I guess I did as well as a decent chunk of the crowd that watched the replay and loudly voiced their displeasure as well.

[Wobbler]

I was surprised that Watkins drew a PI call on the play at 8:23; it seemed like a gift to us (based on the TSN stream). Kendial Lawrence's kick return TD was the result of weak coverage on our part. *Maybe* he barely stepped out of bounds at one point, but the video evidence was amazingly weak.

[Argo57]

I was surprised that Watkins drew a PI call on the play at 8:23; it seemed like a gift to us (based on the TSN stream). Kendial Lawrence's kick return TD was the result of weak coverage on our part. *Maybe* he barely stepped out of bounds at one point, but the video evidence was amazingly weak.

That I do agree on Wobbler, I was surprised on the kick return that they only had the cross field shot. The Watkins call was weak at best for sure.

[paulwoods13]

Agreed - if Smith was a liability it certainly wasn't obvious on TV.

Yes, I agree as well. The o-line seems to work best with Smith at RG.

[ArgoFan1]

I wonder if the television crew gets the same shots that we see in the stadium, because it was very obvious that he stepped out of bounds on that kick return. I spoke with my son who was watching it at home and he said you could not tell on the television replay because there were people in the way. All the refs had to do was watch the replay on the Jumbotron at the game and there was no question.

[ArgoGabe22]

Even if he did go out of bounds on the kick return, it doesn't excuse the poor coverage/tackling on the kickoff.

I thought the two PI calls were very generous. I think some minimal contact like a hand on the player is alright as long as it didn't stop the player from making the play. In soccer, players are grabbing on corner kicks all the time, although technically a foul.

Whiteside's sack had to be called although what could have he done to avoid it when Reilly dropped his helmet? At least he didn't get tossed from the game like Kuale did.

[paulwoods13]

In my mind the replay shown on the scoreboard did not conclusively prove he stepped out of bounds. It sure appeared to be the case, but it was not what I would consider conclusive. We could not definitively tell that his shoe was on the stripe. The replays we saw in-game also showed Watkins did not appear to even touch Brazill, so both teams seemed to catch fairly even breaks on replay review.

I had a mild argument with someone after the game on whether the rulebook says a player who dips his head and subsequently gets hit in the head is fair game for a head shot. I find it hard to believe that is the case, but he claimed to know it is. Can anyone shed more light on this?

[argolio]

I had a mild argument with someone after the game on whether the rulebook says a player who dips his head and subsequently gets hit in the head is fair game for a head shot. I find it hard to believe that is the case, but he claimed to know it is. Can anyone shed more light on this?

I think it's ambiguous, and in the case of a pass rusher they favour the quarterback.

[Wobbler]

I had a mild argument with someone after the game on whether the rulebook says a player who dips his head and subsequently gets hit in the head is fair game for a head shot. I find it hard to believe that is the case, but he claimed to know it is. Can anyone shed more light on this?

According to the rule book in Rule 7 section 2 article 4, "(b) Any blow above the passer's shoulder" and "(f) Contacting the passer if either the initial source of contact, or primary source of contact, is the defender's helmet" are causes for a roughing the passer penalty. There is no exception in the rules for any head movement on the part of the passer.

[doubleblue]

I didn't have any argument on the helmet to helmet hit on the QB. But way too many calls made. The owners have to get their heads together with Johnson and get this straightened out. People aren't paying money to see a official show every game. Too many grey areas being called IMO.

[jerrym]

Carter did not play in the second half and did not appear to be on the bench so that is concerning.

I agree as Jalil has improved tremendously since he first arrived in 2012 and will definitely be missed if his injury causes him to miss games.

[paulwoods13]

According to the rule book in Rule 7 section 2 article 4, "(b) Any blow above the passer's shoulder" and "(f) Contacting the passer if either the initial source of contact, or primary source of contact, is the defender's helmet" are causes for a roughing the passer penalty. There is no exception in the rules for any head movement on the part of the passer.

Thanks. That is what I thought.

[Al&Kat]

thank you Argos for a terrific afternoon's entertainment, the game had everything you could ask for. Including dramatic ending.

as for attendance, as a fan who travels over 100km to attend faithfully, it's a matter of priority, sure the home theatre experience is awesome and there are many roadblocks to attending, but I just really really want to be there to yell my head off and cheer on our guys!!
I want them to know we appreciate their efforts (but not their blunders) and they have us backing them all the way.

[ArgoRavi]

I agree as Jalil has improved tremendously since he first arrived in 2012 and will definitely be missed if his injury causes him to miss games.

I wonder if his injury wasn't a head one considering that he did not return to the sidelines. Does anyone recall seeing him being helped off the field at any point. I agree that his loss would be a significant one as he has developed into a fine DB.

[Argocister]

thank you Argos for a terrific afternoon's entertainment, the game had everything you could ask for. Including dramatic ending.

as for attendance, as a fan who travels over 100km to attend faithfully, it's a matter of priority, sure the home theatre experience is awesome and there are many roadblocks to attending, but I just really really want to be there to yell my head off and cheer on our guys!!
I want them to know we appreciate their efforts (but not their blunders) and they have us backing them all the way.

Same ..... For for the travel
Same ...... For the yelling ! I'm sure we caused a couple of procedures!
Even though the crowd was 16 thousand whatever, it was a rowdy crowd! I liked it and that was for Edmonton!
I hope we can get a very loud crowd for Friday's game as the cat fans will be out in big numbers ..... And they're usually loud!

On this game ...... My 2 cents .....
I thought the Oline did a good job
Loved Brazills catches
Woodson was very good, I look forward to seeing him develop over the years
Thank you Chad!.... His play and enthusiasm is great to watch.
Thank you Swayze ..... With this game following his goat debut he could have quite the following

Thank you Ricky and the team for showing us an exciting game and most of all for keeping the western team down for the win!

One question ........ On the supposed fake field goal ..... That didn't happen ...... Was Harris and team just too slow in getting into formation or did Milanovich see something he didn't like in the Eskies formation?

[gilthethrill]

I think it's ambiguous, and in the case of a pass rusher they favour the quarterback.

In hockey players will turn their backs in order to draw a "Hitting from behind penalty". Reilly knew he was going to be sacked. Maybe he lowered his head in order to keep the drive alive. Players must learn how to tackle, but they also have to learn how to be tackled.

[ArgoRavi]

One question ........ On the supposed fake field goal ..... That didn't happen ...... Was Harris and team just too slow in getting into formation or did Milanovich see something he didn't like in the Eskies formation?

It was either the latter or the intent may have been to try to draw Edmonton offside. It looked like Harris set everything up in ample time.

In hockey players will turn their backs in order to draw a "Hitting from behind penalty". Reilly knew he was going to be sacked. Maybe he lowered his head in order to keep the drive alive. Players must learn how to tackle, but they also have to learn how to be tackled.

I am thinking that it is instinct to lower your head when you have someone or something barrelling down on you. I can't imagine that anyone would willingly take a helmet-to-helmet hit to keep a drive going.