GAME THREAD / Week 11 / Toronto @ Hamilton

[Argo57]

Sadly, I would rather watch the Argos at THF than BMO. Just has a better CFL feel to it than games in Toronto. We are lucky our team is still better than their's despite them having a bigger fan base and a CFL specific stadium.

IMO no comparison, BMO is a much better venue to watch CFL football than THF.
Covered stands, game atmosphere, proximity to the lake and restaurants (Liberty Village) are light years ahead of the East Hamilton subdivision THF sits in.

[gilthethrill]

IMO no comparison, BMO is a much better venue to watch CFL football than THF.
Covered stands, game atmosphere, proximity to the lake and restaurants (Liberty Village) are light years ahead of the East Hamilton subdivision THF sits in.

Also fewer Ti Cat fans at BMO!!!

[Argo57]

Also fewer Ti Cat fans at BMO!!!

That goes without saying👍

[timlb01]

I’ve never heard of this re: refusing to play in the hammer on LD in the 80’s, what’s the story there I’m curious.

As I remember it the Argos record was so bad (and still is so bad) that they wanted the schedule to be changed so they did not have to play Labour Day in the hammer. I believe this occurred from 1983 - 1987.

[timlb01]

IMO no comparison, BMO is a much better venue to watch CFL football than THF.
Covered stands, game atmosphere, proximity to the lake and restaurants (Liberty Village) are light years ahead of the East Hamilton subdivision THF sits in.

I 100% agree. The donut box is a budget stadium and the worse one out of all the new ones in the league. Ottawa, Winnipeg, Sask and Toronto are better. Montreal is really nice with a great location but the stadium itself with benches etc. leaves things to be desired. Wait for the Halifax Schooner stadium to be built... that will be the best

[Argo]

My thoughts exactly. That blown call has really shaken my belief in the league. Why should I continue to invest my time, energy and money when the refs and command centre continually get it wrong?

Right on. The perennial putridity of CFL officiating really wears CFL fans down... and out. The denizens of the "Command Centre" in particular really have no excuse for their game-killing bungling: they do not even have to operate in real time, yet they have every available resource available to them.

[Argo57]

Right on. The perennial putridity of CFL officiating really wears CFL fans down... and out. The denizens of the "Command Centre" in particular really have no excuse for their game-killing bungling: they do not even have to operate in real time, yet they have every available resource available to them.

The command centre is a clueless, incompetent, faceless, nameless entity with ZERO accountability.
Other than that they're ok👍😛

[argolio]

I thought the officiating in last year's Labour Day game was far worse.

As for the controversial calls yesterday, I didn't expect the call on Masoli to be overturned. l agree it looked more fumble than incomplete, but it wasn't clear cut enough to me based on how they've been calling things this year.

The Tasker catch was way too close to overturn.

I expected the challenge in the end zone to go against us, even though I still hate that pass interference is called on underthrown balls when DBs bump into receivers.

The worst call for me was no yards in the 4th quarter. It wasn't even one of those borderline 4.5 yard plays. The nearest player was easily 6 yards away.

O-line was IMO the biggest problem. Give Ray time, and he'll go downfield more, like in the first Hamilton game. Otherwise, he'll be forced into more check-downs. Same thing happened to Reilly yesterday. His line couldn't protect him, and he finished under ten yards per completion.

Once Lemon left the game, our pass rush disappeared.

Hopefully all our d-line starters will be healthy after the bye.

[OV Argo]

I thought the officiating in last year's Labour Day game was far worse.

As for the controversial calls yesterday, I didn't expect the call on Masoli to be overturned. l agree it looked more fumble than incomplete, but it wasn't clear cut enough to me based on how they've been calling things this year.

The Tasker catch was way too close to overturn.

I expected the challenge in the end zone to go against us, even though I still hate that pass interference is called on underthrown balls when DBs bump into receivers.

The worst call for me was no yards in the 4th quarter. It wasn't even one of those borderline 4.5 yard plays. The nearest player was easily 6 yards away.

O-line was IMO the biggest problem. Give Ray time, and he'll go downfield more, like in the first Hamilton game. Otherwise, he'll be forced into more check-downs. Same thing happened to Reilly yesterday. His line couldn't protect him, and he finished under ten yards per completion.

Once Lemon left the game, our pass rush disappeared.

Hopefully all our d-line starters will be healthy after the bye.

Do you mean the PI call on Tasker late in the game? - you can't be serious if you think that was "too close" to overturn; not only did Murray run into him before the ball got there, but he also threw his hand up in Tasker's face without turning around to look for the ball - that is screening = it was blatant PI on 2 counts. I've been very critical too of CFL reffing this season, and particularly the moron Command Centre having the guts to over-turn blatant mistake calls - but this was one case where they got it right. The non-fumble on Masoli's pass attempt was very close - i say it was a fumble - but tougher to over-turn. That no-yards call was very bad/marginal - no need for the zebras to be over-zealous on plays like that where the guy within a fraction of no yards has zero bearing on the play.

[paulwoods13]

The worst call for me was no yards in the 4th quarter. It wasn't even one of those borderline 4.5 yard plays. The nearest player was easily 6 yards away.

That was atrocious. The replay clearly showed that Black was five yards away from the returner AND about two yards away laterally. That's the kind of mistake that the Command Centre should be able to fix on its own.

[paulwoods13]

With the greatest respect, the only aspect of Paul's comments where I disagree, is the value of Wilder to the team. Even if Whitaker were to go down during a game, Wilder has demonstrated little ability to become an every down RB. As far as blocking, Cross appears to be an excellent blocker and Jackson could come in as an H back, replacing Coombs in both running the ball from that position and also as a receiver. My major concern is the waste of an International for special teams and the very occasional use as a RB. The allocation could much better utilized either on the OL or as a DB.

I would be the first to admit Wilder has not blown me away, but he rarely gets touches so how can we know what he might become? He has 39 carries in 11 games, and been targeted for 17 passes (catching 14 of them). So 53 total touches on offence, or fewer than give per game. His YPC of 4.4 is virtually the same as BW's 4.5. His YPR is 6.6 vs. BW's 8.1.

Although we haven't seen much of him yet, I believe he has exceptional potential and could become one of those guys (like Jeremiah Johnson) who blossom in their second year. And I don't at all diminish his value on special teams -- with his size and speed, he creates a lot of havoc out there for the opposition. IMO, taking him out of the lineup would hurt our kick coverage which needs to get better, not worse.

I doubt Cross has been given any reps at TB so having him as the emergency back would not work. If Coombs were healthy, a case could be made for using Wilder's INT spot on another position, but not now. (And I actually would not want Coombs to be the primary blocking back, either.) If they decide to dress another INT o-lineman, IMO it has to be a receiver who sits. We have plenty of depth among our NAT receivers -- Williams could easily replace Fuller without costing us a lot of production.

[Shatto]

I think we will agree to disagree on Wilder.

[doubleblue]

The command centre is a clueless, incompetent, faceless, nameless entity with ZERO accountability.
Other than that they're ok

Well the Official who is the "eye in the sky" is named Jim Harbin. We don't know much about him. I think he needs a complete medical though so we can be assured he's not legally blind.

[gilthethrill]

Well the Official who is the "eye in the sky" is named Jim Harbin. We don't know much about him. I think he needs a complete medical though so we can be assured he's not legally blind.

Hamilton fans have had issues with Harbin this season...Monday night excluded.

I'd rather have Jim Halbert personally. Stand up guy.

[argolio]

Do you mean the PI call on Tasker late in the game? - you can't be serious if you think that was "too close" to overturn; not only did Murray run into him before the ball got there, but he also threw his hand up in Tasker's face without turning around to look for the ball - that is screening = it was blatant PI on 2 counts. I've been very critical too of CFL reffing this season, and particularly the moron Command Centre having the guts to over-turn blatant mistake calls - but this was one case where they got it right. The non-fumble on Masoli's pass attempt was very close - i say it was a fumble - but tougher to over-turn. That no-yards call was very bad/marginal - no need for the zebras to be over-zealous on plays like that where the guy within a fraction of no yards has zero bearing on the play.

Just saw the play again. That definitely wasn't face-guarding. Murray extended his hands toward Tasker's hands, not his face.

It was the bump caused by the underthrown ball that won the challenge for the Ticats.

[PullTogether73]

Just saw the play again. That definitely wasn't face-guarding. Murray extended his hands toward Tasker's hands, not his face.

It was the bump caused by the underthrown ball that won the challenge for the Ticats.

Exactly how I saw it.
Sadly, under current rules, an under thrown ball means the DB has to get out of the way of the receiver or else be penalized.

[OV Argo]

Just saw the play again. That definitely wasn't face-guarding. Murray extended his hands toward Tasker's hands, not his face.

It was the bump caused by the underthrown ball that won the challenge for the Ticats.

We'll have to agree to disagree then; face-guarding for sure - and a lot of DBs get away with it now, IMO.

[OV Argo]

Exactly how I saw it.
Sadly, under current rules, an under thrown ball means the DB has to get out of the way of the receiver or else be penalized.

No - DBs need to learn to look to play the ball - rather than running through receivers or throwing their hands up blindly in the receiver's face. Turn to look for the ball and try to play it and way less likely you get called for PI.

[paulwoods13]

Exactly how I saw it.
Sadly, under current rules, an under thrown ball means the DB has to get out of the way of the receiver or else be penalized.

Getting out of the way is just about impossible. You're running with a guy at full speed when he suddenly slows down or stops -- it will take you a second or two to adjust and by that time you have likely run into him.

[doubleblue]

Exactly how I saw it.
Sadly, under current rules, an under thrown ball means the DB has to get out of the way of the receiver or else be penalized.

It's like an accidental trip in Hockey. You didn't mean to do it but you still get penalized. Murray it throw his hand up but didn't block the receiver's sight as far as I could see, but he didn't look back to try and find the ball. IMO that is why the official threw the flag, for face guarding. Border line call by the "eye in the sky". Just like the Masoli fumble.