Game Thread: Edmonton at Ottawa, Saturday September 28th

[jerrym]

The Ottawa offence is self-destructing, so I'll pick Edmonton.

[ArgoRavi]

Both offences have looked wretched in the first half.

[jerrym]

Dominique Davis comes alive in leading the team to a 14-14 tie with a FG and a TD set up by former Argo RB Brendan Gillanders 24 yard screen in the fourth quarter after looking woeful earlier and trailing 14-3.

[jerrym]

Dominique Davis hurt after fumbling ball and getting hit recovering the ball. He had been five for six with a TD and FG in the fourth and had another nice completion before the injury. Jennings, who had gone four for five for eight yards earlier, was sacked on his first play. Ottawa saved for the moment by a 57 yard Leone punt.

[jerrym]

I think the injury to Dominique Davis was the turning point in the game as he had been leading them in a comeback, and Jennings although he managed a couple of first downs turned the ball over on downs.

[AngeloV]

Ottawa was robbed. That was not a catch in the endzone by Smith, Clearly trapped it. No idea how the replay official could not see this. They would have been in position to tie it at the end of the game had they not blown that call. Absolutely brutal.

[OV Argo]

Ottawa was robbed. That was not a catch in the endzone by Smith, Clearly trapped it. No idea how the replay official could not see this. They would have been in position to tie it at the end of the game had they not blown that call. Absolutely brutal.


I disagree - and i thought he was out of bounds at first look - but the replay shows he caught the ball and had both feet down - as soon as you have control of the ball in the end zone, for even a second, it is a TD - case closed, and doesn`t matter what happens after you are hit and go out of bounds. This whole `surviving`bull$hite to rule a catch or not (started in the NFL i think) is a load of nonsense IMO and another example of sports rules being changed for the worse. A catch is a catch - possession of the ball for a second or two or so (that amount of time is a subjective call by the ref - no way to record it in real game time), and if you drop the ball after catching it in the field of play, that is a fumble; the ball coming loose or being stripped, way out of bounds, and after the receiver has clearly caught (not juggled) & possessed it, should be irrelevant.

[AngeloV]

I disagree - and i thought he was out of bounds at first look - but the replay shows he caught the ball and had both feet down - as soon as you have control of the ball in the end zone, for even a second, it is a TD - case closed, and doesn`t matter what happens after you are hit and go out of bounds. This whole `surviving`bull$hite to rule a catch or not (started in the NFL i think) is a load of nonsense IMO and another example of sports rules being changed for the worse. A catch is a catch - possession of the ball for a second or two or so (that amount of time is a subjective call by the ref - no way to record it in real game time), and if you drop the ball after catching it in the field of play, that is a fumble; the ball coming loose or being stripped, way out of bounds, and after the receiver has clearly caught (not juggled) & possessed it, should be irrelevant.

Not true. I have checked with my officiating friend from the league. He hit the ground as he was completing the reception and used the turf to control it. by rule, no catch. But I'm sure your POV would be different if it was one of the American receivers that made that "reception".

[doubleblue]

I disagree - and i thought he was out of bounds at first look - but the replay shows he caught the ball and had both feet down - as soon as you have control of the ball in the end zone, for even a second, it is a TD - case closed, and doesn`t matter what happens after you are hit and go out of bounds. This whole `surviving`bull$hite to rule a catch or not (started in the NFL i think) is a load of nonsense IMO and another example of sports rules being changed for the worse. A catch is a catch - possession of the ball for a second or two or so (that amount of time is a subjective call by the ref - no way to record it in real game time), and if you drop the ball after catching it in the field of play, that is a fumble; the ball coming loose or being stripped, way out of bounds, and after the receiver has clearly caught (not juggled) & possessed it, should be irrelevant.

What you are saying makes sense. He made the catch came down in bounds was pushed hard out of bounds by the defender before he landed, should be a TD.
A ball carrier just has to break the plane of the goal line and it's TD, doesn't matter if he fumbles. And the ground can't make you fumble etc. etc.
I know what the rule says but I still say touch down, in this case.

[AngeloV]

What you are saying makes sense. He made the catch came down in bounds was pushed hard out of bounds by the defender before he landed, should be a TD.
A ball carrier just has to break the plane of the goal line and it's TD, doesn't matter if he fumbles. And the ground can't make you fumble etc. etc.
I know what the rule says but I still say touch down, in this case.

Ball career that has clearly established possession only has to break the plain. I don’t think Smith ever really established possession. We see it all the time in the field of play where a receiver drops the ball after a hit even with both feet momentarily touching the ground. If it’s an incompletion in the field of play, it is in the end zone too.

[argolio]

Just to add, the ground can make you fumble in pro ball if A) possession has been established, and B) a ball carrier hits the ground without being touched by an opposing player and fumbles. See Leon McQuay.

[OV Argo]

Not true. I have checked with my officiating friend from the league. He hit the ground as he was completing the reception and used the turf to control it. by rule, no catch. But I'm sure your POV would be different if it was one of the American receivers that made that "reception".


Nonsense - he clearly had the ball in two hands for a second or two before being driven out of bounds and then the ball gets trapped against the turf - already a TD by then; sorry bout that Homer - if it had been the team you were cheering for, you would have seen it differently.

[AngeloV]

Nonsense - he clearly had the ball in two hands for a second or two before being driven out of bounds and then the ball gets trapped against the turf - already a TD by then; sorry bout that Homer - if it had been the team you were cheering for, you would have seen it differently.

A second or two? Who are you kidding? By the time the ball hit his hands and he fell to the ground was less than a second. Get your stopwatch out, and change the battery.