In the Sep 6 HAM@MTL game 2Q0:22 BLM slides into the EZ for the first TD of the game. I am livid they called & kept this a TD. Why? BLM is doing a knees-first giving-yourself-up slide. He starts that slide between the 2 and 1YL. By rule the ball should be placed where refs/command decide he started giving himself up. To me that is probably (at worst) the 1YL. 1st & goal at the 1 (I also think it was RTP by hitting a sliding QB, and they move 15Y forward to the ... 1).
I understand that the on-field refs got it wrong, but "all scoring plays are reviewed" and command had a chance to step in.
If I were to take still pictures, and you didn't know this game, or the situation, or his position on the field, and I asked you what is BLM doing here... 100% would say he's hook sliding to give himself up. 100%. I can provide stills that clearly illustrate this. Why? Because his knee is as far forward as the ball: way ahead of his body. And we all know BLM never purposely takes a hit, except maybe in a final-3-mins situation.
A couple of minutes after the score, the CFL & TSN realized people might be getting angry, and offered this platitude: "Bo was diving for the EZ, going for goal, and not giving himself up". And they know that how?
How many times do we see a RB or REC diving knees first across the goal line? Ya, never. That is a QB thing, because that is how some of them hook slide. Yes, players try to protect themselves by getting low when a hit is incoming, like here, but they do that by diving low head first or sliding feet first. No one does a knee-first "protection" because it makes you more vulnerable because you can't get low, and you can be pasted back and screw up your knee or ankles.
Now, think of this from a D player standpoint. Knowing that a hookslide at the 1 or 2YL is going to count as a TD, you're now going to hit that QB with 100% force. This is very dangerous. That's why I say the hit on BLM should have been RTP, because even if this slide wasn't a hook slide, it could be perceived as such. Ironically, it would have helped had the MTL D jumped over BLM showing he's avoiding the hooksliding QB. Then all of MTL could point to the BLM saying "see, hookslide!". It could even have been that command gave BLM the TD because he had to take that punishment so he "earned it".
And this isn't just trivia for the uber-football-nerds: there are huge gambling repercussions. You can gamble on "First TD of the Game", and the odds are quite big. Betting on a QB only pays if the QB runs it in himself. BLM getting the first TD is like the lamest oldest slowest horse winning the Triple Crown. From memory, BLM was paying over 100-1 odds for 1st TD -- actually the most I've ever seen. As TSN said, he hasn't done it in 10 years, and he isn't likely to do it now that he's 100 years old. Disclosure: yes I did have about $20 riding on 1st TD, picking only the usual HAM suspects. No, I did not pick Bo.
No, the $20 isn't why I'm livid. I'm livid because they got this wrong. And they often do when it comes to QB slides, because they often don't properly apply the "when he started giving himself up" rule, which is somewhat new since they allowed "any form of slide" to count. Sure looks like "any form of slide" to me. In fact, if TSN was reading from a CFL memo, CFL spelled it out: "Bo was diving".
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 08, 2025, 03:56:33 AMIn the Sep 6 HAM@MTL game 2Q0:22 BLM slides into the EZ for the first TD of the game. I am livid they called & kept this a TD. Why? BLM is doing a knees-first giving-yourself-up slide. He starts that slide between the 2 and 1YL. By rule the ball should be placed where refs/command decide he started giving himself up. To me that is probably (at worst) the 1YL. 1st & goal at the 1 (I also think it was RTP by hitting a sliding QB, and they move 15Y forward to the ... 1).
I understand that the on-field refs got it wrong, but "all scoring plays are reviewed" and command had a chance to step in.
If I were to take still pictures, and you didn't know this game, or the situation, or his position on the field, and I asked you what is BLM doing here... 100% would say he's hook sliding to give himself up. 100%. I can provide stills that clearly illustrate this. Why? Because his knee is as far forward as the ball: way ahead of his body. And we all know BLM never purposely takes a hit, except maybe in a final-3-mins situation.
A couple of minutes after the score, the CFL & TSN realized people might be getting angry, and offered this platitude: "Bo was diving for the EZ, going for goal, and not giving himself up". And they know that how?
How many times do we see a RB or REC diving knees first across the goal line? Ya, never. That is a QB thing, because that is how some of them hook slide. Yes, players try to protect themselves by getting low when a hit is incoming, like here, but they do that by diving low head first or sliding feet first. No one does a knee-first "protection" because it makes you more vulnerable because you can't get low, and you can be pasted back and screw up your knee or ankles.
Now, think of this from a D player standpoint. Knowing that a hookslide at the 1 or 2YL is going to count as a TD, you're now going to hit that QB with 100% force. This is very dangerous. That's why I say the hit on BLM should have been RTP, because even if this slide wasn't a hook slide, it could be perceived as such. Ironically, it would have helped had the MTL D jumped over BLM showing he's avoiding the hooksliding QB. Then all of MTL could point to the BLM saying "see, hookslide!". It could even have been that command gave BLM the TD because he had to take that punishment so he "earned it".
And this isn't just trivia for the uber-football-nerds: there are huge gambling repercussions. You can gamble on "First TD of the Game", and the odds are quite big. Betting on a QB only pays if the QB runs it in himself. BLM getting the first TD is like the lamest oldest slowest horse winning the Triple Crown. From memory, BLM was paying over 100-1 odds for 1st TD -- actually the most I've ever seen. As TSN said, he hasn't done it in 10 years, and he isn't likely to do it now that he's 100 years old. Disclosure: yes I did have about $20 riding on 1st TD, picking only the usual HAM suspects. No, I did not pick Bo.
No, the $20 isn't why I'm livid. I'm livid because they got this wrong. And they often do when it comes to QB slides, because they often don't properly apply the "when he started giving himself up" rule, which is somewhat new since they allowed "any form of slide" to count. Sure looks like "any form of slide" to me. In fact, if TSN was reading from a CFL memo, CFL spelled it out: "Bo was diving".
Once again we're talking EITS, a department run by Bradbury. Unfortunately the CFL have no clue how to properly use EITS, they haven't for years. Now they put Bradbury in charge of it... A recipe for complete failure.
No one else wants to chime in with a quick "was a TD" vs "was a hookslide"?
I guess I should have made a poll.
IMO he was giving himself up, so the ball should be marked where it was when his knees touched the ground which means first down on the 1.
+
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 09, 2025, 07:15:53 AMNo one else wants to chime in with a quick "was a TD" vs "was a hookslide"?
I guess I should have made a poll.
100% right. Down at the one.
So how does command get this one so wrong? It might be the worst call I've seen in a decade.
Anyone here want to take the counter-argument and say "he was sliding to go for it"? Even one person?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 10, 2025, 07:37:15 AMSo how does command get this one so wrong? It might be the worst call I've seen in a decade.
Anyone here want to take the counter-argument and say "he was sliding to go for it"? Even one person?
LOL @ the hyperbole. Never change Techno.
first question: do players need to be touched by a defensive player to be "downed"?
second question: if there was no player ahead of him that he was "giving himself up to", can it be deemed that he wasn't giving himself up? Just sliding through?
third question: Can any player slide into the endzone? Or would you be marked down were your body hit the ground? Somewhat related to the first question.
Quote from: Jesse on September 10, 2025, 12:02:20 PMLOL @ the hyperbole.[.b] Never change Techno.
But I'm serious. Even the weak-butt DPIs and fixed-game no-end call WPG has taken over the years doesn't anger me as much as this garbage. Why? Because I'm not sure you find anyone who watches the BLM hookslide and says "oh ya, BLM's going for it baby!", and with gambling these days a lot depends on this. It doesn't look good for the league.
Quote from: Jesse on September 10, 2025, 12:02:20 PMfirst question: do players need to be touched by a defensive player to be "downed"?
No. QBs have always been able to "give themselves up". And with recent rule changes even RBs/RECs/whoever can go down or stay down and the ball be dead (and they get protection from egregious late hits).
Quote from: Jesse on September 10, 2025, 12:02:20 PMsecond question: if there was no player ahead of him that he was "giving himself up to", can it be deemed that he wasn't giving himself up? Just sliding through?
Are you talking in general or this play? In this case there was a beefy guy (LBer?) gunning straight for him from the side. BLM slid roughly at the time one would slide to avoid a massive LB->QB hit. He was a bit late and so the LBer decided to cream him anyhow, which he did.
If you're talking in general, then if no one was there for miles, why would the guy hookslide knee first? He'd just keep running. QBs aren't known for goal line theatrics like flying body rolls or backflips. Find me one example in the CFL in 10 years where the QB slid for no reason at the GL.
Quote from: Jesse on September 10, 2025, 12:02:20 PMthird question: Can any player slide into the endzone? Or would you be marked down were your body hit the ground? Somewhat related to the first question.
Yes, anyone can slide. Non-QB players would
not be deemed to have given up, even if they hook-slid (which no player ever does ever, but let's pretend).
But, entire paragraphs in the rule book are dedicated to the SPECIAL CASE of when a QB slides. A QB is treated differently than
all other players when it comes to sliding. There is literally no reason to consider any aspect of "normal player" sliding when trying to figure this scenario out.
Rule 1 - Section 4 - Dead ball
===
The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up by sliding in any manner or diving. The ball is dead at the point it was held when another part of their body, other than the feet or hands, touch the ground.
===
There is no carve out for "except when command deems the QB was going for it"!
Did BLM "slide in any manner"?
Yes? Clearly, even command admits that and we all saw it.
Then there is NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE. The ball is dead when his legs first hit the ground, which is between the 2 and the 1. The rule is clear, and there is zero reason to gauge intent, because intent has nothing to do with the predicate for this rule to apply!
The ball is dead somewhere in there and it's 1st & goal at the 1-ish.
"He meant to go for it" is NOT A THING, Command Center! You made that up out your butt and it was egregious and I'm livid.
I hope MOS is all over this and I hope the league issues an apology and memo saying this won't happen again, OR they are writing "except when BLM is going for it" into the rules.
* Bonus: If BLM didn't really slide, but he slid anyway, then that could qualify as a "fake slide", which is an OC foul and they go back 10Y. Those are the only 2 options: a real slide and dead ball, or fake slide and penalty. There is NO OPTION for a "he went for it" slide.
Yes, this may be the worst CFL screw up in 10 years. No hyperbole.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 11, 2025, 10:21:25 AMRule 1 - Section 4 - Dead ball
===
The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up by sliding in any manner or diving. The ball is dead at the point it was held when another part of their body, other than the feet or hands, touch the ground.
===
There is no carve out for "except when command deems the QB was going for it"!
Did BLM "slide in any manner"?
Yes? Clearly, even command admits that and we all saw it.
Then there is NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE. The ball is dead when his legs first hit the ground, which is between the 2 and the 1. The rule is clear, and there is zero reason to gauge intent, because intent has nothing to do with the predicate for this rule to apply!
The ball is dead somewhere in there and it's 1st & goal at the 1-ish.
"He meant to go for it" is NOT A THING, Command Center! You made that up out your butt and it was egregious and I'm livid.
I hope MOS is all over this and I hope the league issues an apology and memo saying this won't happen again, OR they are writing "except when BLM is going for it" into the rules.
* Bonus: If BLM didn't really slide, but he slid anyway, then that could qualify as a "fake slide", which is an OC foul and they go back 10Y. Those are the only 2 options: a real slide and dead ball, or fake slide and penalty. There is NO OPTION for a "he went for it" slide.
Yes, this may be the worst CFL screw up in 10 years. No hyperbole.
I don't remember the details of the play, but going by your description of it I would say "he went for it" is meaning he wasn't giving himself up.
If you accept that that's what they meant (and I think it's reasonable to do so) then the "slide in any manner" or the entire rule you referenced becomes redundant. The "giving himself up" aspect of the rule is judgemental.
I don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.
https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19 (https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19)
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 11, 2025, 06:20:24 PMI don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.
https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19 (https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19)
This camera angle makes is seem as if the ball was pretty close to the goal line when Bo went down. Probably would just stay as called on the field if it went to the challenge both. It also wasn't much of a slide. He just went down awkwardly trying to both get the TD and avoid the hit.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 11, 2025, 12:40:49 PMI don't remember the details of the play, but going by your description of it I would say "he went for it" is meaning he wasn't giving himself up.
If you accept that that's what they meant (and I think it's reasonable to do so) then the "slide in any manner" or the entire rule you referenced becomes redundant. The "giving himself up" aspect of the rule is judgemental.
Like most CFL rules, it's badly written, and so ambiguity can lead to your interpretation. We shouldn't have to get a lawyer to parse the words to figure out what the rule is supposed to mean.
To my interpretation, the "sliding in any manner" is the predicate. Change the word "by" to "when they start". This is my interpretation, and would have solved all ambiguity.
"The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up when they start sliding in any manner"
Or just re-order it to emphasize the "sliding in any manner" is the controlling phrase:
The quarterback..., in possession of the ball, who starts sliding in any manner is deemed to have given themself up.
But even as written it is clear to me, if you really look at it, it leaves zero room for the QB to "slide in any manner" without it causing the result of "thus he gives himself up".
Keep in mind the fact the EZ was right there should not factor into whether refs/command deem it a giving-up slide. If BLM had done that same slide and taken that same hit mid-field, would they still deem him "going for it" and give him the progress at the final point of the ball? Never! Name me one time this has happened.
Now add in the "diving" part that was added a couple of years back. Diving has no "is it a hookslide" ambiguity. If you dive, you dive. Let's say BLM dove for it instead of the weird knee-first hookslide. What would you say then? Suddenly there's a "he's going for it" dive? It's asinine.
What you're saying is INTENT is the driver of the result. And no one can know the QB's intent. There is zero way the refs or command can judge a DIVE as being a "going for it" dive vs a "giving himself up" dive. And that's why diving was added into the rulebook: so that there is never any question about intent. If you dive, you've given up.
There are some really bad sliding QBs in this league. Zach is pretty awful at it. No one can tell what the heck he's trying to do half the time. Yet every single time it's deemed giving himself up and the ball is placed where he started the slide, and unless he's super late, he's always been protected by the refs throwing RTP flags. The good form (or not) of the slide shouldn't be the deciding factor on anything. And by my reading of the rule, it isn't.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 11, 2025, 06:20:24 PMI don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.
That's literally the worst angle of this play. TSN provided much better angles. This is TSN's Twitter account? The fact they chose this angle smells more to me like they are covering their butts because they know they made a mistake.
It's the same reason for the hasty memo TSN reads on air a couple of minutes later. Someone was saying somewhere "uh guys, I'm pretty sure that's not a TD". Then they consulted the (newish) rule verbiage and realized their mistake.
I guess I'll see if I can dig up some vid clips that show better angles.
Keep in mind, Junkie, the QBs no longer have to do the traditional legs-slightly-forward "hook slide". Every slide is now a "giving up" slide -- every slide/dive becomes a hookslide in effect.
That said, BLM did slide knees first. That's not a slide anyone except a sliding QB ever does.
Since the sliding rule change a couple of years back, show me one instance of a QB sliding into the EZ, let alone doing it and it counting.
It will get very interesting if a QB does a dive for the cone like RECs do. Because any dive is a "giving himself up". Diving ball-first to the cone is the one exception I would be less angry about. But that specific case should be written into this rule.
Again, ask yourself if you would think any differently if the play was at mid-field.
Ya, looking at the TSN replays again, they had brilliant slow-mo super zoomed views of what BLM actually did. The fact the CFL Twitter chose that crap angle to highlight tells me they are in full CYA mode.
I'll post the vids shortly.
One of the good video clips from TSN showing the slide (https://fsi.ca/tec/blmslide.mp4)
Someone explain why the CFL Twitter didn't use this clip? (They could have done it full speed to shorten it)
Never seen a player slide knee first like that... unless they are a hook-sliding QB
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 12, 2025, 03:52:38 AMLike most CFL rules, it's badly written, and so ambiguity can lead to your interpretation. We shouldn't have to get a lawyer to parse the words to figure out what the rule is supposed to mean.
To my interpretation, the "sliding in any manner" is the predicate. Change the word "by" to "when they start". This is my interpretation, and would have solved all ambiguity.
"The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up when they start sliding in any manner"
Or just re-order it to emphasize the "sliding in any manner" is the controlling phrase:
The quarterback..., in possession of the ball, who starts sliding in any manner is deemed to have given themself up.
But even as written it is clear to me, if you really look at it, it leaves zero room for the QB to "slide in any manner" without it causing the result of "thus he gives himself up".
Keep in mind the fact the EZ was right there should not factor into whether refs/command deem it a giving-up slide. If BLM had done that same slide and taken that same hit mid-field, would they still deem him "going for it" and give him the progress at the final point of the ball? Never! Name me one time this has happened.
Now add in the "diving" part that was added a couple of years back. Diving has no "is it a hookslide" ambiguity. If you dive, you dive. Let's say BLM dove for it instead of the weird knee-first hookslide. What would you say then? Suddenly there's a "he's going for it" dive? It's asinine.
What you're saying is INTENT is the driver of the result. And no one can know the QB's intent. There is zero way the refs or command can judge a DIVE as being a "going for it" dive vs a "giving himself up" dive. And that's why diving was added into the rulebook: so that there is never any question about intent. If you dive, you've given up.
There are some really bad sliding QBs in this league. Zach is pretty awful at it. No one can tell what the heck he's trying to do half the time. Yet every single time it's deemed giving himself up and the ball is placed where he started the slide, and unless he's super late, he's always been protected by the refs throwing RTP flags. The good form (or not) of the slide shouldn't be the deciding factor on anything. And by my reading of the rule, it isn't.
If I understand your interpretation correctly then, since you can't determine or judge a players intent, anytime a qb slides in any manner or dives it automatically constitutes "giving himself up". Ok, fair enough. That's your interpretation. So, if that's the case, then the words "gives themself up" shouldn't even be in the rule. Or, let's just say it's not really required information insofar as rules go. Is that correct?
The standard has to be any slide, if it is not then we have to review if it was "hooky" enough to constitute protection. For a running back that is a touchdown but because he is a QB and scrambling as soon as he puts his knee down the whistle is supposed to go.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 12, 2025, 07:56:37 AMIf I understand your interpretation correctly then, since you can't determine or judge a players intent, anytime a qb slides in any manner or dives it automatically constitutes "giving himself up". Ok, fair enough. That's your interpretation. So, if that's the case, then the words "gives themself up" shouldn't even be in the rule. Or, let's just say it's not really required information insofar as rules go. Is that correct?
Yes, completely correct.
Let's take the refs out of it for a sec, let's pretend they have the magic crystal ball that let's them perfectly gauge "intent" in real-time (or after the fact for command center)...
If intent was critical, then
the D also has to gauge intent. The LBer is 2s away from a sliding QB going into the EZ. You want him to start guessing if this is a "he meant to go for it" vs "he's giving himself up", ESPECIALLY given how the CFL is trying to stop QBs from getting hurt at all costs?
You have now put a D player in an impossible position where he's doomed either way. But if you say, as the rulebook does, that ALL SLIDES ARE GIVING UP, then there is no quandry for the D and they must ALWAYS let up when the QB makes for the turf (in any manner).
And that is exactly what I think the league did when they added "in any manner" and "diving" to the rule. It was to take ALL hits away from a QB making his body go to the ground.
Quote from: Waffler on September 12, 2025, 12:31:28 PMThe standard has to be any slide, if it is not then we have to review if it was "hooky" enough to constitute protection.
Yes, exactly. And that is exactly why the CFL added "any manner" and "dive" to the rules. As of a few years ago there is supposed to be no pontificating over "hooky enough" at all.
The BLM slide TD ruling just threw all that out window. Command in essence DID just say "it wasn't hooky enough".
This is moving backwards.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 13, 2025, 04:21:33 AMYes, exactly. And that is exactly why the CFL added "any manner" and "dive" to the rules. As of a few years ago there is supposed to be no pontificating over "hooky enough" at all.
The BLM slide TD ruling just threw all that out window. Command in essence DID just say "it wasn't hooky enough".
This is moving backwards.
Looks to me then, your beef should be with how the rule is written, not with how the refs and replay center carried out the ruling on the field. IMO, the way the rule is written, the refs have the discretion to determine or judge if the qb is giving themself up, regardless of the slide and dive. That's what they did on this play. There are others that agree with that judgement of Mitchell's intent on the slide. All your arguments are sound as to why it should not be like that. And, that may in fact have been the intent of the rule. But IMO, with the way that it was written, a reasonable person, or a referee, could interpret it the way that it was carried out on that play.
Quite frankly, I preferred it when the rule was you had to slide feet first to get the protection. It was simple for everyone to understand.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 13, 2025, 03:09:20 PMLooks to me then, your beef should be with how the rule is written, not with how the refs and replay center carried out the ruling on the field.
And this happens all the time. The rule book is clear as mud on so many things. This exact same conversation has happened before here regarding many other rules.
I strongly stand by my point that the rule says what I'm saying, though. Besides the actual wording, look at the
intent of the league when they added the "any manner" and "diving" words a couple of years back -- it wasn't to make things more ambiguous for refs/command, it was to make it so you couldn't ever hit a QB doing
any towards-turf movement. What makes QB's safer: having LBers and DBs and refs all guessing intent, or just protecting EVERY slide/dive?
However, I totally agree your interpretation of the words has validity, but I think that it requires slightly more linguistic gymnastics to make it stick. But that's just my opinion.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 13, 2025, 03:18:27 PMQuite frankly, I preferred it when the rule was you had to slide feet first to get the protection. It was simple for everyone to understand.
I agree. Just having every QB do the ol' hook slide removes all doubt of everything, and probably protects QBs more. (The problem was some QBs couldn't slide feet first if their life depended on it (like Zach), it's an unnatural motion.)
Or, equally, do like the rule is trying to say and every slide/dive ever is a dead ball at the start of the slide. "Going for it" or not. Also simple and 100% crystal clear, and safer for the QBs.
I'd really hate to be a LB/DB having a bead on a QB going for the TD right now... stop a TD or potential huge flag and fines?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 14, 2025, 03:44:32 AMI agree. Just having every QB do the ol' hook slide removes all doubt of everything, and probably protects QBs more. (The problem was some QBs couldn't slide feet first if their life depended on it (like Zach), it's an unnatural motion.)
Or, equally, do like the rule is trying to say and every slide/dive ever is a dead ball at the start of the slide. "Going for it" or not. Also simple and 100% crystal clear, and safer for the QBs.
I'd really hate to be a LB/DB having a bead on a QB going for the TD right now... stop a TD or potential huge flag and fines?
Agree, in this day and age of protecting the Qb, it should be automatic that a Qb slides when in open field or is assessed an OC if he 'goes for it' when a hit is certain. The league is trying to protect them, and if they arent' going to cooperate, flag em
BC@CGY 3Q13:21 VAJ hookslides, and not late, at the 1st down marker on a QB draw. Gets drilled by a BC D (FS?). Total concussion. Was as much a zombie walk as Trevor the other week.
THIS IS A DIRECT RESULT OF COMMAND SETTING THE PRECEDENT THAT QB'S ARE ABLE TO "GO FOR IT". This is on YOU command. This is on YOU CFL. YOU just took QB protection progress back 8 years.
Because the D now must assume all forward progress will count, and that it's all ambiguous now, the D MUST drill the QBs as though they were a RB.
And the worst part is NO flag thrown, NO EITS flag thrown.
This is a complete shambles and I KNEW it would happen.
If I was a QB, I wouldn't do any scrambling or running or drawing right now. It's full open season on QBs. If Zach took a knee to the head and turf-bounce like this hit he would be in the hospital for a month.
What must happen now is the league MUST issue a memo that they are going back to the QB protection from a season ago. This would have been a flag all day a year ago. AND they MUST clarify that the "giving themself up" rule means that EVERY SLIDE/DIVE by a QB anywhere on the field is a "giving themself up" slide. AND the ball is ALWAYS to be spotted at the beginning of the slide/dive (which the league is horribly lax on), NOT the end. They must clarify that there is NO SUCH THING AS "GOING FOR IT" when any movement towards the turf is occurring.
P.S. CGY knows it was dirty and because there was no penalty, they are going head hunting for the rest of the CGY game, 3Q8:42 they are putting massive late shots in on Hatcher. I haven't finished the game yet but I fully expect them to try to get some massive hits on Rourke.
Oh ya, WHEN the CFL gives that D guy a fine midweek, I'm going to go mental. If it's good enough for a fine, it should be good enough for a EITS flag in the game. It's the same guys reviewing it in both cases!
Also, every QB, at all times, everywhere on the field, is protected from a "head or neck" hit. VAJ took a knee to the helmet. That is a RTP all day every day.
Rule 7 - Section 2 - Article 5 - Roughing the Passer
Delivering a blow to neck or head of the passer
A change was made a while back where that rule applies anywhere on the field, not just in the pocket ("pocket" isn't even mentioned anymore in the RTP rule).
VAJ went head first. He wasn't a passer any more. He wasn't in the pocket. The BC player tried to go over top and his knee hit VAJ's head. No penalty should be given.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 20, 2025, 03:51:47 PMVAJ went head first. He wasn't a passer any more. He wasn't in the pocket. The BC player tried to go over top and his knee hit VAJ's head. No penalty should be given.
CFL changed that definition/rule a couple of years back. DIVING is included as "hooksliding" now. If he went head first, it changes NOTHING, he's still protected. Also, being in the pocket has nothing to do with the protection either. Why would you ever slide in the pocket? The sliding protections are for anywhere on the field. At least they are supposed to be.
And you're wrong. VAJ did NOT go head first. He had the knee even more forward than BLM had in his slide (that I started the thread for). VAJ was doing a classic knee-first hookslide and I can't believe they didn't give him protection. I guess I'll have to make a video clip.
I wonder if everyone, both here and on the SSK forum, are trying hard to not look at this and/or not caring because VAJ being knocked out may help both WPG and SSK going forward... Riderforum didn't make one peep about the VAJ hit. You can bet they'd be freaking out if the same hit was on Trevor!
This is important stuff because a) I thought they cared about protecting QBs so we don't have only 3rd stringers starting CFL games, and b) Zach is going to scramble and slide one day and a D is going to late-hit cream him and end his career because they now have carte blanche to put these hits on QBs. Command will just say "he was going for it".
P.S. They called UR on a hookslide in the HAM game today for even less of a hit, so maybe CFL is waking up to the insanity.
VAJ sliding view 1 (https://fsi.ca/tec/vajslide.mp4)
VAJ sliding view 1 slowed down (https://fsi.ca/tec/vajslide2.mp4)
VAJ sliding view 2 (https://fsi.ca/tec/vajslide4.mp4)
Interesting, I hadn't noticed before but VAJ takes 3 total head hits:
1. fist to the head
2. knee to the head
3. turf to the head
Someone tell me this wouldn't have been a flag (from ref or EITS) last season when "QB protection" was on the menu. This season protection is out of favor, apparently.
This also ties into my EITS thread about why did MOS need to challenge the hit on Zach? Where is EITS?? Does this mean if Dickenson The Greater had challenged he too would have won? He shouldn't have to.
I would bet large sums of money this hit on VAJ is getting fined this week. And that's proof enough that EITS should have flagged it. Something is majorly wrong with command and how these things are being handled this season.
Adams was in the process of going down, 33 could have avoided contact altogether. suspension is in order here, fine is useless, players are still going to do it.
Quote from: dd on September 21, 2025, 04:22:42 AMAdams was in the process of going down, 33 could have avoided contact altogether. suspension is in order here, fine is useless, players are still going to do it.
I get the point but there will be no suspension but will be a fine
Unfortunate play to be sure
Ya, it'll be a fine, no doubt. I think it should be a suspension. But it won't be unless VAJ get diagnosed with a major concussion and prescribed 2 months off or something heavy like that -- something that impacts the CFL bottom line by ruining the "product".
Since VAJ is "younger" and hasn't had too many brain scrambles yet, he'll probably be fine tomorrow and practicing this week. CGY literally won't win anything without him. They're even more reliant upon VAJ than we are on Zach.
Do QB's have any tiny bit of responsibility in this though? Years ago it was fairly straight-forward - when the QB is going forward and clearly sliding feet first, everything has to be done to avoid hitting. When they bash through head first like a RB, they can be hit like a RB.
I'm not sure why QB's are doing these variations on sliding that can make it harder to tell in the split second that they are "giving themselves up". Maybe I'm way off here, it just seemed clearer in the past when they would just obviously go down feet first. Not that it necessarily made a difference with reffing getting the call right, but it seemed a bit easier to tell in hindsight and on video review.
I don't see a reason for a suspension on those videos. He didn't slide feet first and I didn't see a defender trying to hit him in the head. VAJ also slid late and that makes it difficult to avoid this kind of hit.
Quote from: Big Daddy on September 21, 2025, 02:08:13 PMDo QB's have any tiny bit of responsibility in this though? Years ago it was fairly straight-forward - when the QB is going forward and clearly sliding feet first, everything has to be done to avoid hitting. When they bash through head first like a RB, they can be hit like a RB.
I'm not sure why QB's are doing these variations on sliding that can make it harder to tell in the split second that they are "giving themselves up". Maybe I'm way off here, it just seemed clearer in the past when they would just obviously go down feet first. Not that it necessarily made a difference with reffing getting the call right, but it seemed a bit easier to tell in hindsight and on video review.
The league is willing to sacrifice the defence in an attempt to keep QBs safe.
It's not about being fair or reasonable, unfortunately/fortunately.
It's normal to try to go over the QB when they slide. VAJ kept his head high AND 33 made sure he made some contact which happened to the highest point, the helmet. Kind of accidentally on purpose. A bit of blame to both. Also VAJ looks sideways near the end, not straight ahead. He has to protect himself. You can't leave it to the refs to call later.
The Hammy one was a head to head hit. Obvious penalty.
They need to fix the sliding rule in the off season. QB's are taking advantage of sliding as late as possible and not actually giving themselves up. Then they want protection. I would give them that protection when they are behind the LOS, and treat them like a RB when they go past the LOS.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 21, 2025, 03:34:23 PMThey need to fix the sliding rule in the off season. QB's are taking advantage of sliding as late as possible and not actually giving themselves up. Then they want protection.
You are correct. But, every rule they require is
already in the book. The problem is the refs/command are NOT APPLYING THE RULES.
"The replay official will also automatically provide a spot to the officials when a passer gives themselves up by sliding".
"The [QB...] gives themself up by sliding in any manner or diving. The ball is dead at the point it was held with another part of their body... touch the ground"
Almost every time a QB slides they are giving them max forward progress of the ball when they come to a stop. What they are supposed to do is spot the ball where it was when the sliding/diving QB has something touch the ground. They are usually giving the QB a free 1-3Y by mismanaging this rule.
I would go further and add a rule that makes the ball dead the moment the QB
starts his slide/dive. The QB gains zero extra forward progress after he starts his move towards the turf. This would further disincentivize the D from whacking QBs. And there's already a rule denying QBs faking a slide/dive from gaining from it.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 21, 2025, 02:11:59 PMI don't see a reason for a suspension on those videos. He didn't slide feet first
Irrelevant. How many times do I have to say it: CFL added "diving" to the "QB giving themself up" rule a few seasons back. TSN talked about it at length, that any movement towards the ground (forward, backward, upsidedown, diving, feet first, head first, doesn't matter) is now equal to a hook-slide.
This occurred during that stretch when QBs were dropping like flies and the on-screen product was suffering.
The entire point was to take away all ambiguity about QBs giving themselves up, to protect all of them from any hit when moving toward the ground.
Only this season has the league seemed to lose the plot.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 21, 2025, 02:11:59 PMand I didn't see a defender trying to hit him in the head.
Also irrelevant. Once in a toward-the-turf motion the QB is protected against all "unnecessary contact". You can't put your elbow in his gut in a UR manner, for instance, or just body-splat him. It's clear as day:
Rule 7 - Section 2 - Article 5 - RTP
A player shall be penalized for any act of UR to the passer, including but not limited to:
(f)
Contacting the quarterback
unnecessarily after the quarterback slides to give them self up.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 21, 2025, 02:11:59 PMVAJ also slid late and that makes it difficult to avoid this kind of hit.
He certainly wasn't early. But I think he did so in a more than timely manner, as far as these things go. The D guy had more than enough time to just jump or dive over him (without the wings/knees getting the hits in).
We've seen flags many times for hits on later slides than this. Many times. The league tightened up after that "not late" sliding hit on Zach a few years back that rang his bell.
It's only this season they are making it open hunting season on QBs again.
Quote from: Big Daddy on September 21, 2025, 02:08:13 PMWhen they bash through head first like a RB, they can be hit like a RB.
Read the last comment. They changed this rule a couple/few seasons back so that DIVING is equal to a hook-slide. Any slide/dive or motion towards the turf is now protected.
Quote from: Big Daddy on September 21, 2025, 02:08:13 PMDo QB's have any tiny bit of responsibility in this though? Years ago it was fairly straight-forward - when the QB is going forward and clearly sliding feet first, everything has to be done to avoid hitting.
[...]
I'm not sure why QB's are doing these variations on sliding that can make it harder to tell in the split second that they are "giving themselves up".
This is why the rule I quoted MUST be read as "all slides/dives mean the QB is giving themself up". It makes zero sense to add "diving" to the rule but then put the onus on D's and refs to guess "is he giving himself up?". That is just stupid.
The only problem with requiring a "text book hook slide" is that there are some QBs who just can't do it well. Zach sucks at it. And many QBs are now doing this knee-first slide like we see here with VAJ & BLM (and Zach).
There can be nothing more straightforward than "QB moving towards the turf is protected from all contact" and "the ball is dead when he started" or alternatively "the ball is dead when his other body part touches the ground". No intent required. No ambiguity. Super easy to police and for refs to call in real time. Super easy for command to review.
That's the whole point of my OP: THERE SHOULD BE NO "
HE'S GOING FOR IT"! Command saying that is the dumbest, most dangerous thing they've done in the last decade.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 22, 2025, 04:35:24 AMIrrelevant. How many times do I have to say it: CFL added "diving" to the "QB giving themself up" rule a few seasons back. TSN talked about it at length, that any movement towards the ground (forward, backward, upsidedown, diving, feet first, head first, doesn't matter) is now equal to a hook-slide.
This occurred during that stretch when QBs were dropping like flies and the on-screen product was suffering.
The entire point was to take away all ambiguity about QBs giving themselves up, to protect all of them from any hit when moving toward the ground.
Only this season has the league seemed to lose the plot.
Also irrelevant. Once in a toward-the-turf motion the QB is protected against all "unnecessary contact". You can't put your elbow in his gut in a UR manner, for instance, or just body-splat him. It's clear as day:
Rule 7 - Section 2 - Article 5 - RTP
A player shall be penalized for any act of UR to the passer, including but not limited to:
(f) Contacting the quarterback unnecessarily after the quarterback slides to give them self up.
He certainly wasn't early. But I think he did so in a more than timely manner, as far as these things go. The D guy had more than enough time to just jump or dive over him (without the wings/knees getting the hits in).
We've seen flags many times for hits on later slides than this. Many times. The league tightened up after that "not late" sliding hit on Zach a few years back that rang his bell.
It's only this season they are making it open hunting season on QBs again.
None of that suggests the play calls for a suspension.Penalty sure, but that's it.