Good:
- Jake Ceresna 3 sacks
- Willie got one too!
- Brady was great rushing and receiving
- Vaval is still crushing it
- OL really tightened up in the 2nd half. I think they are going to be really good.
- Zach targeted 9 different receivers. Completions to 7 of them.
- half time adjustments
- Castillo to win the game
- Brady leads the league in rushing: 113 to Mills' 112
Bad:
- first half rush defence
- slow start for pass blocking
- some growing pains for the passing attack in general in the first half
- listening to the post game show, the wind played a big factor
Ugly:
- 104 yard TD drive in the 4th quarter to lose the lead (temporarily).
Good
Ceresna
Willie
White
Bad
OL early on
Drops by Nield and Corcoran
Ugly
Front 7 outside of Ceresna and Willie
Playcalling on that last Calgary drive. I get wanting to give a cushion on second and long, but if they're a yard or yard and a half short, it's pretty close to a given.
I would add to bad. The amount of empty seats.
Good
Ceresna. And I don't think Good covers it.
Perkins reminded me of good Dan Lefevour
While there was not much great to praise, ZC had a solid game manager game
Brady looked in top form
Vaval
Willie had a solid game
Besides the drop Nield had a solid game
Receiving corp in general had a very solid utilitarian game
Bad
First half defence in general, run defence specifically
Overall containment on VA was poor
Ugly
Can't stop a 106 yard drive
TSNs feed was spotty
For the love of gawd can Suitor go away
Quote from: Pigskin on June 06, 2026, 04:41:34 AMI would add to bad. The amount of empty seats.
CFL clearly doesn't care about butts in seats. Every move made has been about the TV audience.
Quote from: Pigskin on June 06, 2026, 04:41:34 AMI would add to bad. The amount of empty seats.
Not that it's an excuse, but we've had torrential rain all week and the forecast for tonight wasn't great.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on June 06, 2026, 04:46:01 AMGood
Ceresna. And I don't think Good covers it.
Perkins reminded me of good Dan Lefebvre
While there was not much great to praise, ZC had a solid game manager game
Brady looked in top form
Vaval
Willie had a solid game
Besides the drop Niels had a solid game
Receiving corp in general had a very solid utilitarian game.
I like that line, I hope Zach realizes he does not have the right receivers to compete for jump balls anymore, the 3 main dudes are undersized and under muscled for brawling. What they are very good at is getting opened, if he can concentrate on throwing the right pass at the right time and give up throwing into coverage it looks like he should be able to turn his downturn in effectiveness around this season. If that turns him from a gunslinger into a game manager, so be it, he'll win more games using his brain than with his brawn.
Hard to tell, but I think the new centre was good, and saw Daniels mixing it up on some running plays..lthere was actual success running outside,
Not a lot of penalties.
Seemed well reffed. Although on a pi called on the bombers I thought the Calgary receiver pushed the db.
First two games were exciting.
It's always good to see Dave Dickensen lose.
Great win.
Quote from: markf on June 06, 2026, 05:21:07 AMHard to tell, but I think the new centre was good, and saw Daniels mixing it up on some running plays..lthere was actual success running outside,
Not a lot of penalties.
Seemed well reffed.
First two games were exciting.
It's always good to see Dave Dickensen lose.
Great win.
Yep Elsbury looked good in pass protection and he's young and huge, saw a bit of Eli as 6th man so don't think he's really hurt, probably lost his job to a bigger player. O'Shea mentioned prior to the game how he loved the size of the O-line.
Well Suitor thinks Jefferson can get 22 sacks this season to get to 100. So give him at least that much :D ::)
Quote from: bomberjunkie on June 06, 2026, 01:07:50 PMWell Suitor thinks Jefferson can get 22 sacks this season to get to 100. So give him at least that much :D ::)
😂
Talk about a jinx.
I'd take Rod Black over Suitor.
Or a randomly selected person from 7 11. Customer or staff.
Quote from: markf on June 06, 2026, 02:25:36 PM😂
Talk about a jinx.
I'd take Rod Black over Suitor.
Or a randomly selected person from 7 11. Customer or staff.
That's a step too far for me. As annoying as Suitor is, Rod Black would not be an upgrade.
I agree on the Ugly Suiter...
Suitor...."he plays like he is a tight end" that was one of my favorites from last night.....Well no poop he played TE, was drafted as a TE, listed as a TE on the depth chart and lined up as a TE.......
TSN also had ugly sound issues....
While we have lot's to clean up, the good is 1-0....
Quote from: 3rdand1.5 on June 06, 2026, 04:13:12 PMI agree on the Ugly Suiter...
Suitor...."he plays like he is a tight end" that was one of my favorites from last night.....Well no poop he played TE, was drafted as a TE, listed as a TE on the depth chart and lined up as a TE.......
TSN also had ugly sound issues....
While we have lot's to clean up, the good is 1-0....
Surprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb. Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 05:01:55 PMSurprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb. Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.
Agreed. Think they really liked him. You can see why too.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 05:01:55 PMSurprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb. Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.
Was Condell the "heavy set" coach in Hamilton?
Might be a return of a version of that.....which was really effective as I recall.
We only threw to Demski once and it was incomplete. He had 2 forward hand offs which classify as receptions but he was NOT used in his normal role. I suspect slightly nicked and used as a decoy last night?
Cobb and Corcoran did not contribute much. 12 yards total output on 2 passes thrown and 1 completion. Daniels was 1 for 1 and 5 yards.
If we choose to add another import receiver, Fredickson might be the better choice as a receiver with size but Singer is a more dangerous target.
Demski was limping pretty good after the missed catch. Didn't see him do anything after that.
Good:
Mike Miller using the new rouge to a tee. 3 times we got a point off it, and the last kick by CGY, Vaval let it go through for zero points and a guaranteed start on the 40.
Bad:
First half struggles.
Ugly:
Nothing jumps to mind.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 06, 2026, 06:22:18 PMWe only threw to Demski once and it was incomplete. He had 2 forward hand offs which classify as receptions but he was NOT used in his normal role. I suspect slightly nicked and used as a decoy last night?
Cobb and Corcoran did not contribute much. 12 yards total output on 2 passes thrown and 1 completion. Daniels was 1 for 1 and 5 yards.
If we choose to add another import receiver, Fredickson might be the better choice as a receiver with size but Singer is a more dangerous target.
Can't see them looking at a 3rd import receiver this season as it would add a redundant skillset with limited reps, cutting into Daniels, Clercius and MCI's more useful reps as blockers. Corcoran was out there every time they had short yardage along with Demski and Nield, so that puts them above the other receivers in the blocking dept. Tim White, Pokey and Singer on the field together would add very little blocking ability, don't know about Freddie yet.
There was a missed Illegal Participation penalty on the Jamieson Sheahan punt single. McAllister stepped out of bounds at the Calgary 2 yard line before recovering the ball in the end zone.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/anavbfk00l3ajaczl2y00/McAllister-OB.jpg?rlkey=qkie3ulyc55d8xta69qdiq4u7&st=t8je240f&raw=1)
Reminder that the penalty for Illegal Participation in this manner is the Loss of Ball (LB) at the Point of Foul (PF)
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/frnsacheo4qra2lvkhntl/Illegal-Participation.jpg?rlkey=sehiviudi4lu4dq86bw8kvb8z&st=6t59uf8s&raw=1)
As the penalty was triggered when McAllister recovered the punted ball in the end zone, we need to look to another portion of the Rule Book to determine what happens when Team B (Calgary) commits a penalty in its own goal area.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yc8qrlgcr129dn7istb02/Foul-in-Goal.jpg?rlkey=44ylamqibhwkw10dd86phe6vs&st=24y48cd4&raw=1)
Illegal Participation triggered in goal area of Team B. Option to decline the score and apply the penalty, LB at PF, from the 15 yard line.
It should have been 1st & 10 Winnipeg at the C15. Instead Winnipeg scored a point and it was 1st & 10 Calgary at the C40. BTW, Calgary scored a TD on that drive.
EDIT - video of play in TwiXter post
https://x.com/NoahBeauso/status/2063083620709855293?s=20 (https://x.com/NoahBeauso/status/2063083620709855293?s=20)
Quote from: Pigskin on June 06, 2026, 04:41:34 AMI would add to bad. The amount of empty seats.
It's been really surprising watching calgary's attendance drop over the past 30 years. It used to be in the high 30s (35-38K), then year-after-year, it's dropped. Any now we are at less than 20K.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 06:56:35 PMCan't see them looking at a 3rd import receiver this season as it would add a redundant skillset with limited reps, cutting into Daniels, Clercius and MCI's more useful reps as blockers. Corcoran was out there every time they had short yardage along with Demski and Nield, so that puts them above the other receivers in the blocking dept. Tim White, Pokey and Singer on the field together would add very little blocking ability, don't know about Freddie yet.
Fredrickson blocked fairly well. Clercius may not be available. I'm not sure how many times Daniels or MCI were on the field.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 06, 2026, 07:56:48 PMFredrickson blocked fairly well. Clercius may not be available. I'm not sure how many times Daniels or MCI were on the field.
Daniels was on the field almost every time they ran the ball, he played more than Corcoron, MCi and Cobb, maybe more snaps than all 3 combined.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 09:23:41 PMDaniels was on the field almost every time they ran the ball, he played more than Corcoron, MCi and Cobb, maybe more snaps than all 3 combined.
We don't run the ball every play. Having the extra import receiver is only a choice in how we deal with the Woodbey injury and no direct replacement.
Also Demski is obviously not 100% and got nicked again. So if we have a free space for an import then there is a chance they add a receiver.
It's that or Texada an extra DB. One choice might have been another DL but Dixon may be out for a game.
BLM is more of a passer than a runner so Texada might be a better choice to add to the defence.
McMannis is expected back so we need a strong performance from our receivers.
It's musical chairs somewhat with Demski also being nicked where to add an import.
Quote from: Pigskin on June 06, 2026, 05:09:42 PMHad to turn the volume off and go to CJOB.
I did it from the beginning. I saw Suitor on tv and went nope..and synced it up.
Quote from: Pigskin on June 06, 2026, 04:41:34 AMI would add to bad. The amount of empty seats.
Yup, the upcoming changes to the game and field have alienated some fans, to the point they have given up on the game.
GOOD
Ceresna is sooo sweet at shedding blocks. That's part of his magic. Most others just sit there and get held.
OL looking world class in H2 after stinking up the joint in pass-pro in H1. I don't know what they adjusted (besides maybe more jumbo) but it worked. More of that please. And run block was pretty effective all game giving Brady a very respectable avg.
Halftime adjustments. Eureka! They're a thing! Both O and D adjusted, and adjusted way better than CGY. We won the battle of the braintrusts. Thanks Condell!! We didn't lose the 3rd quarter like we did 95% of 2025! There goes my can't-lose bet...
BAD
Hicks seemed to completely run out of steam in H2. Was he even out there still? Complete non-factor. Conditioning? Or did our OL shape up? Will need a rewatch to know. Whereas Ceresna... only got better. Nice motor!
UGLY
Corcoran made a liar out of me -- always extolling his hands. Drops a gimmee short pass. Doh.
Demski antsy on the waggle for yet another season. He's always so close to the edge, and refs eventually say "nah bro, not this time". Need to find a way to not take an O/S every other game...
Nichols has trouble bringing down beef. If the weird Younger zone scheme gets Nichols one on one with a beef REC or RB, you better get some help there stat.
CGY attendance seemed down vs 2025, even if there's a "cold/rain" element. Mirrors HAM. If OTT attendance looks anemic then houston we have a problem. 3 games won't be a coincidence. And I'll lay the blame squarely on Johnston and his Circus Of Changes.
BONUS
Willie says, anything Hicks can do, I can do too!
Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 06, 2026, 07:10:10 PMThere was a missed Illegal Participation penalty on the Jamieson Sheahan punt single. McAllister stepped out of bounds at the Calgary 2 yard line before recovering the ball in the end zone.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/anavbfk00l3ajaczl2y00/McAllister-OB.jpg?rlkey=qkie3ulyc55d8xta69qdiq4u7&st=t8je240f&raw=1)
Reminder that the penalty for Illegal Participation in this manner is the Loss of Ball (LB) at the Point of Foul (PF)
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/frnsacheo4qra2lvkhntl/Illegal-Participation.jpg?rlkey=sehiviudi4lu4dq86bw8kvb8z&st=6t59uf8s&raw=1)
As the penalty was triggered when McAllister recovered the punted ball in the end zone, we need to look to another portion of the Rule Book to determine what happens when Team B (Calgary) commits a penalty in its own goal area.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yc8qrlgcr129dn7istb02/Foul-in-Goal.jpg?rlkey=44ylamqibhwkw10dd86phe6vs&st=24y48cd4&raw=1)
Illegal Participation triggered in goal area of Team B. Option to decline the score and apply the penalty, LB at PF, from the 15 yard line.
It should have been 1st & 10 Winnipeg at the C15. Instead Winnipeg scored a point and it was 1st & 10 Calgary at the C40. BTW, Calgary scored a TD on that drive.
EDIT - video of play in TwiXter post
https://x.com/NoahBeauso/status/2063083620709855293?s=20 (https://x.com/NoahBeauso/status/2063083620709855293?s=20)
2 items here( with lot's of questions I'm afraid):
1. If the ball is loose (which I agree it is) and McCallister then touched it, thus illegally participating in the play, isn't it just Loss of Ball at the Point of Foul, per Article 8? Why would the other rules even apply? A foul can only apply to one rule, correct? Illegal Participation is the foul. Are you saying Article 8 is superseded by Section 6-1c? Why?
2. If the Point of Foul happened when and where he touched the ball, isn't it then Bomber touchdown, since it happened in the end zone?
Quote from: bomb squad on June 06, 2026, 10:55:13 PM1. If the ball is loose (which I agree it is) and McCallister then touched it, thus illegally participating in the play, isn't it just Loss of Ball at the Point of Foul, per Article 8? Why would the other rules even apply? A foul can only apply to one rule, correct? Illegal Participation is the foul. Are you saying Article 8 is superseded by Section 6-1c? Why?
Because the Section 6 qualifies how many/most/all other fouls get special treatment in the rarer case of when they occur in-goal.
Quote from: bomb squad on June 06, 2026, 10:55:13 PM2. If the Point of Foul happened when and where he touched the ball, isn't it then Bomber touchdown, since it happened in the end zone?
No, because of the previous answer. I think you already sussed this out. Pretty sure there's no foul that can result in a "free TD". Putting it on the 15 is the next best thing! Kind of like a DPI in the EZ isn't a free TD either.
Quote from: Blue In BC on June 06, 2026, 09:33:33 PMWe don't run the ball every play. Having the extra import receiver is only a choice in how we deal with the Woodbey injury and no direct replacement.
Said another way, we can't do Singer or another IMP REC with the ratio the way it is with Elsbury IMP at C. Can't see it happening, unless some matchups allow for Eli to start.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 06, 2026, 07:10:10 PMThere was a missed Illegal Participation penalty on the Jamieson Sheahan punt single. McAllister stepped out of bounds at the Calgary 2 yard line before recovering the ball in the end zone.
This is insane. Insane that:
a) This is near-identical to what you spotted in PS, and
b) How did the refs miss this?, and
c) How did command miss this?, and
d) How did MOS miss this, especially given point (a)!
Once again, SJ, good catch.
Quote from: TBURGESS on June 06, 2026, 06:27:16 PMDemski was limping pretty good after the missed catch. Didn't see him do anything after that.
He was on-field for most of the rest of the game. I think he did a couple of touches after that. Seemed fine.
Quote from: markf on June 06, 2026, 05:49:08 PMWas Condell the "heavy set" coach in Hamilton?
Might be a return of a version of that.....which was really effective as I recall.
You bet. We got a fair bit of jumbo this game. But since we aren't dressing 2 extra OL, the jumbo was combos of Eli / Daniels / Ike.
My definition of Condell's super-max-pro is on pass plays, though. I'll have to go back to see how often we did that. Seemed to using the extra jumbo on running downs this game.
7, 8, 9 super-max-pass-pro in 2019 HAM just couldn't be beat in-season. If you can, watch some of those. Then they didn't use it in GC and we hosed them. I'd like to see a form of that here a couple/few times a game. Eli/Daniels/Ike gets us 8 blockers. Brady staying in makes 9. Pokey out left side, White out right.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 05:01:55 PMSurprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb. Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.
He's this year's seal. But with the correct FB/TE passport this time!!
Quote from: markf on June 06, 2026, 05:21:07 AMSeemed well reffed. Although on a pi called on the bombers I thought the Calgary receiver pushed the db.
It was a classic "mugging". The same thing Sayles used to get caught out on in '18. Often it's the REC purposely trying to hit the DB, but the DB needs to get out of the way. Doesn't seem fair, but it's clear CFL precedent.
The mugging has to be super blatant before the CFL will penalize the REC. And even then...!
Quote from: BlueInCgy on June 06, 2026, 04:46:01 AMPerkins reminded me of good Dan Lefebvre
Anyone mentioning The Feve gets 10 updoots from me! If Perkins can be half of what Feve was I'll be one happy SY fan. I just worry about all the dancing/delay...
Quote from: Tecno on June 06, 2026, 11:49:28 PMSaid another way, we can't do Singer or another IMP REC with the ratio the way it is with Elsbury IMP at C. Can't see it happening, unless some matchups allow for Eli to start.
Id like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)
Quote from: Pete on June 07, 2026, 12:30:59 AMId like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)
And not using the RR properly either. Isn't this a way to get +2 to the total roster?? Sure, it's on the SMS, but who can argue with +2 to total roster?! We always say CFL roster sizes need to be bigger!
I think league needs to clarify that RR is
not optional. Every team
must have 2 on RR. If you don't like it, park an ELC there.
Quote from: Tecno on June 06, 2026, 11:17:15 PMBecause the Section 6 qualifies how many/most/all other fouls get special treatment in the rarer case of when they occur in-goal.
No, because of the previous answer. I think you already sussed this out. Pretty sure there's no foul that can result in a "free TD". Putting it on the 15 is the next best thing! Kind of like a DPI in the EZ isn't a free TD either.
I would argue, however, that Section 6 doesn't cover this situation. It deals with fouls in the endzone that happen while Team B is in
possession of the ball. An illegal block for eg.. The IP foul is triggered the very moment the player
touches the ball. I know I'm seizing on a technicality here, and the refs may very rule using this Section 6, but nevertheless it is true. While I agree it probably "shouldn't" be a touchdown, the ball could just as easily be placed at the 1, for all the rulebook says.(As far as I know. I'm just basing this on the info the poster provided in the post.)
I'll give you an example using a modified version of the situation in question. Say the ref did take note of McAllister's foot and was ready to throw a flag. Say it was a short punt and Sheahan is closing in fast. McAllister, rushed, muffs the recovery, but touches the ball. The ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?
Quote from: Pete on June 07, 2026, 12:30:59 AMId like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)
Fletcher also has some quickness. Thomas has some speed drills for the DL. He beat Willie and then Dixon in the final.
Hmm, after looking at the surrounding context of section 6, maybe you're on to something.
So let's break it down.
The ill.part. (IP here; not to be confused with IP=illegal procedure) play in question is at 2Q1:16 in case anyone wants to find it on their PVR.
CGY returner puts a foot clearly on the sideline at around the 2. Ball is still untouched. Ball rolls 2Y into EZ. CGY guy goes and secures the ball with knee down, all in goal, for a rouge.
So handle the IP part first: Rule 1, Sec 9, Art 8 - Illegal Participation
Paragraph 3 applies. Penalty LB PF. Stats Junkie nailed all of this.
And Junkie is right. We now need to look to see if anything "modifies" the "LB PF" because of the special case of being in-goal. Why do we need to do this rather than just assign the ball to WPG 2Y in goal? Because that's how many other fouls are handled -- they get a special in-goal case.
However, the special in-goal cases are usually listed in each specific foul rule, often as an extra note, or an exception sentence added to the penalty verbiage. In other words, they are not listed somewhere separately and one is expected to make the connection.
Examples of this: intentional grounding being a safety in-goal, DPI in-goal, and holding in-goal. (Any other examples of special in-goal rule modifications?) In every case the "in-goal modifier" is stated right there with the rule.
BUT, Rule 8, Section 6 does appear to be a catch-all that would supersede all other rules where those rules did not explicitly specify an in-goal carve out.
I think a stumbling block to understanding is defining possession on a punt. You hint as much with your applying bold font in your post. Rule 1, Section 3 - Possession, last paragraph says "if a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession". So that means the returning team (team B in this case) gains possession the instant they first touch the ball.
It also means the "possession" and IP occur at the exact same moment!
So back to 8-6-1, apply (c), because team B did commit a foul in its goal area (check!), while in possession of the ball (check!). And one of the options is (c)(iii) where team A can retake the ball at the team B 15YL.
So, Junkie is right, as he usually is. And yes, it's because of a superseding rule that overrides all other rules. And the magic point is the special application of "possession" on a punt play.
Perhaps to make things clearer (and easier for future generations of officials), they should add an extra sentence to the IP rule for this special case. Just spell it out closer to the actual foul verbiage. i.e. 1-9-8, added: "If Team B commits this foul in its goal area, rule 8-6-1 applies".
As a thought experiment, this superseding rule can be applied to basically everything team B can do in goal. If a returner or interceptor is dancing around the EZ and his team mate does an illegal block, crackback block, or holding in goal -- trying to help their dude get out of the EZ -- then this rule would also apply. That is very interesting, as that could happen more often than this extreme case! Pretty sure I've never seen a move out to the 15 applied, though. Refs might not even be up to speed on this at all.
Quote from: bomb squad on June 07, 2026, 04:22:34 AMThe ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?
Yes, because, as per my last post, possession is instant and simultaneous to the IP foul. Though it may help to think of it as possession occurring 1 nanosecond before IP. Otherwise you get into strange bashing-head-on-wall thoughts of "what occurred first when they are both simultaneous". Then it becomes a matter of semantics. Best to go with the clear intent/spirit of the rule.
Now, after this deep dive I know I'm going to be watching in-goal plays & fouls more carefully!
Quote from: Tecno on June 07, 2026, 10:45:19 AMHmm, after looking at the surrounding context of section 6, maybe you're on to something.
So let's break it down.
The ill.part. (IP here; not to be confused with IP=illegal procedure) play in question is at 2Q1:16 in case anyone wants to find it on their PVR.
CGY returner puts a foot clearly on the sideline at around the 2. Ball is still untouched. Ball rolls 2Y into EZ. CGY guy goes and secures the ball with knee down, all in goal, for a rouge.
So handle the IP part first: Rule 1, Sec 9, Art 8 - Illegal Participation
Paragraph 3 applies. Penalty LB PF. Stats Junkie nailed all of this.
And Junkie is right. We now need to look to see if anything "modifies" the "LB PF" because of the special case of being in-goal. Why do we need to do this rather than just assign the ball to WPG 2Y in goal? Because that's how many other fouls are handled -- they get a special in-goal case.
However, the special in-goal cases are usually listed in each specific foul rule, often as an extra note, or an exception sentence added to the penalty verbiage. In other words, they are not listed somewhere separately and one is expected to make the connection.
Examples of this: intentional grounding being a safety in-goal, DPI in-goal, and holding in-goal. (Any other examples of special in-goal rule modifications?) In every case the "in-goal modifier" is stated right there with the rule.
BUT, Rule 8, Section 6 does appear to be a catch-all that would supersede all other rules where those rules did not explicitly specify an in-goal carve out.
I think a stumbling block to understanding is defining possession on a punt. You hint as much with your applying bold font in your post. Rule 1, Section 3 - Possession, last paragraph says "if a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession". So that means the returning team (team B in this case) gains possession the instant they first touch the ball.
It also means the "possession" and IP occur at the exact same moment!
So back to 8-6-1, apply (c), because team B did commit a foul in its goal area (check!), while in possession of the ball (check!). And one of the options is (c)(iii) where team A can retake the ball at the team B 15YL.
So, Junkie is right, as he usually is. And yes, it's because of a superseding rule that overrides all other rules. And the magic point is the special application of "possession" on a punt play.
Perhaps to make things clearer (and easier for future generations of officials), they should add an extra sentence to the IP rule for this special case. Just spell it out closer to the actual foul verbiage. i.e. 1-9-8, added: "If Team B commits this foul in its goal area, rule 8-6-1 applies".
As a thought experiment, this superseding rule can be applied to basically everything team B can do in goal. If a returner or interceptor is dancing around the EZ and his team mate does an illegal block, crackback block, or holding in goal -- trying to help their dude get out of the EZ -- then this rule would also apply. That is very interesting, as that could happen more often than this extreme case! Pretty sure I've never seen a move out to the 15 applied, though. Refs might not even be up to speed on this at all.
Good digging, articulation and almost perfect logic. There's just one problem however. In your Rule 1, Section 3 citation, it says "
legally touched". It's not a legal touch. So, we may have to erase that second checkmark.
As to you thought experiment, here's a question. Would the ball actually be placed at the 15, or would the penalty be applied from the 15?
And for the record, I'm not trying to take anything away from Stats Junkies "catch". Fantastic.
Quote from: bomb squad on June 07, 2026, 04:22:34 AMI would argue, however, that Section 6 doesn't cover this situation. It deals with fouls in the endzone that happen while Team B is in possession of the ball. An illegal block for eg.. The IP foul is triggered the very moment the player touches the ball. I know I'm seizing on a technicality here, and the refs may very rule using this Section 6, but nevertheless it is true. While I agree it probably "shouldn't" be a touchdown, the ball could just as easily be placed at the 1, for all the rulebook says.(As far as I know. I'm just basing this on the info the poster provided in the post.)
I'll give you an example using a modified version of the situation in question. Say the ref did take note of McAllister's foot and was ready to throw a flag. Say it was a short punt and Sheahan is closing in fast. McAllister, rushed, muffs the recovery, but touches the ball. The ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?
Simply touching a loose ball is considered 'Deemed Possession'. There are a number of situations that can be triggered on deemed possession, such as penalties. Deemed possession doesn't equate to full possession or control of the football.
Late to the party but here are my thoughts (in the incorrect thread format):
- Love that our big name FAs made very meaningful contributions and are showing (in one game) that they were good ideas. It would be understandable if it took a little while to get these guys rolling in our system. Ceresna had just short of one million sacks, and Nield and White made some big, important catches and made us forget we also had Demski and Pokey on the field. I think our revamped rec core is going to be as good or better than advertised and it's so exciting. Gives so much room for Oliveira to do even more damage in even more ways
- Zach looked like he was about 4 years younger on Friday. Running around, airing it up when needed, throwing it away when needed. The same "scrambly Zach" that made us awe-struck when he did that stuff in his debut when he joined us in 2019
- I haven't read everything on the forum but is no one talking about how Ontaria Wilson is the reason we won that game? Massive throw that got us in chip shot range. Shoutouts to Zach and Condell as well for that plan - really showed balls and aggression. And of course Serg - not the longest FG but zero guaranteed. Love that he is chill af to make the most important play of the game and walk it off
- I thought the offensive playcalling was effective most of the time and creative when it needed to be. It felt way different in a good way than what we saw last year and it's super encouraging. Could really feel that Condell is a veteran offensive coach and prepared with a good plan. Can't wait to see what he has in store this week.
Lots more to say but I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 06, 2026, 05:01:55 PMSurprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb. Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.
Do you know about Brian Jack? look him up, he is wrong for what he did.
Quote from: blue_or_die on June 09, 2026, 06:20:26 PM- I haven't read everything on the forum but is no one talking about how Ontaria Wilson is the reason we won that game? Massive throw that got us in chip shot range. Shoutouts to Zach and Condell as well for that plan - really showed balls and aggression.
Pokey's route on that was sublime, and perfect throw. Yes, I think the aggressiveness caught CGY off-guard. Past seasons we may have gone dink & dunk there. They were probably expecting a Brady run to start.
Condell was quite good all game. And he has the guys prepared, and kept morale up for that final drive. He also had good schemes to help Brady get 4-6+ most runs. The OL did their part too. And I even got to see my Broxton swing-around I knew was coming.
When CGY was going down to score I asked myself how I was going to rate the team should they lose. And I concluded we made big strides forward this season. The winning was gravy.
Quote from: Tecno on June 09, 2026, 09:26:38 PMPokey's route on that was sublime, and perfect throw. Yes, I think the aggressiveness caught CGY off-guard. Past seasons we may have gone dink & dunk there. They were probably expecting a Brady run to start.
Condell was quite good all game. And he has the guys prepared, and kept morale up for that final drive. He also had good schemes to help Brady get 4-6+ most runs. The OL did their part too. And I even got to see my Broxton swing-around I knew was coming.
When CGY was going down to score I asked myself how I was going to rate the team should they lose. And I concluded we made big strides forward this season. The winning was gravy.
That last drive was a great turning point from the under performance of the last 2 years, don't think they would have been able to get it done against a good defence last season. Zach is receiving more time in the pocket this year but he still has to be very selective with his throws.
Quote from: bomb squad on June 07, 2026, 03:23:02 PMGood digging, articulation and almost perfect logic. There's just one problem however. In your Rule 1, Section 3 citation, it says "legally touched". It's not a legal touch. So, we may have to erase that second checkmark.
Just when we thought it was solved! Going way out into the weeds. I like it!!
So now we need to define "legally touched". Unfortunately, the book doesn't define that. But it does use the phrase "legal touch" or "legally touched" a couple of times, and we can use our common sense with those to infer the meaning.
Section 8 I.R.A.R.1: "illegal touching" used to refer to a OSK team A player not having achieved sufficient yardage before touching. Implies a legal touch would be one by a player who was in the correct position. (Ignore the fact this one is an "overturned" example -- the touching part we're interested in was not disputed, it was whether the player was legal or not.)
Section 17 Dribbled Ball: "legally touched" refers to a touch by the kicker of onside player. Implies an illegal touch would be one by any other team A player.
It would appear you are correct and the touch by an illegal participant would NOT be considered legal.
Therefore it did not constitute possession. Therefore it is still a "loose ball". Therefore, the superseding rule 8-6-1
cannot apply.
If there is no overriding rule then the only foul is the IP one, and the penalty described there -- LB PF -- should be the correct one.
Touchdown Bombers, without ever touching the ball. That would have been one for the ages and I'm kind of bummed out that they didn't call it!
@Stats Junkie, do you concur?
Someone should get this to the CFL so they can issue and apology and clarification. There was a chance this screwup may have cost us the game. Would command, with the limited time they have (with pressure!) to make a call have missed the "possession" aspect that Junkie & I did? Even getting the ball at the 15 would have been better. Oh ya, and get this to DT. He'll love this!
I still suspect the spirit of the rule & superseding rule is to have this situation result in the ball at the 15. Unless it's considered so bad it does deserve this special "punishment"? What would be the effect of removing the "possession" requirement from 8-6-1? What about changing the wording to "touched" (with no "legal" or "illegal" qualifier).
Quote from: bomb squad on June 07, 2026, 03:23:02 PMAs to you thought experiment, here's a question. Would the ball actually be placed at the 15, or would the penalty be applied from the 15?
Ok, if 8-6-1
did apply in a IP LB PF... let's look at the wording again: "Require the penalty to be applied against Team B from its 15-yard line". Yes, it would still cause a scrimmage at the 15 because the penalty here "LB PF" specifies no yardage penalty. It's "LB" instead -- which is kind of like a 50Y penalty based on average punt net yardage, LOL.
But probably more to your question, most any other penalty team B could do while team B has the ball in own goal area, would cause the next point of scrimmage to be at the 5 yard line (or 1 yard line for major fouls).
Let's try a specific example. Team A punts into the EZ, Team B player 1 (B1) dances around the EZ to find a way to bring it out, but player B2 does a nasty blindside block while this dancing is still going on in the EZ. B1 gets out to the 3 and gets tackled. Team A has the option to to accept 3 as the next LoS, or take the 15Y blocking penalty from the 15. Pretty sure with the '25 (or '24?) rule changes that would put next LoS at the 1, which is what they'd choose.
Great stuff. And you beat both Junkie & I at noticing. Hat tip.
Woodbey-receives-max-fine for high hit on VA. I didn't know the CFL had a Department of Health, Safety and Integrity.
TORONTO — The Canadian Football League (CFL) Department of Health, Safety and Integrity manages league discipline, while the Office of the Commissioner oversees suspendible offences.
The Department – which includes Chief Football Operations Officer Greg Dick, Vice-President of Officiating Darren Hackwood, Associate Vice-President of Football Operations Ryan Janzen and Associate Vice-President of Health and Safety Eric Noivo – has issued one maximum fine and two additional fines from Week 1.
Winnipeg linebacker Jaiden Woodbey has received a maximum fine for delivering a high hit on Calgary quarterback Vernon Adams Jr.
Ottawa defensive back C.J. Reavis has been fined for delivering a high hit on a sliding quarterback, Edmonton's Cody Fajardo.
Edmonton linebacker Joel Dublanko has been fined for delivering a high hit on a sliding quarterback, Ottawa's Jake Maier.
Per CFL policy, the league does not announce:
Amounts of player fines
Discipline related to dress code violations
Discipline involving teams or staff
Discipline involving players who have been released
https://www.cfl.ca/2026/06/10/woodbey-receives-max-fine-reavis-dublanko-fined-for-actions-in-week-1/