Blue Bombers Forum
July 21, 2019, 06:31:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Medlock Punt  (Read 1344 times)
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« on: July 07, 2019, 06:29:57 AM »

after BC missed the field goal for the win tonight (how odd does that sound, lol), it got me thinking about last night when Medlock punted the ball and then ultimately recovered the ball for the Bombers.

I understand the rule that anybody lining up behind the ball on the kicking team is eligible to recover the kicked ball. so, in this case, Medlock is eligible to recover his own kick and is not required to stay outside of the normal 5 yard halo. so, it would all be pretty simple in the event that Medlock goes downfield and recovers the ball when a receiving team's return man isn't near the ball. But, the way the play went down, the close proximity to the ball for each player, it has me wondering a few things...

a. I assume for these instances, the ball is considered a 'live ball' for the receiving team and those players on the kicking team lined up behind the ball before kick. it's a 'live ball' in the sense that it would be considered no different than a fumbled ball in regards to Medlock and what he can do to recover it? because it looked to me that Lankford got to the ball first and actually touched it before Medlock, but since Lankford had yet to establish possession, though he had touched it, it is still considered a 'live ball' and Medlock can make a play to recover it. correct?

b. I think I already know the answer to this one but, if Medlock had failed to recover the ball he still would not be called for 'no yards' because he is eligible to recover ball. correct?

c. in the event that Lankford would have gained possession of the ball with Medlock inside of the 5 yard halo, could Medlock tackle Lankford without being called for 'no yards"?

If I had been Ottawa I would have challenged the call, I believe they had a challenge available at that time, on the grounds that Lankford actually got to the ball first, had his hand on the ball when Medlock hit the ball with his leg forcing it out of bounds, but, while Medlock did indeed hit the ball out of Lankford's hand, Lankford's hand was actually the last to touch the ball...

don't know if they would have been successful or not, and dang glad they didn't try it because you can never be sure how the command center will see events.... but seeing how that was the play that pretty much sunk Ottawa's chances to make a real comeback after we scored because they were only down 8 when it happened...


also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2019, 08:49:17 AM »

a. I assume for these instances, the ball is considered a 'live ball' for the receiving team and those players on the kicking team lined up behind the ball before kick. it's a 'live ball' in the sense that it would be considered no different than a fumbled ball in regards to Medlock and what he can do to recover it? because it looked to me that Lankford got to the ball first and actually touched it before Medlock, but since Lankford had yet to establish possession, though he had touched it, it is still considered a 'live ball' and Medlock can make a play to recover it. correct?

Good questions.  All this is why I love the CFL kick game.  You're never going to see crazy exciting stuff like that in NFL.  This might end up being the play of the year for me.

a. yes, live ball, and onsiders can recover, touching doesn't equal possession.  In fact, Lankford touching it first makes OTT's case harder because the instant he touched it it's live for offside players as well, and I do believe some esoteric rules might not apply.

b. I think I already know the answer to this one but, if Medlock had failed to recover the ball he still would not be called for 'no yards' because he is eligible to recover ball. correct?

b. yes.  Onside players don't count for no-yards.  Refs throw the flags but we'll rescind them once they confirm who was onside.

c. in the event that Lankford would have gained possession of the ball with Medlock inside of the 5 yard halo, could Medlock tackle Lankford without being called for 'no yards"?

c. yes.  Theoretically Medlock, instead of going for the ball, could have gone in to light up Lankford with a massive hit tackle.  A bit of a loophole in the "protect the returner with a halo" player safety rules.  And of course, only an insane kicker would risk his body in such a way.  (See Parades high-tail it out of the massive Purifoy return line of fire tonight? hehe.)

If I had been Ottawa I would have challenged the call, I believe they had a challenge available at that time, on the grounds that Lankford actually got to the ball first, had his hand on the ball when Medlock hit the ball with his leg forcing it out of bounds, but, while Medlock did indeed hit the ball out of Lankford's hand, Lankford's hand was actually the last to touch the ball...

Nope, I watched that play at length before they announced the result and I knew for a fact it was WPG ball because you can see definitively in some angles that Medlock's knee is the last to touch.  Trust me, Command would make sure they got that right.  Some of the angles make it tricky to see, but there's at least one where it is definitive.

As we've seen twice this weekend, challenging reviewed plays for what they reviewed already is just stupid.  If OTT thought there would have been a hope, they might have challenged, as there is no worse play in the world than that play there, that you'd like to have disappear.

The only possible hope OTT had is if booth guys were right and some esoteric "can't kick it" rule exists in the annals of the rulebook, and that a knee (which is what hit it) qualified as a kick.  Luckily neither was the case... I think.  If indeed he can't kick it but knees are allowed, then Medlock gets genius of the year award for knowing to slide knees first (which is very strange!) to avoid the penalty!!

also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...

BMO is messed up.  Shorter EZ.  Grass to turf in one EZ.  Benches on same side.  It's a disgrace, especially seeing as how it's the newest (or 2nd newest?) venue in the CFL.  (Yes, I know it was repurposed and does soccer also -- still no excuse.)
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2019, 07:00:20 PM »

thanks for the info!

they said on tv that a hit ball is consider a kicked ball when player hits the ball with a part of their leg BELOW the knee... the knee itself if consider ok...

I've since found info in the rule book in regards to punts and on side players, etc., didn't find it first time I looked... but I still say that Ottawa could have had a basis to challenge that play due the stating:

Article 2 ? Onside Player
The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

PENALTY: Ball awarded to receiving team at point of foul or at its 25-yard line, if the foul occurred in the receiving team's Goal Area. If the kicker or onside player and a Team B player simultaneously recover the ball, possession shall be awarded to the receiving team at the point the ball was touched.


If I were Ottawa I would have challenged on the grounds that Lankford was indeed attempting to recover the ball when Medlock kicked hit it...  again, it was a game changing play and I would have pulled out all stops if I was on the bad end of the play...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2019, 09:18:20 PM »

Medlock has an entitlement to the ball and every bit as much of an entitlement as Lankford. Interfering with the returner means physically impeding his pursuit of the ball. Medlock did not do that. Last to touch the ball in bounds = possession. That play was very clear.

As for end zones, it has always left me miffed that the CFL allows inconsistency in the dimensions of the end zones. Toronto has short end zones. Edmonton has curved "corners" at the back end of the end zones.

I'd have to do some research, but I believe that prior to the 1980s, end zones were 25 yards deep. BC Place was built tighter than that and could only accommodate 20 yard end zones, prompting a change across the league. I'll have to check on that though.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2019, 09:19:40 PM »

Quick research from Wikipedia:

The end zones were previously 25 yards, with Vancouver's BC Place the first to use the 20 yard-long end zone in 1983, and since 2016, the home of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, BMO Field, utilizes an 18-yard-long end zone.[3] Including the end zones, the American field is about 34% smaller than the Canadian field (87,750 square feet (8,152 m2) for the Canadian field vs 57,600 square feet (5,350 m2) for the American field), but the Canadian field occasionally will have its end zone truncated at the corners so that the field fits in the infield of a running track. The only example in the CFL is the Percival Molson Memorial Stadium, home of the Montreal Alouettes.

I believe that Commonwealth also has truncated end zones.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2019, 09:22:50 PM »

Quick research from Wikipedia:

The end zones were previously 25 yards, with Vancouver's BC Place the first to use the 20 yard-long end zone in 1983, and since 2016, the home of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, BMO Field, utilizes an 18-yard-long end zone.[3] Including the end zones, the American field is about 34% smaller than the Canadian field (87,750 square feet (8,152 m2) for the Canadian field vs 57,600 square feet (5,350 m2) for the American field), but the Canadian field occasionally will have its end zone truncated at the corners so that the field fits in the infield of a running track. The only example in the CFL is the Percival Molson Memorial Stadium, home of the Montreal Alouettes.

I believe that Commonwealth also has truncated end zones.

I was wrong. Those have been standardized now.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2019, 09:54:15 PM »

Medlock has an entitlement to the ball and every bit as much of an entitlement as Lankford. Interfering with the returner means physically impeding his pursuit of the ball. Medlock did not do that. Last to touch the ball in bounds = possession. That play was very clear.

As for end zones, it has always left me miffed that the CFL allows inconsistency in the dimensions of the end zones. Toronto has short end zones. Edmonton has curved "corners" at the back end of the end zones.

I'd have to do some research, but I believe that prior to the 1980s, end zones were 25 yards deep. BC Place was built tighter than that and could only accommodate 20 yard end zones, prompting a change across the league. I'll have to check on that though.

I'm not suggesting they, Ottawa, would or should win a challenge, more along the lines that it's not a play you see routinely in a game or maybe in a season... I don't know, as I don't recall ever seeing it happen before, but either I missed a game that it happened in last year, or just don't recall....

but, it does you a chance for someone to review and then make a decision based upon their determination of the intent of the language... like I said, no don't know that they would win, most likely not, but on a play that significant... I have to have someone tell me for sure that I had to give the ball back... that's all...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2019, 09:59:15 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
blue newt
Full Member
***
Posts: 214



« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2019, 10:08:36 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?

Pretty sure you need to be behind the ball until it is kicked.  At least, when I see it happen in game, none of the onside players are running past the ball on the snap; they always wait until the kick to run by. 
Logged
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2019, 10:12:38 PM »

it also got me to thinking and I looked through the rule book but couldn't find an answer to my question...

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?

Must be onside at the time of a kick.

Kickoffs = all players
FG = Kicker and holder
Punt = punter

Teams have sometimes put a speedster onside for a special punt play. Every now and again the punter gets close, but it is very rare that the punter recovers (or pushes the ball out of bounds).

The Medlock play was the perfect storm. A bouncing punt that bounced laterally towards the sideline, and happening near the goal line. I suspect Lankford was hoping for the ball to turn into the end zone. He was pinned and was going to give his team bad field position, unless the ball went into the end zone. The ball bounced high and slowly, allowing Medlock the time to get to the ball. Being close to the sideline gave Medlock the chance to push the ball out of bounds without having to try to actually recover the ball. It all came together.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2019, 10:17:03 PM »

Pretty sure you need to be behind the ball until it is kicked.  At least, when I see it happen in game, none of the onside players are running past the ball on the snap; they always wait until the kick to run by. 

thx... I was thinking about the times you are just barely outside field goal range and have to punt... we may have 1 or 2 guys fast enough that with enough 'hang time' they could be a factor...  I have to admit, I haven't really paid that much attention to punt formation as I recall knowing that this type of play was actually possible...

when the play was happening live I was like 'Medlock, what the heck are you doing?', figured I had missed something that happened, not that it was fair game for him to recover... lol...

needless to say, I'll be watching for things such as this moving forward...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
gobombersgo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3133



« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2019, 10:18:53 PM »


also, tonight I learned something else new... I had no idea that BMO field end zones were each 2 yards shorter, or 18 yards long, instead of the standard 20 yard length...

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.
Logged

66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2019, 10:21:58 PM »

Must be onside at the time of a kick.

Kickoffs = all players
FG = Kicker and holder
Punt = punter

Teams have sometimes put a speedster onside for a special punt play. Every now and again the punter gets close, but it is very rare that the punter recovers (or pushes the ball out of bounds).

The Medlock play was the perfect storm. A bouncing punt that bounced laterally towards the sideline, and happening near the goal line. I suspect Lankford was hoping for the ball to turn into the end zone. He was pinned and was going to give his team bad field position, unless the ball went into the end zone. The ball bounced high and slowly, allowing Medlock the time to get to the ball. Being close to the sideline gave Medlock the chance to push the ball out of bounds without having to try to actually recover the ball. It all came together.

and you could tell that Lankford was watching and thinking, more like wishing, that it was going to roll back into the end zone... then he realizes that Medlock is making a bee line for the ball and he freaks, lol...

with Lankford being an ex Bomber, I kind of felt bad for him... granted, not bad enough to have given him the ball back, but just bad for him, lol...  as a Bomber fan, I was more than a little excited that Medlock was on his game and recognized the opportunity to make a play and in a position to follow through!!!

very exciting as well as pivotal in securing a Bomber win... gotta love it!   oh, and thx for the info...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2019, 10:26:02 PM »

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.

I wasn't paying that close attention honestly as I was actually listening to it more than watching it... I was doing other things on my computer while the game was on...  I thought that I had notice this type of thing before but it may have been a different sport though, not for sure...

but that doesn't surprise me, and in fact it makes a lot of sense... the ability to add graphics such as this is fairly easy to do, I would assume, and can be very convincing to the viewer...  not to mention, easily 'removed' if sponsors change and no actual on field maintenance required...  cost effective if nothing else...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2019, 10:27:58 PM »

Did you also notice that the ads on the BMO field that viewers see on TV are superimposed. There are actually no ads on the field.

Ads and Argos logo are all computer-generated for TV. BC Place is the same. Replays don't have the ads or logos either.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2019, 10:29:59 PM »

I wasn't paying that close attention honestly as I was actually listening to it more than watching it... I was doing other things on my computer while the game was on...  I thought that I had notice this type of thing before but it may have been a different sport though, not for sure...

but that doesn't surprise me, and in fact it makes a lot of sense... the ability to add graphics such as this is fairly easy to do, I would assume, and can be very convincing to the viewer...  not to mention, easily 'removed' if sponsors change and no actual on field maintenance required...  cost effective if nothing else...

And if your TV audience is where the real revenue is generated, it makes even more sense. When I was at BC Place a couple of years ago, it looked a bit strange to see a blank field.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
blue newt
Full Member
***
Posts: 214



« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2019, 10:34:58 PM »

thx... I was thinking about the times you are just barely outside field goal range and have to punt... we may have 1 or 2 guys fast enough that with enough 'hang time' they could be a factor...  I have to admit, I haven't really paid that much attention to punt formation as I recall knowing that this type of play was actually possible...

when the play was happening live I was like 'Medlock, what the heck are you doing?', figured I had missed something that happened, not that it was fair game for him to recover... lol...

needless to say, I'll be watching for things such as this moving forward...

Haha...when I was watching live, it was similar to watching a fairly predictable movie that has a sudden unexpected twist ending...

Me: Hmmm.  Decent punt there.  Looks like Lankford will wait for it to bounce or get stuck in bad field position.  Nothing to see here.  Maybe I'll go get another snack.
Me 2 seconds later:  Holy crap!  What is going on?  Is that Medlock?  Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

I may have even leaped up from my seat and starting screaming in joy at my tv.  There was some happy dancing for sure.


Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2019, 11:08:36 PM »

And if your TV audience is where the real revenue is generated, it makes even more sense. When I was at BC Place a couple of years ago, it looked a bit strange to see a blank field.

it makes so much sense... especially when you start applying things like, up charging for 4th quarter ad placement as that is a time when fans will try to catch the game if unable to watch from the start... you can also allow the same sponsor to modify his message through out the game as well, if you choose to... or sell space by the quarter to a business that may not have the budget for the entire game...

hopefully it will remain tasteful and not distracting to the actual game by some who may have to much 'going on' on the field in an attempt to maximize revenue opportunities...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
pjrocksmb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7790


This is the CFL- support our league- Go Canada!


« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2019, 01:11:51 AM »

and you could tell that Lankford was watching and thinking, more like wishing, that it was going to roll back into the end zone... then he realizes that Medlock is making a bee line for the ball and he freaks, lol...

with Lankford being an ex Bomber, I kind of felt bad for him... granted, not bad enough to have given him the ball back, but just bad for him, lol...  as a Bomber fan, I was more than a little excited that Medlock was on his game and recognized the opportunity to make a play and in a position to follow through!!!

very exciting as well as pivotal in securing a Bomber win... gotta love it!   oh, and thx for the info...

Lankford screwed up big time there. 
Logged

I don't watch the No Fun League b/c I live in Canada and love the CFL
dd
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7404


« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2019, 01:37:42 AM »

Ya he learnt the hard way, you don?t leave the ball laying in the ground by your goal line when it?s not going to roll either into the end zone or out of bounds. Ottawa has some life and momentum there and poof it was gone in a gaff!!
Logged
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2019, 01:43:36 AM »

it makes so much sense... especially when you start applying things like, up charging for 4th quarter ad placement as that is a time when fans will try to catch the game if unable to watch from the start... you can also allow the same sponsor to modify his message through out the game as well, if you choose to... or sell space by the quarter to a business that may not have the budget for the entire game...

hopefully it will remain tasteful and not distracting to the actual game by some who may have to much 'going on' on the field in an attempt to maximize revenue opportunities...

The digitally superimposed TV ads are positioned in the same sports as the painted ads in the stadium. Hopefully that remains so.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Blue In Edmonton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1785



« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2019, 01:45:48 AM »

Ya he learnt the hard way, you don?t leave the ball laying in the ground by your goal line when it?s not going to roll either into the end zone or out of bounds. Ottawa has some life and momentum there and poof it was gone in a gaff!!

He took a big risk hoping that the ball would go into the end zone and they could trade a point for field position. Blew up big time.

This is why you should always try to catch a kick in the air. Can draw a 15-yard penalty or advance the ball with momentum. Multiple bounces on a punt create opportunities for bad things to happen for the returner.
Logged

Posting Live From Home

If we score more points than them, we will probably win.
Stats Junkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1393


Unofficial Blue Bombers Historian


« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2019, 02:32:22 AM »

1. Good job on the Bombers cover team to remain outside the 5 yard halo. Medlock is exempt from a No Yards penalty but other cover team members could have been charged with No Yards because Lankford was the first to make contact with the football.

2. Although BMO Field does have shorter end zones than standard, the CFL refuses to acknowledge it. The CFL has been giving kickers credit for a 20 yard end zone since the Argos moved to BMO Field.
148  4  BC-2-11-T35  (00:03) S. CASTILLO Field Goal Attempt (42 yds), Missed (Wide Left, kicked 55 yds), Ball Out of Bounds, Single
Castillo got credit for a 55 yard kick - 35 yards from LOS to goal line + 20 yards for the end zone.

3. BC Place was built to accomodate a 25 yard end zone but the architect failed to add a buffer zone. By the time the error was discovered it was too late to rectify.
Logged

@Stats_Junkie
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2019, 03:17:11 AM »

and I'll add a #4 to your list...

4) that even after uncharacteristically missing not 1 but 2 field goals earlier in the game, Medlock kept his head in the game and had himself in a place to take advantage of game situation that gave the Bombers possession of the ball on the opponents 3 yard line. Medlock used a combination of game smarts, situational awareness, and physical skill to recognize and execute as needed to put the team in a position to swing the game back in our favor!

not much more you could ask from a player...
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Lincoln Locomotive
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2593



« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2019, 04:05:11 AM »

and I'll add a #4 to your list...

4) that even after uncharacteristically missing not 1 but 2 field goals earlier in the game, Medlock kept his head in the game and had himself in a place to take advantage of game situation that gave the Bombers possession of the ball on the opponents 3 yard line. Medlock used a combination of game smarts, situational awareness, and physical skill to recognize and execute as needed to put the team in a position to swing the game back in our favor!

not much more you could ask from a player...
Medlock is money as far as his complete package as he can position the ball so well on punts and KOs.   He's got quite a few tricks in his bag and his heads really in the game for him to take advantage of that play.   That was the old ball game right there and you don't normally expect that out of your kicker but Medlock is an exceptionally multifaceted player.    I'm glad we signed him!!
Logged

" Leo Lewis was the best player I ever coached, on either side of the border"!

Bud Grant, when asked who was the best player he ever coached
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2019, 05:39:56 AM »

they said on tv that a hit ball is consider a kicked ball when player hits the ball with a part of their leg BELOW the knee... the knee itself if consider ok...

Then Medlock deserves extra kudos for knowing his sections of the rulebook.  Wonder if that was him on his own time or MOS teaching it to him?  Either way... smart play == wins.

Article 2 ? Onside Player
The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

BiE is right.  "Interfere" would be like holding the other guy when he wants to dive for the ball.  We've seen some loose-ball interference (usually on fumbles or bad snaps) called in the last 2 years, at least once or twice.  But a lot of it goes unnoticed because the situations are chaotic and refs get flustered too.

If I were Ottawa I would have challenged on the grounds that Lankford was indeed attempting to recover the ball when Medlock kicked hit it...  again, it was a game changing play and I would have pulled out all stops if I was on the bad end of the play...

I don't know.  I bet Command is looking right at the rulebook sections when they do their auto-review.  I don't recall a challenge of the reviewed aspect of reviewed play ever being successful.  It just makes the coach look stupid and blows your challenge.  To win the challenge you'd have to come up with some other aspect, like earlier PI, or RTP, or something.

I'm not suggesting they, Ottawa, would or should win a challenge, more along the lines that it's not a play you see routinely in a game or maybe in a season... I don't know, as I don't recall ever seeing it happen before, but either I missed a game that it happened in last year, or just don't recall....

No, I don't recall a precise situation like this ever happening, at least not in the last 10 years.  This is an incredibly rare play.  I think when it has happened, the onside players recover the ball (i.e. gain possession).  I don't think anyone has ever had the wherewithal to just knock it OOB like Medlock (the far easier play)!

What you may have here is all the CFL kickers watching that and now we'll start seeing every kicker sprinting downfield all the time hoping for a good bounce and a sleep returner!

in order to be considered 'on side' and eligible to recover a punt the rule says you must line up behind the ball, does it also require you to stay behind the ball until such time as it is actually kicked or could you release at the snap and still be considered eligible to recover the ball, and or tackle the receiver within the 5 yard halo?

Find the section that defines "on side", that will answer your question.  Like already said, for kicks it's who is behind the ball, not the snap/LOS.  And you have to stay behind until it's kicked.

thx... I was thinking about the times you are just barely outside field goal range and have to punt... we may have 1 or 2 guys fast enough that with enough 'hang time' they could be a factor...  I have to admit, I haven't really paid that much attention to punt formation as I recall knowing that this type of play was actually possible...

We see teams put a couple of fast hands guys behind the kicker at least 1-2 times a year.  I remember some last year.  Usually they are still miles away from the ball when it is caught.  But if you had massive hang time... could be just like an onside kick.  Not going to work very often.

when the play was happening live I was like 'Medlock, what the heck are you doing?', figured I had missed something that happened, not that it was fair game for him to recover... lol...

needless to say, I'll be watching for things such as this moving forward...

Told you the CFL kick game was far superior to down south!  It's loads of fun!  We'll make a kick game fan out of you yet!!

Me 2 seconds later:  Holy crap!  What is going on?  Is that Medlock?  Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

I may have even leaped up from my seat and starting screaming in joy at my tv.  There was some happy dancing for sure.

Oh you better believe I was going mental over here when Meddy kneed that ball and the replay showed the knee touched it after the hand.  I knew it instantly it was WPG ball, and I was screaming it at the refs.  Thankfully I was watching on my computer, far away from where the baby was sleeping, or I'd be in a whole heap of trouble.

The funny thing was, I was already cheering that Meddy back-spun it to pin them behind the 5 -- an incredible feat by itself.  Then he comes in for the steal?  Incredible.

Best play of the year contender, definitely loads of fun, and should remind any CFL fan why they love this game.

1. Good job on the Bombers cover team to remain outside the 5 yard halo. Medlock is exempt from a No Yards penalty but other cover team members could have been charged with No Yards because Lankford was the first to make contact with the football.

That is a super point Junkie... one I didn't give much thought to.  I'll have to go back and check if the halo was totally respected or if Command/refs allowed a bit of fudge factor (they often allow players within 4+ yards).  Any Bomber within 4-5 could have ruined the whole play.  The ST coach and all the ST guys get major credit on that play.

I want that play on the end of year top-50 CFL plays reel!!
Logged
BLUEBOMBER
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5154



« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2019, 06:47:02 AM »

It was sad seeing all those empty seats.. I wonder if the CFL will still get a good deal with TSN when their contracts end.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2019, 06:53:11 AM »

Oh ya, see MOS's grin after that play?  Most fun he's had all year, and reminded him how much he loves the game.  Priceless.  He'll be gushing about that play on Monday @7pm you can bet.
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #28 on: July 08, 2019, 06:48:21 PM »


2. Although BMO Field does have shorter end zones than standard, the CFL refuses to acknowledge it. The CFL has been giving kickers credit for a 20 yard end zone since the Argos moved to BMO Field.
148  4  BC-2-11-T35  (00:03) S. CASTILLO Field Goal Attempt (42 yds), Missed (Wide Left, kicked 55 yds), Ball Out of Bounds, Single
Castillo got credit for a 55 yard kick - 35 yards from LOS to goal line + 20 yards for the end zone.

So, if Toronto had not been playing at home against BC, Rainey would have caught the missed field goal in bounds and the Lions would have had to try and win in OT?  Jeez, talk about not being able to catch a break.
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #29 on: July 08, 2019, 06:58:22 PM »


What you may have here is all the CFL kickers watching that and now we'll start seeing every kicker sprinting downfield all the time hoping for a good bounce and a sleep returner!


No, you won't.  No team is going to want their kicker (especially those that do double duty) motoring down field for a contact play.  Most teams don't even want their kickers to tackle on ST returns, because far too many have been injured making tackles, something which they don't specifically practice for nor are their pads setup for.

It was a slow developing, heads up play by Medlock, and while I'm sure that MOS has a green light play for that exact scenario, however, I doubt he wants to see it happen again.

If Lankford had slid headfirst at the same time Meddy takes the slide, there's a good chance he bangs up his kicking knee (he's a lefty, correct?).

Bombers would be better off with a design play with a dedicated on side cover guy on any punt where there is a two returner set for the opposition.  Doesn't compromise the blocking scheme, allows the on side guy to be the second last line of defence, and protects Medlock if the punt rolls out the way it did here.  That, and it would likely be harder for the opposition to identify the onside guy within the kick team; it's pretty easy to ID Medlock.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6399



« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2019, 07:10:07 PM »

So, if Toronto had not been playing at home against BC, Rainey would have caught the missed field goal in bounds and the Lions would have had to try and win in OT?  Jeez, talk about not being able to catch a break.

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2019, 07:16:05 PM »

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?


Rainey caught it with one foot on the line, so two more yards (standard field size) and he's in bounds on the catch.  He doesn't have to return it out, he can also kick it out, in which case BC would have to try and field the ball and score (either punt it through or run it in).  Not saying Rainey's a punter by any stretch, but he'd likely have at least a 10 yard run up before he'd have to kick it.  Granted, in that scenario, you'd normally put your punter in the end zone for the kick, which Chamblin didn't do, in fact, he had no one back there until after the penalty on the first kick.
Logged
Throw Long Bannatyne
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6399



« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2019, 08:03:04 PM »


Rainey caught it with one foot on the line, so two more yards (standard field size) and he's in bounds on the catch.  He doesn't have to return it out, he can also kick it out, in which case BC would have to try and field the ball and score (either punt it through or run it in).  Not saying Rainey's a punter by any stretch, but he'd likely have at least a 10 yard run up before he'd have to kick it.  Granted, in that scenario, you'd normally put your punter in the end zone for the kick, which Chamblin didn't do, in fact, he had no one back there until after the penalty on the first kick.


I'd be very surprised if Chamblin survives the year, the Argos have a lot of decent players but coaching blunders cost them the game.
Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2019, 08:20:33 PM »

I'd be very surprised if Chamblin survives the year, the Argos have a lot of decent players but coaching blunders cost them the game.

Chamblin on Mic'd up against SSK was painful to watch.  Not sure if him knew less about the rules of football than the 20 something ref he was talking to or not.
Logged
66 Chevelle
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3680


« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2019, 01:40:25 AM »

Not necessarily, Rainey would still have to return the ball out of the endzone from 20 yds. deep with an entire team bearing down on him.  It could happen but odds are he doesn't quite make it.  If Castillo's kick clears the endzone without being touched he still gets 1 pt. correct?

to answer your question, yes, if his kick sails thru the end zone, not hitting in bounds or a player first, you are still awarded a point... so, if you were to be close enough to attempt a field goal, say from the 10 yd line, and you miss wide, yet have kicked it hard enough that it actually lands out of play, you still get 1 pt...

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/scoring/definitions/
Logged

just because you can doesn't mean you should...
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2019, 05:27:55 AM »

to answer your question, yes, if his kick sails thru the end zone, not hitting in bounds or a player first, you are still awarded a point... so, if you were to be close enough to attempt a field goal, say from the 10 yd line, and you miss wide, yet have kicked it hard enough that it actually lands out of play, you still get 1 pt...

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.
Logged
DM83
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6708


« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2019, 06:40:15 AM »

Laziness, ignorance and age account for my next statement.  Back in the day, at least when I played I was under the impression if the ball was not batted out with the hand intentionally, I believe it didn't go to the guy who didn't  do it.

Specifically using the lower body to force the ball,out( kicking) would still be a change of possession, a la Medlock kicked it out.

Medlock IMO definitely made a kicking motion.

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

My closeup of what happened wasn't really close enough to see what happened.  I don't think bombers should have got the ball though.  Really a once in a lifetime play
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2019, 06:51:46 AM »

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

Lankford 100% touched that ball.  In the end I don't think it mattered at all though.  If him touching it had any effect it would be to "forgive" the "kick" by Medlock and keep the WPG recovery legal.  However, I think 66(?) definitively proved knees are ok(?).

In any event, I'm not sure any kicker "makes a kicking motion" with their ankle on their butt and the ball contacting their knee!!!

I'm sure command looked up all the relevant rules before ruining everyone in OTT's night.  And if they hadn't, Campbell would have been raising a stink all week.  Since he's been silent, I'd expect everyone has decided it's legit.
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2019, 11:12:35 AM »

Laziness, ignorance and age account for my next statement.  Back in the day, at least when I played I was under the impression if the ball was not batted out with the hand intentionally, I believe it didn't go to the guy who didn't  do it.

Specifically using the lower body to force the ball,out( kicking) would still be a change of possession, a la Medlock kicked it out.

Medlock IMO definitely made a kicking motion.

My third guess is that Lankford tried to field the ball and dribbled hit and it hit Medlock's knee? And went out, therefore we touched it last and we're awarded possession.

My closeup of what happened wasn't really close enough to see what happened.  I don't think bombers should have got the ball though.  Really a once in a lifetime play

It's not hockey. Kicking motion has nothing to do with it. Any ball contact below the knee is considered a kick, any ball contact above the knee is considered contact for possession.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2019, 11:14:11 AM »

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.


I have seen many, many games where teams have tried to punt through the end zone for the rouge. Surprisingly, it is not as successful as one would think.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2019, 08:30:23 AM »

It's not hockey. Kicking motion has nothing to do with it. Any ball contact below the knee is considered a kick, any ball contact above the knee is considered contact for possession.

OK... but you didn't give us the critical bit: what happens with contact ON THE KNEE?  (Slight jape.  Wink )

But it was precisely Medlock's knee that contacted the ball... so what then?
Logged
GCn18
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23404


« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2019, 11:23:18 AM »

OK... but you didn't give us the critical bit: what happens with contact ON THE KNEE?  (Slight jape.  Wink )

But it was precisely Medlock's knee that contacted the ball... so what then?


Rule actually says below the knee.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
Stats Junkie
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1393


Unofficial Blue Bombers Historian


« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2019, 01:46:24 PM »

Article 1 ? Kicked Ball
A kicked ball is one struck by a player?s foot or leg below the knee.

NOTE: If the ball accidentally strikes a player?s leg or foot, it shall not be ruled as a kicked ball.


It appeared as though Medlock was sliding in effort to make the recovery. The ball (after touching Lankford) accidentally bounced off Medlock's leg and out of bounds.
Logged

@Stats_Junkie
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 22846


« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2019, 01:57:49 PM »

Yes, all the NATs on this form knew that  Cheesy Cheesy   But I can understand how the wacky rouge can seem alien to an IMP   Cheesy Cheesy

That's why in those situations the kicker not only should try the field goal, but put as much air/leg on it as they can so it is unreturnable out the back of the EZ.

Even more bizarre, you can just go for the single, not even bother trying to aim at the uprights.  But then you have to ensure you kick it hard enough it lands in the bleachers.  Or go for the single but aim for the corner where the returner can't reach in time before it rolls out (the side of the EZ!!!).

I don't recall (older guys can help me out), has any team ever gone for a single from like 60+ yards back for the walk-off win before?  What's the absolute farthest the biggest-leg kicker can kick?  80 yards?  You need to account for the 20y EZ and maybe 5 more yds to ensure the returner can't jump for a catch.  Or aim for a corner and get a good roll.


Yes I'm sure that has happened. Keeping in mind that the ball doesn't have to go out the back of the end zone which is the longer distance. If the kicker can angle it out the side of the end zone than it's a point.

It's a risk assessment. Chances of making a 55 + yard FG or kicking for the single. Neither usually have best odds but both have happened.

Wind assist certainly helps the odds for distance but could hurt accuracy.

Bomber Charlie Shepard had a 91 yard punt once. Obviously this wasn't a choice between a long FG or single but the CFL has seen many punts 60+ yards.

OTOH I remember a game during the Poplawski era where wind was a big problem. Our punter was either injured or kicking from FG formation was " better " than actually punting.

So we ended up doing all kicks from FG formation. It was hilarious to see FG formation from your own 35 yard line ( example only ). It's the same logic of actually kicking the long single from FG formation. Accuracy tends to be a little better than punting.

So as mentioned teams will line up in FG formation and just kick to the sideline in the end zone.

Logged

No more excuses.
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2617


« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2019, 02:38:38 PM »

This has been informative. So to recap the kicking rules everyone has contributed: in order to be considered a kick, the ball contact must meet two criteria.

1) below the knee
2) not accidental

Medlock's contact didn't meet either of those criteria. For #1 it was pretty clearly on the knee or just above. For #2, he was sliding to recover the ball, Lankford touched the ball first, resulting in a bounce in close quarters, immediately after which the ball hit Medlock. It would be very tough to argue any contact to his lower leg was purposeful. How could you possibly show that he wasn't aiming to hit it on a different part of his leg, or trying to recover it with your hands and/or body, and the bounce directed it into his lower leg instead? There's no way.

But even if you successfully challenged one of those points, you'd still also have to successfully challenge the other one too. So a challenge would have a 100% chance of failure.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 02:54:49 PM by jeremy q public » Logged
BlueInCgy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1080


« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2019, 02:43:44 PM »

This thread makes me think the term "football" is entirely ironic, as kicking the ball is a penalty in all but three situations.
Logged
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6890



« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2019, 02:52:28 PM »

This thread makes me think the term "football" is entirely ironic, as kicking the ball is a penalty in all but three situations.

I was thinking the same thing  Cheesy
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #47 on: July 12, 2019, 05:55:21 AM »

This thread makes me think the term "football" is entirely ironic, as kicking the ball is a penalty in all but three situations.

Agh, don't get that started, as other places I read sometimes have "it should be called handball" comments  Roll Eyes Wink Roll Eyes Tongue

And the fact it's not even a "ball" (i.e. round).

One of those things we'll just have to accept... kind of like the rouge!  Maybe naming any sport after a body part is a bad idea.  Like whoever names it first gets dibbs on it?  After all, there already is a "handball" and it's nothing like football!

Maybe "Gridball" would have been a better choice?
Logged
DM83
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6708


« Reply #48 on: July 12, 2019, 06:02:51 AM »

Stats junkie excellent clarification.  That's what I saw happen.  Your key point that I forgot to mention was the deliberate  kicking motion.  I agree Medlock looked like he was trying to stick his leg in there. Imt was unclear he did or did not touch it.  I do also could also believe thatnitnapoearedmthe ball was knocked off Medlock's. leg and went out of bounds..

I am sure we have this right!
Logged
jeremy q public
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2617


« Reply #49 on: July 13, 2019, 04:00:22 PM »

Stats junkie excellent clarification.  That's what I saw happen.  Your key point that I forgot to mention was the deliberate  kicking motion.  I agree Medlock looked like he was trying to stick his leg in there. Imt was unclear he did or did not touch it.  I do also could also believe thatnitnapoearedmthe ball was knocked off Medlock's. leg and went out of bounds..

I am sure we have this right!

This is confusing. Do you still believe the bombers should not have gotten the ball? Cause if so you?re disagreeing with Stats Junkie, not agreeing, even though you seem to be agreeing with him.
Logged
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2856


« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2019, 10:29:39 AM »

This is confusing. Do you still believe the bombers should not have gotten the ball? Cause if so you?re disagreeing with Stats Junkie, not agreeing, even though you seem to be agreeing with him.

DM83's auto-correct is always on the fritz.  I'm pretty sure in this case we are, for once, all in complete agreement.  That was WPG ball, and deservedly so.

That play makes top-50 plays of the year or I'll be steamin' mad!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!