"Mugging" DPI

[TecnoGenius]

The DPI on our D on the play before the failed 60Y kick is very interesting.  There are some things command may have failed to notice.

I'll start with one important one:

The "mugging" contact occurred before the ball left Trevor's hand, and before the ball passed the LoS.  In fact, quite a bit before: like 1 to 2 seconds, clearly visible on the all-24 replay.

I'm pretty sure this has implications on how this play should have been officiated.  I'll post on that next.

It also means that Trevor was waiting to see the mugging succeeded (a falling WPG player) before throwing to that target!  That possibly proves that this is a planned mugging by the OC, O, QB and R.

It would be one thing if a rogue R does a mugging while the ball is already in the air, but I'm not sure I've seen it so highly coordinated before, where the QB throws to the successful mugging spot on purpose!

And for us X's and O's fans, check out the O scheme: what on earth was the desired play?  I'm not sure there's an actual read there.  2 Rs 3Y apart when he throws?  What is Trevor aiming at?  There would be 2 DBs following the mugger if he had gone deep.  Probably 2 guys on that other R right there.  There is no play or read there!  Trevor throwing it to the mugging spot makes no sense.  But I'm open to ideas if you can tell me what a possible legit play would have been there.

[TecnoGenius]

Rule implications from Trevor thrwoing the ball after the contact/DPI are:

Rule 6
Article 9 - Illegal Interference - Blocking Downfield
Prior to a pass being thrown across the line of scrimmage, it is illegal for a Team A player to initiate a block with a Team B player more than 1 yard across the line of scrimmage before the pass is deemed complete.

To me that could apply, because in my mind Team A initiated the contact.  But therein lies the rub, eh?

Because then we have:

Article 10 - Illegal Contact on a Receiver
Prior to a forward pass being thrown, a team B player may not: (a) Beyond the 5-yard zone, create or initiate contact that redirects, restricts, or impedes the Team A receiver in any way.

So you could also say IC instead of II... it all boils down to who you blame for the contact.  Was our guy trying to impede?  Or was the SSK player trying to mug?

Strangely, I can't find any DPI rule (of which theere are many subsections) that speaks to the ball already being in the air or across the LoS.  I also can't find any rule that speaks to what TSN always says about "IC being upgrade to DPI if the ball is thrown there".

If anyone can speak to whether the ball being already-thrown or not affects the called penalty, please let me know.  It feels like it should, but maybe it doesn't.

It may just be a case of the refs having to pick someone to blame for the contact, and the D will usually be the favorites in that race.  Kind of like DPI/OPI toss ups.

[TecnoGenius]

Serious question: what can the DB do in these cases to make sure they won't get flagged for a mugging?  (While still doing their job hopefully!)

If a R really wants to run into you, isn't he going to succeed?

[gobombersgo]

All I know is that the coaches and players were all pointing as the flag pretty quickly.

[TecnoGenius]

And who is our guy who go the DPI flag?

Gametracker is WRONG (@Stats Junkie!) saying it's Holm who DPId... he didn't because the DPI guy was still on the turf after being mugged!  I see a 3 to start his number, but that could be a lot of different LBers or DBers of ours, and who knows who we'd have in on a prevent passing down set.

It seems clear the guy who got called for DPI was tasked with and trying to just let the go route guy whiz by him!  He had no advantage to try to jam him: there were 2 DBs directly behind him to protect the seam go route.

It's not like the DPI guy got beat and had no deep help and panicked!  Total mugging IMHO.

[TecnoGenius]

All I know is that the coaches and players were all pointing as the flag pretty quickly.

Yes!  The mugger was doing the old "throw a flag" signal (thought that was objectional conduct?) right after he let go of our guy on the turf, right as the ball is flying by!  Who does that!  Like he was counting on the flag instead of making an actual reception.

[ichabod_crane]

As usual there was a few weak calls that had little impact on the play. Even Kenny's PI that he got was weak and the official was RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT who threw the flag!  Will take it anyway as in the end that TD was desperately needed to get the win!

Yeah, those last few seconds of the game it was like they wanted to hand the game to the Cryders. I would have felt so ripped off like the prior Sask game if they pulled that game out. I still think that prior Sask game was one of the WORST EVER officiated games I have ever watched in the CFL over my 44 years of following the league closely. I have mentioned some very bad calls in the 80's for a few teams in the western final and 1981 GC, but outright phantom calls! Not one, but at least two or more! GIVE ME A BREAK! I WANT EYE TESTS for all officials after that joke of an officiated game.

[TecnoGenius]

As usual there was a few weak calls that had little impact on the play. Even Kenny's PI that he got was weak and the official was RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT who threw the flag!  Will take it anyway as in the end that TD was desperately needed to get the win!

Kenny DPI was 100% legit.  TSN showed like 4 angles at first that showed nothing, then the very last angle they showed you could see Kenny's arm being held way down on his body early, directly impacting his ability to catch the ball.  Seriously, go find that last replay (maybe after the TD?).

Even Riderfans admitting it was DPI... if/after they saw that one replay.  I'll bet dollars to donuts they didn't show the "good" angle on the jumbotron, eh?

There's a reason Mace didn't challenge.  If he had, even under 2023 command rules, it would have not been overturned.

[TBURGESS]

Kenny DPI was 100% legit.  TSN showed like 4 angles at first that showed nothing, then the very last angle they showed you could see Kenny's arm being held way down on his body early, directly impacting his ability to catch the ball.  Seriously, go find that last replay (maybe after the TD?).

Even Riderfans admitting it was DPI... if/after they saw that one replay.  I'll bet dollars to donuts they didn't show the "good" angle on the jumbotron, eh?

There's a reason Mace didn't challenge.  If he had, even under 2023 command rules, it would have not been overturned.

Thanks Techno... I was going to ask you to find it.

[bomb squad]

The contact/interference aspect of the call was ok on the field. The defender could have tried to avoid the contact, he didn't. That's the way that one is usually called. As for IC or DPI on the field: when it's close like that in real time, they'll go with DPI.

They got the spot correct.

On a slowmo replay review, call should be downgraded to IC. No challenge available however.

Fortunately, the spot of the foul was out of range for a field goal. In hindsight, Mace should have gone Hail Mary/Get another DPI.

[RebusRankin]

On that DPI, the Riders were running the play Dickenson and the Stamps used to run. Have the WR run into the DB and make contact and challenge if the flag isn't thrown. They had no intention of trying to make a play imo.

[TecnoGenius]

On a slowmo replay review, call should be downgraded to IC. No challenge available however.

What's your reasoning there?  I'm curious.

Fortunately, the spot of the foul was out of range for a field goal. In hindsight, Mace should have gone Hail Mary/Get another DPI.

Ya, pre-kick the holder was looking at Lauther and grinning goofily like they both knew 100% for sure no way they are making that kick.  Lauther can't do 60Y ever, let alone into a wind that fans have reported was strong at that time.

[TecnoGenius]

The contact/interference aspect of the call was ok on the field. The defender could have tried to avoid the contact, he didn't.

So how does the defender do that?  What if he thinks the R is going left and he dodges but the R then jinks right on purpose?

On this play the IC D guy may have been paying more attention to the outside R, and not enough attention to the inside R who mugged him.

After the play someone is returning to the huddle and Trevor gives him a hidden lowered high-five, like "good job on the DPI, just like we drew it up".

[TecnoGenius]

On that DPI, the Riders were running the play Dickenson and the Stamps used to run. Have the WR run into the DB and make contact and challenge if the flag isn't thrown. They had no intention of trying to make a play imo.

Ya, I see no real play there.  Trevor threw too short to be the seam go-route.  So it was ostensibly to be the outside R crossing back in, but our D guy who got knocked down would have been all over him if he hadn't been mugged.

I'd really love to hear what (D whiz) MOS would coach this guy on what to do next time.  Can someone call the question into the Coach's show (which is probably Tues this week?).

[Slingin Sammy]

On that DPI, the Riders were running the play Dickenson and the Stamps used to run. Have the WR run into the DB and make contact and challenge if the flag isn't thrown. They had no intention of trying to make a play imo.

Just re-watched the replay.  It was clearly a designed play.  The Sask receiver ran into our DB and immediately made the Flag gesture along with most of the Sask sideline.  Pretty cheap play...but I recall we ran this play prior to the MOS era...refs have to ask themselves what the DB could have done differently before throwing that flag...and it's pretty clear that contact was made before the pass was thrown...