GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

And in this game the ball was placed at the 55 yard line after

So who knows what was ruled

When the refs. screw up in hockey, they tend to drop the puck at centre ice.

[Tecno]

Listen to Kelly in the on-field post-game during the next game pre-game show.  Right at the end he says:

"Go R... Go Argos"

Uh... did he just freudian slip that he already knows he's going to the RRRRed Blacks (in FA)?  Watch it yourself.  What on earth is he about to say if not Red Blacks?

[Tecno]

If he touches the ball at the T1 instead of the T0 the no yards penalty is applied from the 1 yard line - ball on the 16.

Touching the ball in goal, according to the rule book, is a 15 yard penalty applied from the 15 yard line - ball on the 30, no point. I'm not sure why it was applied from the 40 - ball on 55.

Ya, this is pretty messed up.  I think Kroeker done blew it.  He even clearly states "applied from the 40", which means it can't be some weird math of stacked penalties (25+15 from the 15 would make it 55, for instance).

To be fair, it's not like we've seen this in the CFL in the last 10 years.  So it's not like he gets to exercise that part of the rule book in his brain.  But you'd think command would step in and fix it -- they had the whole commercial break to think about it and check the book!!  Bradbury too busy eating his Tim's??

Interestingly Kroeker does specify "no yards INTERFERENCE", which is not what they usually call.  So they are referencing the special interference rules.

But how about we take umbrage with the "interference" part... Interference in the kicking section is purely about a player messing with a player.  You don't "interfere" solely with the ball.  You have actually be touching (blocking/holding) the other team's player!  So I don't know how or why he would say this.  It's just a standard no yards!  What applies here is 5.4.10(a) or (d).

Interestingly, (d) might apply here.  It's designed for blocked kicks/punts?  But all it needs is "the ball ... deflected and an offside kicking team player is within 5 yards but does not interfere".  Was it deflected?  Yes, by the guy interfering!  No words there don't permit it to be the same guy.  Is the guy offside?  Yes.  Was he within 5 yards.  Yes.  Didn't intefere with Grant.  Yes.  So this may apply and the penalty is basically nothing: L5 from the 15, or L5 outside the goal area.

This needs to be examined more as it could allow a savvy team who has a high-arc kicker to send gunners down to try to deflect the ball before it hits the returner.  They just have to make sure not to "interfere" (or whack) the returner.  If a player can do this, it's only L5, which would be ideal on every single punt -- zero return!  Of course, the kicking team has to make sure someone else on their team gets it, or tackles the returner darn quick, or it could turn into a bust.  However, I don't see how it would work out any better for the returning team as the ball won't be where they expect it and timing will be off (just like what happened with Grant).  The key is the "deflector" has to make sure to deflect it, not catch it.  Just whack it and change its direction, like Ternowski did.  Interesting stuff.  Even if you do it in-goal the other team starts at the 20 which is a pretty good "pin".

The CFL is going to have to issue a memo on why they started at the 55.  I think they got this wrong.  And I think high-arc punting teams need to study how they can "cheat" with (d).  In fact, maybe that's what Ternowski was doing!!  Scott might know the rules better than Kroeker and command.

[Tecno]

And a real advantage to take a no yards and jump on ball at 1 yard line if the returner is trying to let it bounce into EZ
Hmmmm

Yes, as you guys have noted, the change of the ball to the 40 has unforeseen ripple effects -- like giving incentives to take penalties that used to be a wash when starting at the 30, then 35.  But at the 40 the math changes.

However, only if the CFL/command gets this right!  And can they please make the memo public for once??  We shouldn't be in the dark about these rulings as they affect how teams will plan/play the game.

[Stats Junkie]

No Yards Interference is the call when an offside player on the kicking team makes a play on a punted ball before the return team.

No Yards Interference is always a 15 yard penalty even when a 5 yard option is in play. Earlier this season Jamieson Sheahan had a deflected punt travel 2 yards past the line of scrimmage. Typically a No Yards penalty is reduced to 5 yards on a deflected kick. Tanner Cadwallader played the ball and was subsequently assessed a 15 yard No Yards Interference penalty.

[Tecno]

No Yards Interference is the call when an offside player on the kicking team makes a play on a punted ball before the return team.

No Yards Interference is always a 15 yard penalty even when a 5 yard option is in play. Earlier this season Jamieson Sheahan had a deflected punt travel 2 yards past the line of scrimmage. Typically a No Yards penalty is reduced to 5 yards on a deflected kick. Tanner Cadwallader played the ball and was subsequently assessed a 15 yard No Yards Interference penalty.

There is no "No Yards Interference" in the rule book.  Precisely what rule are you thinking they called here?

Section 2 Article 7 Illegal Interference by Team A: doesn't apply because no one "interfered with an opponent who is attempting to play or recover the ball".  Unless they are saying Ternowski just being there "interfered" with Grant.  Remember, he didn't touch or block or impede grant.  He just jumped up ahead of a waiting Grant to deflect the ball.  And in any case, the penalty is "L10 KO repeated".

The section 4 Interference stuff would seem to not apply at all because they are more geared towards punishing low blocks.

The No Yards stuff, which it appears is what is applying here, has nothing about "inteference" except 10(b), which appears to be what you are referencing.  Except that requires "interference" (with or without contact), which would have to mean Tern somehow impeded Grant from getting to the ball.

The CFL kindly defines interference (for once!):
"Interference takes place when a player obstructs, blocks, screens or charges towards an opponent, with  or without direct contact, in such a manner that prevents the opponent's approach to the ball carrier, potential ball carrier or the ball."

Did Tern's move:
- obstruct Grant? No.  Grant was parked waiting to catch the falling ball.
- block Grant? No.  Grant was not moving and he didn't touch him.
- screen Grant? No.  Screening is when you are putting hands in front of the face.
- charges Grant? Meh, he wasn't charging Grant, he was charging to the ball.  Could you interpret it as charging Grant?  I guess, but it's not the same as going full bore at the returner with no intent to stop and play the ball.

So in sum, I don't see how interference applies at all here.  And I think Scott should have complained more to have command get this right.  However, maybe Bradbury saw this and saw the danger in having our kick game start looking like the NFL, and no one wants that.  I think the rules should be amended to make it clear point-of-returner deflection is not advantageous.

[Stats Junkie]

Playing the ball is interference without contact

[Tecno]

Playing the ball is interference without contact

You didn't read my whole post.

"Interference takes place when a player obstructs, blocks, screens or charges towards an opponent, with  or without direct contact, in such a manner that prevents the opponent's approach to the ball carrier, potential ball carrier or the ball."

Read my previous post.  In what of those defined ways did Tern interfere?  Similarly, how did Tern "prevents the opponent's approach to the [...] ball".

If you and CFL call it interference, it has to match the precise definition they have given.

You say, "Playing the ball is interference without contact", but it's not.  Playing the ball is not part of the definition, and in no other aspect of football is "playing the ball" interference.  Otherwise every contested 50/50 INT would be "interference", and clearly they are not.

[dd]

It makes sense the ball goes to the 30 yd line on a 15 yd no yards call, and the 40 yd line if a point is given up, but to spot the ball at the 55 yd line, there had to be a mistake. It's funny the defense didn't contest the spot as  there was no RP foul called, but would make the math work to spot the ball at the 55 yd line

[Tecno]

Kroeker outright said whatever he was penalizing was going to apply from the 40. So at least we're not left guessing. And that's the part he seems to have gotten wrong. And 15 to 40 is 25, which is a lot of yards to get for free on a mistake.

We didn't get to see Scott as they cut to commercial while figuring this out. Maybe Scott was going mental.

The more I think of it, the more I think it was planned and practiced. If it was an imp or even a nat that played in the USA, then ya, it's a guy who doesn't know Canadian rules. But this is a very long time CFL nat and u sports player. That kind of dude doesn't just wake up one day and think he's gonna play the punt ball.

And if it's planned and practiced that means Scott, or at least the st coach, was in on it and thought it would be advantageous.

I think my theory about this qualifying as a deflection, and this a 5y from the 15 is what they were planning on. Or if he deflects it at the 1 then it should be return team ball at the 6!!

Someone needs to go watch the Scott post game presser to see if he says what the idea was.