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

TBURGESS · September 10, 2026, 05:01:19 PM

Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 10, 2026, 04:00:38 PMYes, No Yards is a 15-yard penalty but it is NOT a Major Foul.

No Yards is applied as PBT (point ball touched) as opposed to PBD (point ball dead). A team has the option to accept the No Yards penalty from PBT or decline the penalty and accept the play as it terminated. There is a clause that deals with a No Yards penalty where the PBT is in goal and that is to apply the penalty from the 15-yard line.

The rules as written are the same as they have been since 2022. Prior to 2022, a No Yards penalty in goal was applied from the 10-yard line. Every No Yards penalty in goal (prior to this one) has been applied according to this rule set including two plays earlier in the 2026 season.

On the play in question, Janarion Grant returned the ball out of the end zone and the play terminated at the 3-yard line. The options should have been to accept the penalty and place the ball on the 30 or decline the penalty with the ball on the 3. The play did not terminate in goal.

If there was a memo, it was issued mid-season without convening the Rules Committee. If that occurred, it should further bring into question the power held by the current Commissioner.

15 yards is a major foul. PBT is in the end zone, so Grant bringing the ball out is a red herring.

Like any other interference, the ball would be given to the returning team with a 15-yard penalty applied. The way the rule is written, interference in the endzone isn't really a penalty because the ball ends up at the same place on the field (40) no matter if you interfere or not. To make the 15 yard penalty mean anything, it has to be applied after moving the ball to the 40.

By the book, you are right. By the intention of the penalty, the book is wrong. They went by the intention, not by the book. Did they make a mistake? You'd think the coaches would have screamed bloody murder if they did. Did something change? Maybe, but not publically.

Tecno · September 10, 2026, 10:41:40 PM

TB, you're forgetting one thing, for the ball to come out to the 40 they would have to take the rouge and give ham the single point. So the 15yl starting point is a compromise that partially accounts for this.

If you wanted to apply it at the 40 then the single should still be given. But that would start to get silly, so that is not the rule.

P.s. The ball was not going to go out the back of the ez to avoid the single.

P.p.s. I thought junkie was privy to the super secret memos? Guess not?

Tecno · September 10, 2026, 10:43:09 PM

Quote from: Waffler on September 10, 2026, 02:16:02 PMHe was going to say Riders.

Why on earth would he say that? This must be /s

Tecno · September 10, 2026, 10:45:24 PM

Let's keep in mind no one, well at least myself, has seen the 2026 rule book yet. I don't think it's been posted publicly. Which is shameful.

Halfway through the season and we don't know what rules we are playing to.

This should be illegal. Is mos in the same boat? Or do the teams get a copy. Or does command just get to make up whatever they want as the season goes on?

Waffler · Reply #34 - Re: GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

Quote from: Tecno on September 10, 2026, 10:43:09 PMWhy on earth would he say that? This must be /s

Joking but you don't see the scenario where aged 40+ Trevor Harris retires? Mace and Kelly are familiar from Toronto. It's not automatic that he goes to Ott.

Stats Junkie · Reply #35 - Re: GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

A link to the 2026 Rule Book has been on cfl.ca since June.

Tecno · Reply #36 - Re: GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

Quote from: Waffler on Today at 12:22:05 AMJoking but you don't see the scenario where aged 40+ Trevor Harris retires? Mace and Kelly are familiar from Toronto. It's not automatic that he goes to Ott.

It is when dinwiddie and Kelly have a bromance going. If there was a way to put money in on it, I'd bet the farm.

Tecno · Reply #37 - Re: GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

Quote from: Stats Junkie on Today at 12:29:42 AMA link to the 2026 Rule Book has been on cfl.ca since June.

I asked in July and no one knew about it, and I couldn't find it on the cfl site. And google didn't have it at the time. I just checked and google finally has it. It may have been published but google hadn't picked it up yet.

me asking:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?msg=1696882

google's link:
https://static.cfl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026_Rule-Book.pdf

Tecno · Reply #38 - Re: GDT Tor at Ham, Mon Sep 7, 1:30PM

Hey:
"To prevent a player from creating an illegal kick off foul by going out of
bounds and reaching back in and touching a ball on the ground, the foul is
changed to an illegal participation foul on that player."

This is awesome! I don't recall that being mentioned in the pre-season release notes. About time. That guy stepping out then touching a ball that was not going OOB was so stupid. It was ripe for abuse and the rule never made any sense at all.

Next year, do something about tandem blocking. The level of rugby-style tandem blocking in this league has gotten way out of control. It's ridiculous now. Either make it legal and just go full rugby, or enforce the rule on the books. Andre Proulx was right -- the league is wrong.