Isn't it? EDM #32 clearly sees the whiff, sees the ball on the turf. Vaval is turning to go get the ball behind/beside himself. #32 blows him up big time. Makes no attempt on the ball at all.
Can someone tell me how this isn't loose ball interference? Rule 9, Section 4, Article 1
"Interference takes place when a player obstructs ... or charges towards an opponent, with ... direct contact, in such a manner that prevents the opponent's approach to the ... ball."
Seems to fit here.
#32 should have redirected to the ball, ignoring Vaval, and Vaval should have been able to make a play for it. I bet MOS was chirping at the refs on this one.
Seems only we get called for this.
I still think that was the turning point in lastyears GC >:(
Nothing to see here.
Immediately after a fumble, players are permitted to finish their assignments whether it be a block or a tackle.
As stated in the OP, the Edmonton player did not redirect, he finished his assignment.
Quote from: BomberFan73 on June 27, 2025, 11:34:09 AMSeems only we get called for this.
I still think that was the turning point in last years GC >:(
I still maintain that when it comes to the Argos the league does everything it can to help them succeed.
Clean play, fair game imo
Quote from: BomberFan73 on June 27, 2025, 11:34:09 AMSeems only we get called for this.
I still think that was the turning point in lastyears GC >:(
Quote from: J5V on June 27, 2025, 02:00:01 PMI still maintain that when it comes to the Argos the league does everything it can to help them succeed.
Disagree all, seen these types of claims in other sports too and it's simply not true imo. The league and its officials are not biased. They can get calls wrong, miss calls and some games have officiating issues but that's it, imo.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 27, 2025, 01:44:44 PMNothing to see here.
Immediately after a fumble, players are permitted to finish their assignments whether it be a block or a tackle.
I didn't see that when reading that rule section. Can you cite where it is?
Quote from: Blueforlife on June 27, 2025, 09:41:34 PMClean play, fair game imo
Disagree all, seen these types of claims in other sports too and it's simply not true imo. The league and its officials are not biased. They can get calls wrong, miss calls and some games have officiating issues but that's it, imo.
Well, there is the fact that not did they not call a single "loose ball interference" all 2024 besides the GC, but I can't recall the last time there was this penalty.
And I'm sure there's little "interferences" all the time on fumbles...
Quote from: Stats Junkie on June 27, 2025, 01:44:44 PMNothing to see here.
Immediately after a fumble, players are permitted to finish their assignments whether it be a block or a tackle.
As stated in the OP, the Edmonton player did not redirect, he finished his assignment.
If the player is in the process of/committed to making a block or tackle and can't change his body momentum, then yes, no interference is called, but if in the opinion of the official, the player had time to pull up/avoid making contact/interfere with an opponents opportunity to play a loose ball and not interfere with an opposing player, they must do so, otherwise it is loose ball interference
What a coincidence. The MTL@HAM game had a loose ball (high snap) fumble recovery in the EZ for TD tonight.
The HAM guy does very close to what Kenny did in the GC... he hip-butts the QB who was also scrambling for the ball, knocking him over. The only difference from the Kenny GC play was he didn't use any hands.
No interference called here. Maybe it's just called in GCs when the refs want TOR to win? Ya, it's more obvious with hands, but the rule doesn't specify hands... just ... well... interference.
Quote from: dd on June 27, 2025, 11:40:15 PMIf the player is in the process of/committed to making a block or tackle and can't change his body momentum, then yes, no interference is called
As I said in OP, I think the guy saw the ball on the turf and had plenty of time to redirect. He knew he had help coming and chose to blow up Vaval to take him out of the equation.
It's not cut & dried though, hard to judge intent. If you watch it a few times, though, you'll see what I mean.
People are starting to sound like Rider fans on their forum (bunch of whiners). For the record, there was no penalty on Thursday because it wasn't Loose Ball Interference, period. Secondly, it was in last year's GC, but it wasn't the turning point in the game because 2 plays later Jefferson intercepted the ball to give the Bombers 1st and 10 at the Argos 20.
Quote from: jdrattops on June 28, 2025, 04:53:20 PMPeople are starting to sound like Rider fans on their forum (bunch of whiners). For the record, there was no penalty on Thursday because it wasn't Loose Ball Interference, period.
If you read all the (3-4) GDT threads every week you'll see I'm not "whining"
ever just because it goes against WPG. I call out every single instance I see of unusual or missed calls, no matter the team.
Trying to nail down exactly what the rules are is not whining, it's being a student of the game. By figuring out this particular instance I can know for next time why a call is made or not made.
BTW, still no one has cited any rule book reference confirming what is being said here. By the plain reading of the rule I found (until I see otherwise) the blow up of Vaval was a foul.
P.S. In the GC the LBI wasn't a "turning point" but it was another nail in the coffin from a huge pack of nails that night. Every series someone was doing some little thing to screw up. It all added up and we lost because TOR barely did 1 thing wrong, in planning OR execution.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 28, 2025, 08:48:10 AMAs I said in OP, I think the guy saw the ball on the turf and had plenty of time to redirect. He knew he had help coming and chose to blow up Vaval to take him out of the equation.
It's not cut & dried though, hard to judge intent. If you watch it a few times, though, you'll see what I mean.
The weird thing is there was a Bomber player running step for step beside the Elk tackler on that fumble, so close I couldn't make out his number, and he let his man run straight through Valval. All it would have taken is a bit of a shoulder pressure to push him wide of the target.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on June 28, 2025, 10:46:56 PMThe weird thing is there was a Bomber player running step for step beside the Elk tackler on that fumble, so close I couldn't make out his number, and he let his man run straight through Valval. All it would have taken is a bit of a shoulder pressure to push him wide of the target.
For sure, yup. He was on the wrong side, though. Our ST unit is clearly told to never take IBs. I don't think he saw the fumble, either.
It was kind of a total mess that play.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on June 28, 2025, 10:33:26 PMIf you read all the (3-4) GDT threads every week you'll see I'm not "whining" ever just because it goes against WPG. I call out every single instance I see of unusual or missed calls, no matter the team.
Trying to nail down exactly what the rules are is not whining, it's being a student of the game. By figuring out this particular instance I can know for next time why a call is made or not made.
BTW, still no one has cited any rule book reference confirming what is being said here. By the plain reading of the rule I found (until I see otherwise) the blow up of Vaval was a foul.
P.S. In the GC the LBI wasn't a "turning point" but it was another nail in the coffin from a huge pack of nails that night. Every series someone was doing some little thing to screw up. It all added up and we lost because TOR barely did 1 thing wrong, in planning OR execution.
Sorry, I should be more clear with my original post. The whiners are the Rider Forum excuse makers. If you read it that I was referring to you, I apologize.
In the OTT@EDM game July 6:
On the fumble/facemask/TD/non-fumble: A better example of illegal interference on a loose ball?
The D guy forces the fumble. Then he finishes his tackle on the QB. But then he's holding the QB back/down and he's scrambling for the ball. No other player is involved: just the QB and the one D guy.
Last time I asked I was informed the D guy can finish his tackle. And in that case a 2nd D guy came in and got the ball.
But in this case, the D guy "finishes his assignment", then actively impedes Ford from the ball and goes and gets it himself. So is THIS not illegal interference (II)?
Refs/command did say there was a fumble (presumably reviewed), so clearly they didn't care about II. Maybe, like the facemask, they were waiting for a challenge on that aspect?
I guess my question is: if there are just 2 guys involved, like here, can II ever be called or will they always just say the D guy was finishing his job?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 11, 2025, 10:34:17 AMIn the OTT@EDM game July 6:
On the fumble/facemask/TD/non-fumble: A better example of illegal interference on a loose ball?
The D guy forces the fumble. Then he finishes his tackle on the QB. But then he's holding the QB back/down and he's scrambling for the ball. No other player is involved: just the QB and the one D guy.
Last time I asked I was informed the D guy can finish his tackle. And in that case a 2nd D guy came in and got the ball.
But in this case, the D guy "finishes his assignment", then actively impedes Ford from the ball and goes and gets it himself. So is THIS not illegal interference (II)?
Refs/command did say there was a fumble (presumably reviewed), so clearly they didn't care about II. Maybe, like the facemask, they were waiting for a challenge on that aspect?
I guess my question is: if there are just 2 guys involved, like here, can II ever be called or will they always just say the D guy was finishing his job?
Better question is how did they initially miss that obvious RTP call?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on July 11, 2025, 05:12:09 PMBetter question is how did they initially miss that obvious RTP call?
I didn't spot it live. And it was subtle, the D let go very fast. But there was the telltale head twist. It looked worse in slowmo than live.
What I find interesting is the FM foul occurred like 1s after the fumble... That negates the fumble? I'm not sure on the rule here. What if that same D guy FM'ed the QB 5s after the fumble during the scramble? Does that also negate the fumble?
Or is it based on possession: a FM after the D gains possession of the fumble would NOT negate the fumble?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on July 12, 2025, 01:17:05 AMI didn't spot it live. And it was subtle, the D let go very fast. But there was the telltale head twist. It looked worse in slowmo than live.
What I find interesting is the FM foul occurred like 1s after the fumble... That negates the fumble? I'm not sure on the rule here. What if that same D guy FM'ed the QB 5s after the fumble during the scramble? Does that also negate the fumble?
Or is it based on possession: a FM after the D gains possession of the fumble would NOT negate the fumble?
I would say it does negate the fumble. If a Qb throws a pass and before it is intercepted, there's a RTP foul, ball goes back to the offense, don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a fumble.
Quote from: dd on July 12, 2025, 03:38:15 AMI would say it does negate the fumble. If a Qb throws a pass and before it is intercepted, there's a RTP foul, ball goes back to the offense, don't see why the same wouldn't apply to a fumble.
I would say you're right. Just seems odd that a UR that happens after the "issue" can negate said issue. It's like a get of jail free card. QBs should really ham it up on the slightest tap if they realize they just INTed or fumbled! I'm talking full Cody!