GDT BC at Mtl, Sat July 5, 6:00PM

[TecnoGenius]

Calling Techno: Can you check when the clock started on the 2nd last play?

Glad to oblige (though late).  What seems to have happened was the clock we can see started late, but it also ended late.  It seemed roughly equal.  I'm sure command made sure of this.

As for exact timing, the previous play was incomplete, so clock starts on the snap.

3.01.29.167 snap (first frame with ball movement)
3.01.32.467 down by contact (touches and body hits basically simultaneously)
= 3.3s total time for the play

The "accurate clock" in b&w they show in the corner on the timeout replay showed 3.7s time left.

So them saying 0.2s left is entirely reasonable, since my computer timing shows it as 0.4s.

I think everyone involved got it right.

I'm shocked BC got a play in with 3.7s left on the clock.  A lot of this is luck and the refs spotting the DBC quickly and the clock guy reacting quickly.  But you can't count on it working every time.

[TecnoGenius]

OTOH if the defenders don't touch him for a split second the clock would go to zero before they could call the receiver for surrendering as down?

The surrender-stops-the-clock rule was added a couple of years back I think.  So the clock should stop when they give up regardless of what defenders do.

However, you are right in that refs will definitely take longer to acknowledge a surrender vs a DBC.  It could take a whole second longer.

I *think* if MTL hadn't touched him here, and the clock is clearly 0.0, command could still add the 0.2s back on and let them kick.  That said, isn't that similar to what happened in OTT that crazy never-ending game last year, and didn't command say they were going to avoid that?

[Waffler]

The surrender-stops-the-clock rule was added a couple of years back I think.  So the clock should stop when they give up regardless of what defenders do.

However, you are right in that refs will definitely take longer to acknowledge a surrender vs a DBC.  It could take a whole second longer.

I *think* if MTL hadn't touched him here, and the clock is clearly 0.0, command could still add the 0.2s back on and let them kick.  That said, isn't that similar to what happened in OTT that crazy never-ending game last year, and didn't command say they were going to avoid that?

Impressive play by Cottoy that I didn't realize at first. I thought he was taking too long to go down but in fact he knew to dive at a Mtl player. There is a Bomber connection to him knowing this.


"The urgency and timing of that single play were as impressive as anything that B.C. did all night, and Cottoy's keen awareness to lunge toward the defenders to ensure contact when he went down deserves additional praise. In some ways, it felt like vindication for the Lions' overtime loss to Winnipeg back in October 2023, when Dominique Rhymes' failure to grasp a similar situation cost the team a shot at the winning field goal.

Cottoy witnessed that mistake and did exactly what he had to here"

https://3downnation.com/2025/07/06/b-c-lions-undercut-walk-off-win-against-alouettes-with-bad-penalties-shameful-brawl-12-other-thoughts/

[TBURGESS]

I wouldn't call it a surrender because the receiver was diving head first. When a QB does that, they don't call him down until he is touched. 

That being said Techno's explanation of the clock makes sense to me. 

[J5V]

In any event, it's so much nicer watching MTL games with the ban in place.

I think we're all agreed on that one!

[TecnoGenius]

I wouldn't call it a surrender because the receiver was diving head first. When a QB does that, they don't call him down until he is touched.

They changed that, too, a couple of years back.  Now any dive/slide, any sort of "going down", by a QB is considered a surrender and the ball *should* be placed right that point they started the surrender.

However, I've noticed the ball spotters often don't know this rule change and still mark the spot as ball progress rather than start-the-surrender.  This irks me to no end.  However, it's kind of a cheat-code for smart QBs/teams to use: your QB should dive to surrender and chances are they'll get progress they shouldn't be entitled to.

[TBURGESS]

The rule: 

The ball carrier is on the ground and, in the judgment of the official, is not attempting to advance the ball, the official shall immediately declare the ball dead.

You're saying that means the sub second that he hits the ground. I don't see it that way. It takes some time to decide if the player is attempting to advance the ball or not. Even .5 of a second means that BC doesn't get the extra play. 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The rule: You're saying that means the sub second that he hits the ground. I don't see it that way. It takes some time to decide if the player is attempting to advance the ball or not. Even .5 of a second means that BC doesn't get the extra play.

I agree, football is not a game were a quarter of a second should make a difference as the timing is too imprecise due to the use of human officials and time-keepers.  The small amount of time left on the clock before the snap made the officials react artificially fast and changed the outcome of the game IMO. I propose they remove the milli-second countdown from the time clock.

Trying to squeeze 2 plays in within 4 seconds is an unrealistic request and this decision is going to lead to a host of disputed plays for officials dealing with teams trying to freeze the game with nano-seconds remaining on the clock.  It's going to cause more muddles that the CC will have to intervene to sort out leading to more disputed results.

[TecnoGenius]

I mostly agree with both.  However, because so many things have to go "right" for that play to work, there's +/- 1 sec by each involved party, and it adds up to a big variable, and big "if", someone can take advantage.

Absolutely everything went right for BC, but no one can rely on that.  In general most teams want 6-9 sec to get that play in.  Didn't we blow one with 11s left once?

I'm pretty sure BC didn't actually expect to complete a play in 3s.  But if it's your only "Hail Mary" shot to win, why not take it?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I mostly agree with both.  However, because so many things have to go "right" for that play to work, there's +/- 1 sec by each involved party, and it adds up to a big variable, and big "if", someone can take advantage.

Absolutely everything went right for BC, but no one can rely on that.  In general most teams want 6-9 sec to get that play in.  Didn't we blow one with 11s left once?

I'm pretty sure BC didn't actually expect to complete a play in 3s.  But if it's your only "Hail Mary" shot to win, why not take it?

They could have gambled on Sean Whyte making a 56 yd. FG on the previous play, surprised to see they ran a 13 yd. passing play with 3 seconds left on the clock.

Field Goal (Made)1st & 10 at MTL 36
#10 S.Whyte field goal attempt from 43 yards GOOD (H: #17 C.Meyer, LS: #47 K.Nelson), clock 00:00

00:00

Pass (Complete)3rd & 3 at MTL 49
No Huddle-Shotgun #12 N.Rourke pass complete short right to #86 J.Cottoy caught at MTL40, for 13 yards to the MTL36 (#32 T.Mullen), 1ST DOWN

00:03

Strange, looks like Cottoy caught the ball at the 40 but gained 4 more yds. to the Als 36.

[TecnoGenius]

Strange, looks like Cottoy caught the ball at the 40 but gained 4 more yds. to the Als 36.

Yup, he caught it ran a couple of strides then dove between 2 defenders.  He's tall so he gets like 2Y just falling forward LOL.

[TecnoGenius]

Interesting to note that in the CGY@SSK game a REC gave himself up and the ref took a whole sec to decide he was surrendering.  So if those MTL DBs hadn't touched Cottoy the clock likely expires.  DBC will always stop the clock sooner than a ref saying "should I blow it surrendered?".