GDT Tor at Ott, Sun June 29, 6:00PM

[TecnoGenius]

Turns out illegal participation that caused the fumble/TD is challengeable.  So refs blew it, command blew it, AND the HC blew it.  On something I noticed instantly on the live shot, and only a blind orc wouldn't notice on the 4 replays.

Dyce probably lost the game right there.

P.S. Disappointed only Riderfans forum & me noticed this.  BB forum asleep!  No one cares!  Gotta improve the officiating for all games, and not just care about the Blue & Gold ones!

[J5V]

Turns out illegal participation that caused the fumble/TD is challengeable.  So refs blew it, command blew it, AND the HC blew it.  On something I noticed instantly on the live shot, and only a blind orc wouldn't notice on the 4 replays.

Dyce probably lost the game right there.

P.S. Disappointed only Riderfans forum & me noticed this.  BB forum asleep!  No one cares!  Gotta improve the officiating for all games, and not just care about the Blue & Gold ones!

Bit of both I suppose. I, for example, have absolutely no clue what these officials/CC are going to call a penalty from one game to the next and it's getting worse. One thing my confirmation bias does tell me though, repeatedly, is that the Argos in the East and the Riders in the West get the benefit of the doubt most times and blatantly so sometimes. Ottawa may have been their own worst enemy in that game but that doesn't mean they also didn't get screwed over.

[Stats Junkie]

When a player goes out of bounds after contact with an opponent he is permitted to return to the field of play. Yes, contact resulting from a weak tackle attempt does count as contact with an opponent.

The player must reestablish himself in the field of play before participating in the play. It appears as though the Argos player is taking his 2nd step in bounds as he punches the ball out.

Yes, RedBlacks fans were talking about the possibility of illegal participation. Most agree that the Argos player was permitted to return to the field. There was more debate about whether he satisfied the 2nd aspect of the play.

[TecnoGenius]

When a player goes out of bounds after contact with an opponent he is permitted to return to the field of play. Yes, contact resulting from a weak tackle attempt does count as contact with an opponent.

That's insane.  So if you're a D and you're about to run OOB because you didn't control your run/judgement enough you just have to tap your hand on a team A guy, even a little finger, and you get a "get out of OOB/IP free" card?

In all the years I've been watching it's always been explained by TSN booth and rando dudes at the games that you have to be forced out by the opponent to be allowed to return after OOB without IP.

I guess that's the last time I trust TSN.

Looks like the rule does say "without contact with an opponent", so by the letter I guess his hand-tap whiff does qualify.  But frankly I think that's ridiculous.  He didn't go out because of that whiff, he went out because he misjudged the tackle.  Seems strange to "reward" him for it.

I'm curious, is this really the spirit and intent of the rule?  Or were the writers thinking more along the lines of "forced out"?  What do other leagues say?

Seems like a disaster for the ref standing there watching a near-OOB scrum and trying figure all of this out.

The player must reestablish himself in the field of play before participating in the play. It appears as though the Argos player is taking his 2nd step in bounds as he punches the ball out.

Yes, RedBlacks fans were talking about the possibility of illegal participation. Most agree that the Argos player was permitted to return to the field. There was more debate about whether he satisfied the 2nd aspect of the play.

Yes, like much of the rulebook, "re-establishing" seems a bit hazy.  "One foot in bounds and no contact OOB", which I guess applies here.  TOR #23 has one foot IB and is just lifting his 2nd foot from OOB when he punches the ball out.

Here's the thing, I'm sure #23 isn't a CFL rules genius, and am pretty sure it was sheer luck he touched the dude before going OOB, and got that one foot IB before punching it out.  Had the OTT guy been closer to the rail, I'm sure #23 would have punched it out while still OOB and taken the penalty.

Thanks for the clarification and guidance.  It is much appreciated.

[Stats Junkie]

I'm curious, is this really the spirit and intent of the rule?  Or were the writers thinking more along the lines of "forced out"?

In 2010 the rule stated a player could return to the field of play if he went OB after contact with another player. On the play below 👇 it was interpreted to include contact with a teammate.

The rules committee determined that the intent of the rule was contact with an opponent and the rule was amended for the 2011 season.

[TBURGESS]

That's a near impossible question to answer at the moment because most teams have an injured starting QB, and only got 0-2 games played with the starter.  It also is more confusing by the apparent garbage teams being the most highly touted in PS.

In my mind (and hunch) the basement is still the same as last year: HAM, OTT, EDM.  I think CGY has leveled up through some magic in FA, but the jury's still out.  BC is still entirely dependent on Rourke being 2022 superman.  If he does that, they'll likely get close to the WDF.  If not, they are worse than last year.  TOR will be EDF material once Kelly returns because the coaches are too darn good.

But, really, anything could happen this season.  The key is we try to stay on top, win the W, and are one game away from the GC again.  A GC where the fans put us over the top.

The question isn't who will be the worst teams by the end of the season or who it will be when they have their starting QB back. It's who are the worst teams right now. The power rankings have it as Edm & BC & I agree.

[bomb squad]

That's insane.  So if you're a D and you're about to run OOB because you didn't control your run/judgement enough you just have to tap your hand on a team A guy, even a little finger, and you get a "get out of OOB/IP free" card?

In all the years I've been watching it's always been explained by TSN booth and rando dudes at the games that you have to be forced out by the opponent to be allowed to return after OOB without IP.

I guess that's the last time I trust TSN.

Looks like the rule does say "without contact with an opponent", so by the letter I guess his hand-tap whiff does qualify.  But frankly I think that's ridiculous.  He didn't go out because of that whiff, he went out because he misjudged the tackle.  Seems strange to "reward" him for it.

I'm curious, is this really the spirit and intent of the rule?  Or were the writers thinking more along the lines of "forced out"?  What do other leagues say?

Seems like a disaster for the ref standing there watching a near-OOB scrum and trying figure all of this out.

Yes, like much of the rulebook, "re-establishing" seems a bit hazy.  "One foot in bounds and no contact OOB", which I guess applies here.  TOR #23 has one foot IB and is just lifting his 2nd foot from OOB when he punches the ball out.

Here's the thing, I'm sure #23 isn't a CFL rules genius, and am pretty sure it was sheer luck he touched the dude before going OOB, and got that one foot IB before punching it out.  Had the OTT guy been closer to the rail, I'm sure #23 would have punched it out while still OOB and taken the penalty.

Thanks for the clarification and guidance.  It is much appreciated.

The other question is can a player actually intentionally advance himself down the field while out of bounds and then reestablish himself? Bit of that here too.

[dd]

Turns out illegal participation that caused the fumble/TD is challengeable.  So refs blew it, command blew it, AND the HC blew it.  On something I noticed instantly on the live shot, and only a blind orc wouldn't notice on the 4 replays.

Dyce probably lost the game right there.

P.S. Disappointed only Riderfans forum & me noticed this.  BB forum asleep!  No one cares!  Gotta improve the officiating for all games, and not just care about the Blue & Gold ones!

Have you ever reffed a game of football in your life, or do you just sit with your PVR and re-watch games and criticize others?? Officiating a game is not as easy at is seems from your lazy boy chair.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Have you ever reffed a game of football in your life, or do you just sit with your PVR and re-watch games and criticize others?? Officiating a game is not as easy at is seems from your lazy boy chair.

Lol -- It's definitely a PVR watch it 400 times in slow-mo, then spend 20 minutes consulting the rule book kinda thing.

Not saying there was an error here but, for the record, reffing gets better as the year goes on. The reason is the league has way more refs in rotation until labour day. This is important from a development point of view. Then the best testing refs get to go from September on.  No one is born a good pro football referee and unlike the US, we don't have a pipeline of really strong referees that come from other levels of football. The jump from high school and CIS to the CFL is ginormous.

[TecnoGenius]

The rules committee determined that the intent of the rule was contact with an opponent and the rule was amended for the 2011 season.

Cool example.  We all know that clip for it's "no yards" gotchas -- yet there was an arguably more egregious IP problem too.  And like the current situation, the IP part of it is ignored by the TSN booth, LOL.

I think the booth does a disservice to the fans when they fail to point out legitimate questions/answers on plays: like "there's no IP here even though it looks like it, because...".  They do ok educating fans over time, but they could do so much better... especially when they tell the country a blatantly wrong thing ("must be forced out") for a decade.

[TecnoGenius]

The question isn't who will be the worst teams by the end of the season or who it will be when they have their starting QB back. It's who are the worst teams right now. The power rankings have it as Edm & BC & I agree.

Ok, if based on just through week 4, with week 4 rosters... I'd lump OTT in there.  They will win nothing except a slime & grime game with Crum.  I think both EDM and BC look stronger than OTT on paper/AR at the moment.

It also would seem MTL is pretty weak on O without Alexander.  Did you see their run game get nothing at all against a weak opponent?  Eye opener.  No escape-threat from the QB means no run game for them.  And even their D couldn't save them.

[TecnoGenius]

Have you ever reffed a game of football in your life, or do you just sit with your PVR and re-watch games and criticize others?? Officiating a game is not as easy at is seems from your lazy boy chair.

No, of course not.  But how I spent my life to date has no bearing on my ability to try to understand the rules (both written and implied by precedent) to increase my enjoyment of the game.

It's like a lawyer who works criminal cases: he never wrote any law, nor was he ever a judge, but he learns what is written and implied and tries to understand to apply that to what's going on around him.

It often seems you think your experience as a ref affords you some secret knowledge or understanding that us lay-fans are forbidden from (or incapable of) learning.  I posit that is not the case, and should not be the case, otherwise you'll have to start only allowing ex-players or ex-refs into the stands.

If you're the rules genius, then you should spend your efforts teaching the lay-fan, not admonishing them for asking questions or grappling with infrequently-applied rules, such as in this case.

[TecnoGenius]

Lol -- It's definitely a PVR watch it 400 times in slow-mo, then spend 20 minutes consulting the rule book kinda thing.

100%.  Because that's all I have, and the best I can do is learn the rules better, and then help the next guy learn them too.  Exactly as we've done here in this thread about the IP.

There's nothing wrong with being wrong, and learning what's right, and admitting it!

[Jesse]

No, of course not.  But how I spent my life to date has no bearing on my ability to try to understand the rules (both written and implied by precedent) to increase my enjoyment of the game.

It's like a lawyer who works criminal cases: he never wrote any law, nor was he ever a judge, but he learns what is written and implied and tries to understand to apply that to what's going on around him.

It often seems you think your experience as a ref affords you some secret knowledge or understanding that us lay-fans are forbidden from (or incapable of) learning.  I posit that is not the case, and should not be the case, otherwise you'll have to start only allowing ex-players or ex-refs into the stands.

If you're the rules genius, then you should spend your efforts teaching the lay-fan, not admonishing them for asking questions or grappling with infrequently-applied rules, such as in this case.

It's more an understanding of trying to know and apply the rule in real time, at field level, from across the length of a football field.

Not from witnessing the many close up angles on your tv screen.

[TecnoGenius]

Not from witnessing the many close up angles on your tv screen.

For sure, and I try to take that into account every time.  That's why I almost always blame command more than the refs.  Although if it's 2 guys in space causing the issue, I like to hope the refs can get things right more often than not (cough cough Demski DPI tip ball that cost us a game last year by ref #22).

Yes, I understand reffing is hard, and thankless, and crappy pay.  But no fan goes through life never getting aggravated at the zebras.