The good, the bad, and the ugly.

[bomb squad]

Hmm, after looking at the surrounding context of section 6, maybe you're on to something.

So let's break it down.

The ill.part. (IP here; not to be confused with IP=illegal procedure) play in question is at 2Q1:16 in case anyone wants to find it on their PVR.

CGY returner puts a foot clearly on the sideline at around the 2.  Ball is still untouched.  Ball rolls 2Y into EZ.  CGY guy goes and secures the ball with knee down, all in goal, for a rouge.

So handle the IP part first: Rule 1, Sec 9, Art 8 - Illegal Participation
Paragraph 3 applies.  Penalty LB PF.  Stats Junkie nailed all of this.

And Junkie is right.  We now need to look to see if anything "modifies" the "LB PF" because of the special case of being in-goal.  Why do we need to do this rather than just assign the ball to WPG 2Y in goal?  Because that's how many other fouls are handled -- they get a special in-goal case.

However, the special in-goal cases are usually listed in each specific foul rule, often as an extra note, or an exception sentence added to the penalty verbiage.  In other words, they are not listed somewhere separately and one is expected to make the connection.

Examples of this: intentional grounding being a safety in-goal, DPI in-goal, and holding in-goal.  (Any other examples of special in-goal rule modifications?)  In every case the "in-goal modifier" is stated right there with the rule.

BUT, Rule 8, Section 6 does appear to be a catch-all that would supersede all other rules where those rules did not explicitly specify an in-goal carve out.

I think a stumbling block to understanding is defining possession on a punt.  You hint as much with your applying bold font in your post.  Rule 1, Section 3 - Possession, last paragraph says "if a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession".  So that means the returning team (team B in this case) gains possession the instant they first touch the ball.

It also means the "possession" and IP occur at the exact same moment!

So back to 8-6-1, apply (c), because team B did commit a foul in its goal area (check!), while in possession of the ball (check!).  And one of the options is (c)(iii) where team A can retake the ball at the team B 15YL.

So, Junkie is right, as he usually is.  And yes, it's because of a superseding rule that overrides all other rules.  And the magic point is the special application of "possession" on a punt play.

Perhaps to make things clearer (and easier for future generations of officials), they should add an extra sentence to the IP rule for this special case.  Just spell it out closer to the actual foul verbiage.  i.e. 1-9-8, added: "If Team B commits this foul in its goal area, rule 8-6-1 applies".

As a thought experiment, this superseding rule can be applied to basically everything team B can do in goal.  If a returner or interceptor is dancing around the EZ and his team mate does an illegal block, crackback block, or holding in goal -- trying to help their dude get out of the EZ -- then this rule would also apply.  That is very interesting, as that could happen more often than this extreme case!  Pretty sure I've never seen a move out to the 15 applied, though.  Refs might not even be up to speed on this at all.

Good digging, articulation and almost perfect logic. There's just one problem however. In your Rule 1, Section 3 citation, it says "legally touched". It's not a legal touch. So, we may have to erase that second checkmark. 

As to you thought experiment, here's a question. Would the ball actually be placed at the 15, or would the penalty be applied from the 15?

And for the record, I'm not trying to take anything away from Stats Junkies "catch". Fantastic.

[Stats Junkie]

I would argue, however, that Section 6 doesn't cover this situation. It deals with fouls in the endzone that happen while Team B is in possession of the ball. An illegal block for eg.. The IP foul is triggered the very moment the player touches the ball. I know I'm seizing on a technicality here, and the refs may very rule using this Section 6, but nevertheless it is true. While I agree it probably "shouldn't" be a touchdown, the ball could just as easily be placed at the 1, for all the rulebook says.(As far as I know. I'm just basing this on the info the poster provided in the post.)

I'll give you an example using a modified version of the situation in question. Say the ref did take note of McAllister's foot and was ready to throw a flag. Say it was a short punt and Sheahan is closing in fast. McAllister, rushed, muffs the recovery, but touches the ball. The ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?

Simply touching a loose ball is considered 'Deemed Possession'. There are a number of situations that can be triggered on deemed possession, such as penalties. Deemed possession doesn't equate to full possession or control of the football.

[blue_or_die]

Late to the party but here are my thoughts (in the incorrect thread format):

- Love that our big name FAs made very meaningful contributions and are showing (in one game) that they were good ideas. It would be understandable if it took a little while to get these guys rolling in our system. Ceresna had just short of one million sacks, and Nield and White made some big, important catches and made us forget we also had Demski and Pokey on the field. I think our revamped rec core is going to be as good or better than advertised and it's so exciting. Gives so much room for Oliveira to do even more damage in even more ways

- Zach looked like he was about 4 years younger on Friday. Running around, airing it up when needed, throwing it away when needed. The same "scrambly Zach" that made us awe-struck when he did that stuff in his debut when he joined us in 2019

- I haven't read everything on the forum but is no one talking about how Ontaria Wilson is the reason we won that game? Massive throw that got us in chip shot range. Shoutouts to Zach and Condell as well for that plan - really showed balls and aggression. And of course Serg - not the longest FG but zero guaranteed. Love that he is chill af to make the most important play of the game and walk it off

- I thought the offensive playcalling was effective most of the time and creative when it needed to be. It felt way different in a good way than what we saw last year and it's super encouraging. Could really feel that Condell is a veteran offensive coach and prepared with a good plan. Can't wait to see what he has in store this week.

Lots more to say but I'll leave it at that.

[Horseman]

Surprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb.  Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.

Do you know about Brian Jack? look him up, he is wrong for what he did.

[Tecno]

- I haven't read everything on the forum but is no one talking about how Ontaria Wilson is the reason we won that game? Massive throw that got us in chip shot range. Shoutouts to Zach and Condell as well for that plan - really showed balls and aggression.

Pokey's route on that was sublime, and perfect throw.  Yes, I think the aggressiveness caught CGY off-guard.  Past seasons we may have gone dink & dunk there.  They were probably expecting a Brady run to start.

Condell was quite good all game.  And he has the guys prepared, and kept morale up for that final drive.  He also had good schemes to help Brady get 4-6+ most runs.  The OL did their part too.  And I even got to see my Broxton swing-around I knew was coming.

When CGY was going down to score I asked myself how I was going to rate the team should they lose.  And I concluded we made big strides forward this season.  The winning was gravy.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Pokey's route on that was sublime, and perfect throw.  Yes, I think the aggressiveness caught CGY off-guard.  Past seasons we may have gone dink & dunk there.  They were probably expecting a Brady run to start.

Condell was quite good all game.  And he has the guys prepared, and kept morale up for that final drive.  He also had good schemes to help Brady get 4-6+ most runs.  The OL did their part too.  And I even got to see my Broxton swing-around I knew was coming.

When CGY was going down to score I asked myself how I was going to rate the team should they lose.  And I concluded we made big strides forward this season.  The winning was gravy.

That last drive was a great turning point from the under performance of the last 2 years, don't think they would have been able to get it done against a good defence last season.  Zach is receiving more time in the pocket this year but he still has to be very selective with his throws.

[Tecno]

Good digging, articulation and almost perfect logic. There's just one problem however. In your Rule 1, Section 3 citation, it says "legally touched". It's not a legal touch. So, we may have to erase that second checkmark.

Just when we thought it was solved!  Going way out into the weeds.  I like it!!

So now we need to define "legally touched".  Unfortunately, the book doesn't define that.  But it does use the phrase "legal touch" or "legally touched" a couple of times, and we can use our common sense with those to infer the meaning.

Section 8 I.R.A.R.1: "illegal touching" used to refer to a OSK team A player not having achieved sufficient yardage before touching.  Implies a legal touch would be one by a player who was in the correct position.  (Ignore the fact this one is an "overturned" example -- the touching part we're interested in was not disputed, it was whether the player was legal or not.)

Section 17 Dribbled Ball: "legally touched" refers to a touch by the kicker of onside player.  Implies an illegal touch would be one by any other team A player.

It would appear you are correct and the touch by an illegal participant would NOT be considered legal.

Therefore it did not constitute possession.  Therefore it is still a "loose ball".  Therefore, the superseding rule 8-6-1 cannot apply.

If there is no overriding rule then the only foul is the IP one, and the penalty described there -- LB PF -- should be the correct one.

Touchdown Bombers, without ever touching the ball.  That would have been one for the ages and I'm kind of bummed out that they didn't call it!

@Stats Junkie, do you concur?

Someone should get this to the CFL so they can issue and apology and clarification.  There was a chance this screwup may have cost us the game.  Would command, with the limited time they have (with pressure!) to make a call have missed the "possession" aspect that Junkie & I did?  Even getting the ball at the 15 would have been better.  Oh ya, and get this to DT.  He'll love this!

I still suspect the spirit of the rule & superseding rule is to have this situation result in the ball at the 15.  Unless it's considered so bad it does deserve this special "punishment"?  What would be the effect of removing the "possession" requirement from 8-6-1?  What about changing the wording to "touched" (with no "legal" or "illegal" qualifier).

As to you thought experiment, here's a question. Would the ball actually be placed at the 15, or would the penalty be applied from the 15?

Ok, if 8-6-1 did apply in a IP LB PF... let's look at the wording again: "Require the penalty to be applied against Team B from its 15-yard line".  Yes, it would still cause a scrimmage at the 15 because the penalty here "LB PF" specifies no yardage penalty.  It's "LB" instead -- which is kind of like a 50Y penalty based on average punt net yardage, LOL.

But probably more to your question, most any other penalty team B could do while team B has the ball in own goal area, would cause the next point of scrimmage to be at the 5 yard line (or 1 yard line for major fouls).

Let's try a specific example.  Team A punts into the EZ, Team B player 1 (B1) dances around the EZ to find a way to bring it out, but player B2 does a nasty blindside block while this dancing is still going on in the EZ.  B1 gets out to the 3 and gets tackled.  Team A has the option to to accept 3 as the next LoS, or take the 15Y blocking penalty from the 15.  Pretty sure with the '25 (or '24?) rule changes that would put next LoS at the 1, which is what they'd choose.

Great stuff.  And you beat both Junkie & I at noticing.  Hat tip.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Woodbey-receives-max-fine for high hit on VA.  I didn't know the CFL had a Department of Health, Safety and Integrity.



TORONTO — The Canadian Football League (CFL) Department of Health, Safety and Integrity manages league discipline, while the Office of the Commissioner oversees suspendible offences.

The Department – which includes Chief Football Operations Officer Greg Dick, Vice-President of Officiating Darren Hackwood, Associate Vice-President of Football Operations Ryan Janzen and Associate Vice-President of Health and Safety Eric Noivo – has issued one maximum fine and two additional fines from Week 1.

Winnipeg linebacker Jaiden Woodbey has received a maximum fine for delivering a high hit on Calgary quarterback Vernon Adams Jr.
Ottawa defensive back C.J. Reavis has been fined for delivering a high hit on a sliding quarterback, Edmonton's Cody Fajardo.
Edmonton linebacker Joel Dublanko has been fined for delivering a high hit on a sliding quarterback, Ottawa's Jake Maier.
Per CFL policy, the league does not announce:

Amounts of player fines
Discipline related to dress code violations
Discipline involving teams or staff
Discipline involving players who have been released


https://www.cfl.ca/2026/06/10/woodbey-receives-max-fine-reavis-dublanko-fined-for-actions-in-week-1/