HAM @ MTL Aug 20, 2022

[Blue In BC]

Marionos hit is not really a penalty. He saw the ball moved he did his job. Is he supposed to know the centre js jhst adjusting the ball. He did the right thing. .if rge centre moves tge balk well hes resposible for the defence reacting

I'd say yes he's supposed to know. The ball is adjusted by the center before snapping nearly every play to grasp the laces. Wouldn't surprise me if he gets fined this week for that incident. The opponent's head was still down and that would be a giant clue.

[theaardvark]

Marionos hit is not really a penalty. He saw the ball moved he did his job. Is he supposed to know the centre js jhst adjusting the ball. He did the right thing. .if rge centre moves tge balk well hes resposible for the defence reacting

The C was defenseless.  The whistle had blown.  It as a penalty, a misconduct and a fine.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Interesting point but it's a fast moving game. Players are falling, hurdling, jumping or straight arming a defender.  What a defender can reach is not always optimum. However, the league can make other determination about excessive contact whether that hit is high, low or late.

In fact a defender might grab the nameplate and not even slow the forward progress of the runner. He might then lose the grasp on the runner's jersey and ultimately not be the player that brings the runner down. It's still a penalty.

Well the CFL is always looking for ways to increase offence, so putting more restrictions on tackling might be one way to give the offence a boost. Can't tackle the ball carrier legally, too bad, penalty on you.  A couple of weeks back we had a spate of tackles up high around the facemask that were questionably allowed by the officials, another good reason high tackles should be disallowed.

[dd]

Semantics. It's not unusual to see a nameplate grabbed without a pull backwards. Obviously pulling a runner straight down is a change of direction. Even stopping his advance is a change of direction. A pull may move a player to the left, right, down, or even forward.

This weekend we saw several examples of horse collar tackles which did not include a backward pull.

I stand by my comment that you are incorrect based on the reality of what happens on the field when this penalty is called. The refs call it and the coaches don't challenge it based on your interpretation.

There is no basis to suggest the refs are incorrect often in making this call.

You believe what you want to believe, and I m going to call it as instructed by clinicians-no change in direction, no call. That?s the correct interpretation.

[Blue In BC]

Well the CFL is always looking for ways to increase offence, so putting more restrictions on tackling might be one way to give the offence a boost. Can't tackle the ball carrier legally, too bad, penalty on you.  A couple of weeks back we had a spate of tackles up high around the facemask that were questionably allowed by the officials, another good reason high tackles should be disallowed.

I'm open to revisions in the rules but it's a contact sport. I think bigger penalties / fines on illegal hits is a starting point but not an entire solution. Many changes to the rough play have been made and are helpful preventing injuries.

How / where does a 6'7" DE hit a 5'6" receiver that weighs 165 lbs?

So many variables. Tackles are not always made by both players entirely vertical.

It's a topic I think gets discussed every off season when they look at potential rule changes.

There is a discussion on the board about whether a horse collar tackle was in fact a horse collar tackle. That's part of problem where what the intent of the rule doesn't always match the practical situation during the game.

Another example would be the contacting the head of the QB. Some are incidental and others are face mask or severe blows. In each of these cases the situation leads to a penalty rightfully so.

Then we see some fans saying a certain line was not crossed and a penalty shouldn't have been called.

[Blue In BC]

You believe what you want to believe, and I m going to call it as instructed by clinicians-no change in direction, no call. That?s the correct interpretation.

You think the CFL refs don't go to ref school?  I believe in the professional refs that are accountable for the calls in the CFL that are making the calls you disagree with.

Which group do you think has more credibility? It's not just what I believe but it's the law of the land so to speak. Your clinicians aren't making the calls on the field.

[Waffler]

Marionos hit is not really a penalty. He saw the ball moved he did his job. Is he supposed to know the centre js jhst adjusting the ball. He did the right thing. .if rge centre moves tge balk well hes resposible for the defence reacting

Penalty all day long. What irked me further was that the center was not the guy across from him. He came at an angle on him. He was selected because his head was down and he was vulnerable. The whistle was long gone as already pointed out.

[dd]

You think the CFL refs don't go to ref school?  I believe in the professional refs that are accountable for the calls in the CFL that are making the calls you disagree with.

Which group do you think has more credibility? It's not just what I believe but it's the law of the land so to speak. Your clinicians aren't making the calls on the field.

Whatever, this is truly laughable.

[TecnoGenius]

Marionos hit is not really a penalty. He saw the ball moved he did his job. Is he supposed to know the centre js jhst adjusting the ball. He did the right thing. .if rge centre moves tge balk well hes resposible for the defence reacting

Rewatch the play live.  1Q12:57.  The C doesn't move the ball at all, at all, before the Marino hit.  The entire time the camera is on them, 4.19 seconds by my stopwatch, that ball doesn't move.  At all.  Period.

What does happen is Cottoy goes horribly offside, then LT, RG, RT all get up.  C and LG don't move.  At all.

Marino comes in and trucks the C.  It's horrific to watch and I've never seen anything like it in the CFL.  Marino clearly keyed off the other OL and thought "oh boy free hit on defenceless C".

The C was defenseless.  The whistle had blown.  It as a penalty, a misconduct and a fine.

As for the whistle... the whistle sounds just after the hit.  So at least Marino can say he didn't hear a whistle.

It's still a foul and should have been a penalty.

[TecnoGenius]

You believe what you want to believe, and I m going to call it as instructed by clinicians-no change in direction, no call. That?s the correct interpretation.

There is every possibility the CFL has tweaked the HC definition over the years.  Perhaps your clinic is not CFL-specific, and perhaps U sports or whatever plays by slightly different rules.  You really would have to check the specific rulebook being played by.

As per the post CFL rule, the phantom HC we are talking about was not a foul because the D did not "pull the runner toward the ground".  He had his hand over the HC area but let go before there was any pulling.  Of course your clinic would agree, but because of your "change in direction" interpretation.

If a D grabs that area, realizes immediately they have the collar and lets go before it impacts the carrier, that should not be a HC penalty (as per the CFL rules).

[buckzumhoff]

Cottoy should nkt go offside. The ref should have tbriwn the flag right away. Why do they get a chance to cheat and cross the line but an offensive ljneman cant even move an inch witbout getting called for procedure. That gives the offense a chance to see what the defense is doing. Just cross the line come back.  As long as tge time clock isnt zero

[dd]

There is every possibility the CFL has tweaked the HC definition over the years.  Perhaps your clinic is not CFL-specific, and perhaps U sports or whatever plays by slightly different rules.  You really would have to check the specific rulebook being played by.

As per the post CFL rule, the phantom HC we are talking about was not a foul because t,he D did not "pull the runner toward the ground".  He had his hand over the HC area but let go before there was any pulling.  Of course your clinic would agree, but because of your "change in direction" interpretation.

If a D grabs that area, realizes immediately they have the collar and lets go before it impacts the carrier, that should not be a HC penalty (as per the CFL rules).

Oh my god, this is ridiculous .I m telling you I have checked the rulebook , I have officialted for 20 years, and if the grab on the collar does not affect the runner, there is no call. End of story. It?s called horsecollar TACKLE, not horse collar grab. 

[TecnoGenius]

Oh my god, this is ridiculous .I m telling you I have checked the rulebook , I have officialted for 20 years, and if the grab on the collar does not affect the runner, there is no call. End of story. It?s called horsecollar TACKLE, not horse collar grab. 

Right, ok.  But you still have the issue of multiple refs calling these whiffy/swipey/brushy horsecollars all season long.  They'll continue to do so.