Official Game Day Thread - Winnipeg at BC October 15, 2022

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I looked quite a few places (and searches) in the rulebook and can find nothing at all that would indicate there is some sort of loophole about a OOB player making a KO OOB.

Someone said there are NFL rules about this.  Maybe the ref who the player pointed to to try to influence is one of the ref-swapping NFL-ites.

There really is no other explanation.

The reason such a rule would make no sense is because then you could have a 6' player who sees a ball 6' from the rail put his toe OOB and fall down in-bounds and touch the ball 6' in-bounds (while toe is still OOB).  Are you telling me that would be an illegal kickoff?  Same situation as this one.  Ridiculous.

What shocks me more than officials being insane is that MOS missed chirping and challenging this??  That's not like our MOS.

The only explanation is that the ball bounced OOB and bounced back in when the camera picked it up.  For some reason on that kick all we got was the iso on #17 like we really cared what he was doing.  And then no replay on a call that cost us 50 yards field position??

FORUM MEMBERS NEED ANSWERS!   

I think it was pretty clear from their actions that Terry Williams and the Lions researched this rule before they employed it, they probably saw it used in the NFL and investigated it's implementation in the CFL.  Usually O'Shea is up on all the gimmicks ST can use, no indication he was upset by it or didn't already know about it.  Question is why waste it in an almost meaningless situation?  You'd think in a game were Williams was returning kicks so well, a do over from 10 yards further back is pretty insignificant.

[TecnoGenius]

Just because T.Williams seemed to want to indicate to a ref he knew what he was doing, doesn't prove anything.

I'm researching this further and there really is no reason this ball was an illegal kickoff.

Rule 5 Kicking
Section 2 Kickoff
  Article 2 Legal Kickoff
   (b) The ball, unless touched, shall not go Out of Bounds in the Field of Play.  Penalty: ...

The ball was touched and from what we saw did not go OOB.  Neither condition holds, so it was a legal kickoff.  The other subsections aren't relevant here (OSK rules, goalpost hit and simultaneous catch).

How about:

Article 8 Gaining Possession on a Kickoff
  On a kickoff, a player who catches the ball must come down in bounds to gain posession.  If the player was the last to touch the ball, either the player or the ball must come down in bounds for possession to be awarded.

This is more of the "players flying towards rail on an OSK" rule so that they can bat the ball while in the air and they fall OOB but the ball falls in-bounds.  I don't think this applies here.  For one thing, the returner was not in the air, nor did they "catch" the ball, nor did they really "touch" (i.e. bat) the ball.  They picked up the ball and gained control.

But I don't think any of that matters because all of this is superseded by this rule:

Section 9 Out Of Bounds
Article 8 Illegal Participation

  It is illegal for a player of either team to go Out of Bounds, without contact with an opponent, and return to the field and participate in that play. (the returner did this!)

  It is illegal for a player of either team to go out of bounds, without contact with an opponent, and to reach back into or re-enter the field of play to touch or recover a loose ball. (the returner did this! if a rolling kickoff is considered a loose ball)

  Note: When the ball hits a player who is out of bounds and not attempting to touch or recover it, the ball is considered out of bounds at that point regardless of how the player got out of bounds.

This last point is the only one that might apply here.  But it doesn't for two reasons:
1. The returner was attempting to touch it, he reached down and grabbed it as it stopped!  He was clearly there to "recover" the ball.
2. This rule surely exists to cover "accidental" touches like Hassell's helmet the other week.

The only way this would apply, and here seems to be the loophole, is if the returner doesn't reach down, but just stands there trying to act like they are not trying to touch or recover and positions themselves so the ball rolls into their foot still in-bounds.

It's a dumb rule, but it clearly doesn't apply here because the returner acted like they were trying to touch or recover the ball.  The rule should be clarified, and the CFL should apologize to WPG for costing us 50Y field position.  At the very least the rule should explicitly exclude kickoffs.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Any sightings of #15 Cooper in this game?

[Waffler]

Also see
SECTION 9 ? OUT OF BOUNDS
Article 1 ? Definitions

The ball is Out of Bounds when it touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

Interested in seeing what MOS says but due to the Jet game the coaches show airs tomorrow night.

[Blue In BC]

From the Lionbackers site: Even Lions fans think this was an error of interpretation by the refs.


The equivalent CFL rule is:
Article 1 ? Definitions
The ball is Out of Bounds when it touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines. The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline, Sideline in Goal, Dead Line or the ground or any other object on or beyond these lines.

The rules differ in that the CFL rules specify that the ball is out when it touches a sideline... or any other object, while the NFL rules state that a ball is out of bounds when it touches a boundary line or anything... including a player.

In any case, there is an apparent conflict between the ball out of bounds rule and the illegal participation rule. Was the ball out of bounds because it touched a player who was out of bounds, or did Williams illegally participate in the play after going out of bounds?

It seems to me that player deliberately went out of bounds and then picked up the ball while it was still in bounds. The kick itself did not go out of bounds.

The referee's interpretation of this rule is, in my view, absurd. It should have been illegal participation.

[Horseman]

Just because T.Williams seemed to want to indicate to a ref he knew what he was doing, doesn't prove anything.

I'm researching this further and there really is no reason this ball was an illegal kickoff.

The ball was touched and from what we saw did not go OOB.  Neither condition holds, so it was a legal kickoff.  The other subsections aren't relevant here (OSK rules, goalpost hit and simultaneous catch).

How about:

This is more of the "players flying towards rail on an OSK" rule so that they can bat the ball while in the air and they fall OOB but the ball falls in-bounds.  I don't think this applies here.  For one thing, the returner was not in the air, nor did they "catch" the ball, nor did they really "touch" (i.e. bat) the ball.  They picked up the ball and gained control.

But I don't think any of that matters because all of this is superseded by this rule:

This last point is the only one that might apply here.  But it doesn't for two reasons:
1. The returner was attempting to touch it, he reached down and grabbed it as it stopped!  He was clearly there to "recover" the ball.
2. This rule surely exists to cover "accidental" touches like Hassell's helmet the other week.

The only way this would apply, and here seems to be the loophole, is if the returner doesn't reach down, but just stands there trying to act like they are not trying to touch or recover and positions themselves so the ball rolls into their foot still in-bounds.

It's a dumb rule, but it clearly doesn't apply here because the returner acted like they were trying to touch or recover the ball.  The rule should be clarified, and the CFL should apologize to WPG for costing us 50Y field position.  At the very least the rule should explicitly exclude kickoffs.

Thank you for your research, confirms that the refs got it wrong, this is the CFL, NFL rules do not apply.

[Waffler]

But yet it seems odd to me that no fuss was made either by the Bombers or the TSN commentators. Would love a statement by someone in the league about it.

[M.O.A.B.]

we got one away the leos got one away. even steven.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

On the OB post game show Derek Taylor specifically asked MOS about this and his remarks were "hats off to them for making a great play" or words t9 that effect.   He said it's not a rule that's widely understood or known and applauded BC for using it in this situation.   He had no issues whatsoever with it.  What he did say is that he doesn't particularly like the rule however it IS the rule!   End of discussion as far as he was concerned.

[DM83]

Bombers played well.

Remove  the two Pick sixes, Bombers win.
Many players executed their assignment well. 

Bombers have to clear up their Kick coverage.

VA played maybe his best game, as did the BC O line.

[Pigskin]

Some of D numbers:

Parker 8T/1Sack
Sayles 4T/1Sack
Adams 4T
Walker 2T
Leggs 2T
Thomas 1T/1Sack.

Adams looked much better this game. Parker was outstanding.

O numbers:

McCrae:   3/21  7 yard avg.
JA27:       4/17  4.3 yard avg.

Running game had a tough night.

Brown:  28/39    325 yards   3TD's  2 Int, both pick 6.

RB88:  11/121    2 TD's
DS83:  4/82        1 TD
ND10:  7/67

Grant one sweep 22 yards. Grant looked very good.

[GOLDMEMBER]

Some of D numbers:

Parker 8T/1Sack
Sayles 4T/1Sack
Adams 4T
Walker 2T
Leggs 2T
Thomas 1T/1Sack.

Adams looked much better this game. Parker was outstanding.

O numbers:

McCrae:   3/21  7 yard avg.
JA27:       4/17  4.3 yard avg.

Running game had a tough night.

Brown:  28/39    325 yards   3TD's  2 Int, both pick 6.

RB88:  11/121    2 TD's
DS83:  4/82        1 TD
ND10:  7/67

Grant one sweep 22 yards. Grant looked very good.

Nice thanks for posting.

[Pigskin]

A few more D numbers for the year.

CS90   32 DT/ 5 Sacks
WJ5     30 DT/ 7 Sacks/ 1 Int.
KA54   22 DT/ 3 Sacks
JJ94    18 DT/ 3 Sacks/ 1 Int.
JT95    15 DT/ 4 Sacks
RW96  13 DT/ 1 Sack
CL99   12 DT/ 1 Sack.

RW96 playing better lately. CL99 not so much.

[GOLDMEMBER]

A few more D numbers for the year.

CS90   32 DT/ 5 Sacks
WJ5     30 DT/ 7 Sacks/ 1 Int.
KA54   22 DT/ 3 Sacks
JJ94    18 DT/ 3 Sacks/ 1 Int.
JT95    15 DT/ 4 Sacks
RW96  13 DT/ 1 Sack
CL99   12 DT/ 1 Sack.

RW96 playing better lately. CL99 not so much.

Also, Willie J has I believe to be 9 pass knock downs which is insane for a DE player with one more game to go..

[TecnoGenius]

Thanks everyone for the deep dive on the Illegal Kickoff.  I especially like B in BC's Lions Fans take on it.

Lincoln: I think MOS got it wrong... we can hear MOS/DT here

https://globalnews.ca/pages/audio-vault-cjob/
Oct 16 12:00am
skip to 11:00 or so
and then skip to 28:00

If the rule is officiated as they interpreted it then you can take this to absurdity.  Any time a kickoff is rolling anywhere near a sideline and the returner has time like this (longer, slower roll), they can use the full length of their body or width of their stride (i.e. doing the splits) to touch/hold their foot OOB before touching the ball.

This isn't a few yards we're talking here: we're talking starting at the 20 vs starting at almost midfield.  Abusing this can pay huge dividends on every near-sideline kickoff.

B in BC is right I think re: NFL rules being different.  In our rulebook, I can't see "object" being a term that includes "player", because they don't generally refer to players as "objects" in other places: they just use the word "player".  So the "object" loophole should not apply here.  By object they mean "goalpost" or "gatorade barrel".

The only way I think this call was right, by our own rulebook, is if the returner lets it hit his foot and thus is "not attempting to touch or recover it", but you could argue just him being there, as the returner, he's always attempting to "recover it".

I think the CFL should immediately clarify:
a) What the correct call should have been in this game.
b) Define "object" and explicitly state whether "player" is "object" or specifically exclude "player"
c) Change "not attempting to touch or recover it" wording to be more like "is not the primary returner" or "doesn't know where the ball is" or "has clearly accidental contact"

If this rule stands as-called.  I would toy with the idea of putting the 2 tallest/wingiest players (i.e. WJ) at either rail on every kickoff and if the kick is within about 10 feet of either rail and rolling, the long player lays down with their foot on the rail, and body inbounds, and touches the ball when it rolls by.

The main returner (like JG) can be coming over to get the ball should the lay-down attempt fail.  This means the kickers must kick pretty straight down the field, or we can often snag a center field start on kickoffs.