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

[TBURGESS]

They way they called it does clarify the call. It's the same in the NFL. Someone on the other forum posted clips of it being called the same way in the NFL multiple times.

[Waffler]

Lincoln: I think MOS got it wrong...

I highly doubt MOS didn't know this rule. The official called it right away too.

Anyway, seems more like a loop hole to a rule than anything else. As we already have too many penalties I just want to see that become a dead ball and the line of scrimmage. No penalty at all.

[Waffler]

Confirmed on the coaches show that MOS not only knew the Terry Williams rule but coaches it to our players. Also says he "does not like the rule".

Kicked deep at end of game because of the low probability of recovering a short one. Thought we could get 2 and out and preserve field position.

This portion was about 34 minutes into the show if anyone uses the audio vault.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

Confirmed on the coaches show that MOS not only knew the Terry Williams rule but coaches it to our players. Also says he "does not like the rule".

Kicked deep at end of game because of the low probability of recovering a short one. Thought we could get 2 and out and preserve field position.

This portion was about 34 minutes into the show if anyone uses the audio vault.

when he spoke to it immediately after the game he commented that he didn't like the rule albeit he is quite aware of it.   I would suspect that as a former special teams coach he is up on the rules more than most posters on here....even TG.....lol

[TecnoGenius]

when he spoke to it immediately after the game he commented that he didn't like the rule albeit he is quite aware of it.   I would suspect that as a former special teams coach he is up on the rules more than most posters on here....even TG.....lol

Ya, but did MOS point to the exact rule that trumps the other rules here?  I think all of us here have identified every relevant rule.  I don't see any rule that allows T.Williams to do what he did and have it called illegal kickoff.

You don't need to listen to me, or MOS, you need to look at the rules, which we have listed here, and illuminate us on how it applies here.

My take is the rules do allow for something like this, but not the way T.Williams did it.  He had to not pick up the ball to have any chance of hitting this loophole.  I've outlined what the rules say he has to (not) do in my previous posts.

Don't just defer to authority, too many people have done that in the last 3 years.  Read and think for yourself.  MOS (or anyone) can get things wrong.  I could be wrong.  Maybe there's more relevant rules we haven't found yet.

I still would like to see a clarification from the CFL.

[dd]

It makes no sense that a player go purposely out of bounds?-it was a calculated move not misjudgement that lead him out of bounds, and that he can come back in and touch the ball, only to deem it out of bounds now even though it?s in bounds. Crazy talk.

The whole thing about the cfl is the 5 yd halo rule to encounter safe returns and generate excitement in the game. This stunt denies putting the ball into play and on to of that draws a foul for kicking it out of bounds when it was laying on th field of play?? Absolutely should be illegal participation and the ball should have went to the bombers for such a d bag move.

[Waffler]

I still would like to see a clarification from the CFL.

Couldn't agree more. They say it's a rule and I have no problem with that but no where have I seen it pointed out exactly what part of the rule book it is spelled out in. A lot of fans are wondering the same thing.

[TBURGESS]

I think it's as simple as the player didn't come back into the field of play, so he is outta bounds. As soon as the ball touches him, it too is outta bounds.

Just think of a receiver who catches the ball with one foot out. He's out, so the ball's out.

[Blue In BC]

I think it's as simple as the player didn't come back into the field of play, so he is outta bounds. As soon as the ball touches him, it too is outta bounds.

Just think of a receiver who catches the ball with one foot out. He's out, so the ball's out.

Not nearly the same thing. He stepped out intentionally and back in to touch the ball in bounds. He did not carry the ball out of bounds before being able to get a foot down.

[M.O.A.B.]

I believe we did it once also. Not sure if it's in '19 or last year.

[TBURGESS]

Not nearly the same thing. He stepped out intentionally and back in to touch the ball in bounds. He did not carry the ball out of bounds before being able to get a foot down.

You don't have to carry the ball out of bounds to be outta bounds.

He didn't come back on to the field after he was out, so that part of the rule doesn't matter.

One foot in and one foot out is out, just like a receiver who catches the ball on the sidelines standing still, but one heal over the line.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You don't have to carry the ball out of bounds to be outta bounds.

He didn't come back on to the field after he was out, so that part of the rule doesn't matter.

One foot in and one foot out is out, just like a receiver who catches the ball on the sidelines standing still, but one heal over the line.

I agree with your interpretation, hopefully the CFL gets rid of this loop-hole for next season, what it should be is a delay of game penalty for the player who wastes everyone's time intentionally.

[Blue In BC]

You don't have to carry the ball out of bounds to be outta bounds.

He didn't come back on to the field after he was out, so that part of the rule doesn't matter.

One foot in and one foot out is out, just like a receiver who catches the ball on the sidelines standing still, but one heal over the line.

I explained this once before but her it goes again. I've deleted the PVR game film so can't re-check

1. He touched his right foot out of bounds at the same time as touching the ball? In order to do that he'd have to lift his left foot in at the same time, If his left foot was still in the field of play BEFORE he touched the ball, then the ball is in bounds and live.

2. If he lifts the left foot first and then steps out with the right foot exactly when he touches the ball then it could be said the ball was out of bounds.

Realistically I don't see how either of those is possible to happen at exactly at the same time.  Hence he touched out of bounds and re-entered the field of play from a technical point of view.

That makes him ineligible to 1st touch the ball at best. That's a penalty to the Lions not an illegal kick off.

[Pete]

To me ih he had one foot out of bounds and he caught the ball it would be like a receiver and it would be ruled out of bounds, bit if the ball is in bounds on the ground  then to touch it is going back into the field 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I explained this once before but her it goes again. I've deleted the PVR game film so can't re-check

1. He touched his right foot out of bounds at the same time as touching the ball? In order to do that he'd have to lift his left foot in at the same time, If his left foot was still in the field of play BEFORE he touched the ball, then the ball is in bounds and live.

2. If he lifts the left foot first and then steps out with the right foot exactly when he touches the ball then it could be said the ball was out of bounds.

Realistically I don't see how either of those is possible to happen at exactly at the same time.  Hence he touched out of bounds and re-entered the field of play from a technical point of view.

That makes him ineligible to 1st touch the ball at best. That's a penalty to the Lions not an illegal kick off.

His right foot was planted out of bounds before he picked up the ball, he wasn't rushed and deliberately pointed out his foot to the officials before he picked up the ball which had come to a stop. It was a rehearsed scenario well executed.