Fake-conceding a safety

[TecnoGenius]

In our week 1 game:  2Q0:36 (right before halftime) Adeleke is trying to take a safety instead of punt out of his EZ.  He backpedals a few yards, then right before Gauthier reaches him he takes off running to kill clock.

Refs blow the play dead right before he takes off because he does a little downward movement that they construed as conceding / taking a knee.

Proulx says it's "objectionable conduct" "by rule" and applies a 10Y penalty.  HAM players and coaches are shown perplexed and freaking out.

Bomber fans didn't get excited, because hey, this helps us ssshhh.  But Riderfans forum GDT went mental (because we live rent-free in their heads).  So I'm diving into the rulebook, but I can't find really anything that applies.  Are the Riderfans right?  Is this another one of Proulx's fever dreams?

He says OC, so I look at OC rules and the only possible applicable part is "baiting... and opponent by act...".  Adeleke is baiting Gauthier, in a way.  In fact, Gauthier is going to paste Adeleke but eases up and diverts left just a little bit once he sees him "go down" so as not to draw a UR penalty.  This allows some blocker to get in and disrupt Gauthier.

But in the past "baiting / taunting" has usually meant some after-the-whistle thing, not an in-play thing.  A Riderfan makes the comparison of the QB "baiting" a player with a fake handoff or ride & decide.  I guess he has a point: QB is baiting the DL to bite on the fake.

Now, I'm still working off the 2021 rulebook, so maybe something was added since then in this regard?  (Anyone have the link to the 2023 rulebook?)

Did Proulx mess this one up?  Or is it legit per the actual rules?  Sounds like a good rule to add if it's not already there.  I remember plays where "kickers" fake going down a couple of times and when they finally do go down a coverage guy pastes them hard (for no penalty on either player).

[Jesse]

I don?t believe he made it up, lol. The reasons rider fans are made is that they don?t believe the player ?faked? giving himself up - it was pretty subtle.

I only saw it live at the game and haven?t seen a replay, but in real time I thought he was trying to take out the Bombers.

[The Zipp]

You can't fake slide...which is what they interpreted this as..

[TecnoGenius]

I don?t believe he made it up, lol. The reasons rider fans are made is that they don?t believe the player ?faked? giving himself up - it was pretty subtle.

I only saw it live at the game and haven?t seen a replay, but in real time I thought he was trying to take out the Bombers.

Yes, some did say they didn't see any fake.  Yes, it was subtle.  In fact, if Gauthier hadn't held up, maybe Proulx doesn't call it.  Gauthier seems to have thought he was taking a knee.  I bet he'd say so if you asked him.

The problem with Saskfans arguing there was no fake is that Adeleke stayed facing the LoS the entire time, and just backpedaling.  If you didn't want to fake a knee, why would you not start turning to run?  We've seen this many times before and the players usually get the ball and soon after start running to the other side of the EZ.

You could argue Adeleke's kneeling-slightly was just him winding up for the sudden run.  But you can't ask the refs to guess if the "wind up" is taking a knee or not.  I could get a good screen shot to show how low Adeleke lowers his body: it is substantial.  Knees are at best 1 foot off the ground.

Maybe more importantly, Gauthier instantly does the "you gonna allow this refs?" shrug right at Proulx after the blocker whacks him, pointing at Adeleke.  But the whistle had already blown by then.

As for "not making it up", the problem remains: find it in the rulebook    I searched every synonym for fake, concede, knee, etc. to no avail.

[Pete]

I believe its a good call, with all the emphasis on player "safety" (pardon the pun) when a tackler sees a returner is going to concede they should let up, If you allow the fakes in any form then its a free shot at any returner if you get him before knee touches
I imagine this has come up in referee discussions in the past, I agree that Prouix isn't just making it up on his own.

[pdirks67]

I was watching with three other guys. The rule makes sense, but none of us thought that there was a legitimate intent to fake-concede (i.e. we all agreed that it was a bad call).

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

You can't fake slide...which is what they interpreted this as..

Also known as the Cody Fajardo rule.

[TecnoGenius]

You can't fake slide...which is what they interpreted this as..

Ahh... Thanks for that extra info!  You're the man!  That indeed seems to be what they used here.  And as I suspected, it was a rule they added since the 2021 copy of the rulebook I'm using.  (Again: anyone have links to the 2023 version?)

New in 2022 from a cfl announcement:

Change: Introduction of a new objectionable conduct penalty for quarterbacks who "fake" giving themselves up by pretending to initiate a slide while carrying the football. The ball would also be spotted where the fake occurred. The safety of all quarterbacks is jeopardized when measures to protect them are instead used to gain an advantage.

Proulx is taking some liberties by applying it to "punters" though (unless it was again modified in 2023?), but it does stand to reason as in a punt situation the punter is the de facto "QB".  The safety issue would be precisely the same.  And Adeleke did for sure gain an advantage.

Clearly the HAM players and coaches studied the new rule changes about as much as I did...   

[TecnoGenius]

I was watching with three other guys. The rule makes sense, but none of us thought that there was a legitimate intent to fake-concede (i.e. we all agreed that it was a bad call).

It could for sure be taken that way.  But I see Proulx's way too.

For me the tell is how Gauthier reacts, and that may be what Proulx ultimately keys on.  Watch it again, especially in the slow-mo replay, which is a great angle.  I think it's without a doubt that Gauthier eases up and diverts left.  No way Gauthier doesn't paste the guy had he not thought he was conceding.  It would have been a great hit to witness     Adeleke should be happy both Gauthier and Proulx thought he was faking.

The league might have to clarify that the rule also applies to punters.  And they should clarify that it applies to "fake knees" as well as sliding (or just delete the "by pretending..." clause: it's superfluous.

[TecnoGenius]

As an interesting (bonus!) aside: When the safety was taken, it was within the 3 minute warning, yet WPG still was able to elect to take the ball rather than a forced kickoff.  This stems from the safety rules not taking into account the 3 minute warning (perhaps an oversight?).

Another interesting tidbit: They placed the ball at the 35.  Again, this is clearly spelled out in the safety rules.  However, in 2022 the CFL moved up nearly every starting position by 5 yards to "make more O".  Did they overlook the safety rules?  I guess not as many teams would take a safety knowing it starts on the 40?  Anyhow, yet another exception to the general rule that makes memorizing it all difficult.  (Credit to the head refs who do so!)

[dd]

It was conduct that was objectional, and by very definition is a foul. You don?t fake taking a knee and then run around. Same would apply if a Qb took the snap on the last play and faked taking a knee and ran around. Refs are trying to protect players in vulnerable positions- fielding a kick when you?re going to give up the rouge , and game ending kneel down plays to save people from getting hurt on a nothing play. If you want to play the goofball, then you?re going to get tagged. Right on Andre, hammer the loser!!

[Stats Junkie]

Now, I'm still working off the 2021 rulebook, so maybe something was added since then in this regard?  (Anyone have the link to the 2023 rulebook?)

As an interesting (bonus!) aside: When the safety was taken, it was within the 3 minute warning, yet WPG still was able to elect to take the ball rather than a forced kickoff.  This stems from the safety rules not taking into account the 3 minute warning (perhaps an oversight?).

Another interesting tidbit: They placed the ball at the 35. Again, this is clearly spelled out in the safety rules.  However, in 2022 the CFL moved up nearly every starting position by 5 yards to "make more O".  Did they overlook the safety rules?  I guess not as many teams would take a safety knowing it starts on the 40?  Anyhow, yet another exception to the general rule that makes memorizing it all difficult.  (Credit to the head refs who do so!)

2022 Rule Book
2023 Rule Book

The option after a safety touch is always
a) scrimmage from own 40
b) kickoff from own 30
c) have opposition kickoff from the 20
This rule does not change after the 3 minute warning of the 4th quarter (as it does for a FG)


The ball was actually placed at the 50 yard line following the safety touch. It will be obvious after you watch it for the 12th time.

69   2   HAM-3-3-H8   Kneel down at HAM00 for loss of 8 yards. Winnipeg Blue Bombers SAFETY TOUCH, clock 00:50
70   2   WPG-1-10-W40   (00:26) PENALTY HAM Objectionable conduct (#2 T.Adeleke) 10 yards from WPG40 to WPG50, 1ST DOWN. NO PLAY
71   2   WPG-1-10-W50   #20 B.Oliveira rush middle for 3 yards gain to the WPG53 (#44 C.Sayles)

An extra play was required to enter the penalty because Genius

[TecnoGenius]

2023 Rule Book

Thanks so much Junkie!!  I reference the rulebook weekly; so happy to get my hands on the newest one.

The option after a safety touch is always
a) scrimmage from own 40
b) kickoff from own 30
c) have opposition kickoff from the 20
This rule does not change after the 3 minute warning of the 4th quarter (as it does for a FG)

The ball was actually placed at the 50 yard line following the safety touch. It will be obvious after you watch it for the 12th time.

Ah, you are totally right, they did start at the 50 meaning it was the 45.  For some reason I was looking at where Zach was standing in the pistol and doing the math from there, doh.

As for the updated safety starting points in the rulebook, it helps that I have the 2023 rulebook now 

I still find it a bit odd the forced-kickoff-after-3-min-warning doesn't apply to safeties, though.

[TecnoGenius]

Right Andre, hammer the loser!!

Andre "The Hammer" Proulx.  His new nickname.  His explanation of this penalty should make good fodder for the next Andre Proulx Sings instalment on youtube.   

[BlueInCgy]

Andre "The Hammer" Proulx.  His new nickname.  His explanation of this penalty should make good fodder for the next Andre Proulx Sings instalment on youtube.   

Correction - it would be Andre ?De Ammer? Proulx.  If we?re assigning nicknames, let?s get it right.

As far as the call goes, I thought it was weak.  He barely flexed his knee.  That being said, I thought the refs were a little flag happy with the objectionable conduct and misconduct penalties in week 1, with the exception of the splash that was called.