The Non-Dribbled Non-OSK "Kick From Scrimmage" Again

[TecnoGenius]

MTL did the "1 yard dribble" again tonight.  They converted on 2nd & 20 with Antwi catching a hitch (behind the LoS), moving near the LoS, and dropping it on his leg, which moves the ball forward 1 yard, and then diving onto it.

MTL Rs were doing clearing routes to pull all the MTL Ds 25Y downfield.  A MTL guy made it to Antwi only after he was already in fetal.

A "free 20Y" (sort of) by advancing the ball 1Y beyond the LoS.

Ferguson said there was a huge off-season debate about the play and they decided to keep it legal.  News to me (the debate part, not the legal part).

I'm still not sold on it being a good thing for the league.  However, it does spice up the entertainment factor.

Why are other teams scouring the rulebooks finding loopholes and deploying trick plays, and never us?  Even after they show us the way we just ignore it.  Just like we ignore the advantage a DNA can give (well, not with our pathetic IMP situation...).

In the OTT game we had a chance to win the game if we won the Hail Mary (which we actually got off, for once)... and instead of studying and deploying the trick BC against us last season, we just sat there doing the "old style" Hail Mary, and failing as they normally do.  Why didn't we learn and keep 1-3 guys shallower and facing the pile for the rebound?  In this instance it would have been a catch and possibly we YAC it the 5Y into the EZ.

My point is all these interesting new ideas pop up, and are always noted here on the forum, and we ignore every last one of them.  Well, maybe we plan to defend against them, but we never integrate them for us to deploy.

We used to be the "top trick team" in the CFL when MOS first came in, back when we sucked.  As we got better we abandoned all the tricks.  Now we never do trick anything.  Heck, it's been a full season (plus!) since we tried a pass on 2nd & 1.  The idea was we were "too good" now and didn't "need" to do anything other than play straight up football by the book.  And it sounded reasonable...

So then why does league-top King Of The Hill MTL employ so many tricks and creativity?  And why does it help them win?  If "good" teams that can play fundamental ball don't need to "resort" to trickery, why are they?  And why is it working so well?

Maybe the whole concept of "so good you don't have to be creative" is bunk.  Maybe we're just lazy.  And stale.  Out-brained by Maas, Destroyer Of Headsets... SMH.

[gobombersgo]

Montreal also got a touchdown when their backup QB threw on 3rd and 1.

I am still waiting until Strevy throws a pass.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

MTL did the "1 yard dribble" again tonight.  They converted on 2nd & 20 with Antwi catching a hitch (behind the LoS), moving near the LoS, and dropping it on his leg, which moves the ball forward 1 yard, and then diving onto it.

MTL Rs were doing clearing routes to pull all the MTL Ds 25Y downfield.  A MTL guy made it to Antwi only after he was already in fetal.

A "free 20Y" (sort of) by advancing the ball 1Y beyond the LoS.

Ferguson said there was a huge off-season debate about the play and they decided to keep it legal.  News to me (the debate part, not the legal part).

I'm still not sold on it being a good thing for the league.  However, it does spice up the entertainment factor.

Why are other teams scouring the rulebooks finding loopholes and deploying trick plays, and never us?  Even after they show us the way we just ignore it.  Just like we ignore the advantage a DNA can give (well, not with our pathetic IMP situation...).

In the OTT game we had a chance to win the game if we won the Hail Mary (which we actually got off, for once)... and instead of studying and deploying the trick BC against us last season, we just sat there doing the "old style" Hail Mary, and failing as they normally do.  Why didn't we learn and keep 1-3 guys shallower and facing the pile for the rebound?  In this instance it would have been a catch and possibly we YAC it the 5Y into the EZ.

My point is all these interesting new ideas pop up, and are always noted here on the forum, and we ignore every last one of them.  Well, maybe we plan to defend against them, but we never integrate them for us to deploy.

We used to be the "top trick team" in the CFL when MOS first came in, back when we sucked.  As we got better we abandoned all the tricks.  Now we never do trick anything.  Heck, it's been a full season (plus!) since we tried a pass on 2nd & 1.  The idea was we were "too good" now and didn't "need" to do anything other than play straight up football by the book.  And it sounded reasonable...

So then why does league-top King Of The Hill MTL employ so many tricks and creativity?  And why does it help them win?  If "good" teams that can play fundamental ball don't need to "resort" to trickery, why are they?  And why is it working so well?

Maybe the whole concept of "so good you don't have to be creative" is bunk.  Maybe we're just lazy.  And stale.  Out-brained by Maas, Destroyer Of Headsets... SMH.

That play and the following TD changed the momentum of the game, Argos had them backed up 2nd and 20 or something huge and they pull that stunt to get an easy first down, really does feel like cheating when they use it.

[dd]

Not sure why the pro game has this loop hole. The amateur rule is dribbling a ball does not break the continuity of downs so there would be no automatic first down on a dribbled ball. Can't believe the pros took that part of the rule out, as it allows for what is going on now, huge 2 nd and 20 situation dribble the ball and recover it to get s first down even though you didn't gain any significant years. I expect this loop hole to be closed as it is bush league.

[bomb squad]

The best way to "close the loophole" is on the field. It's defendable. Be ready for it, cover it, get the ball. If that happens a couple of times, you won't see it for a few years.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The best way to "close the loophole" is on the field. It's defendable. Be ready for it, cover it, get the ball. If that happens a couple of times, you won't see for a few years.

Easy to say but difficult to defend against when it's not top of the mind, and why should it be?  There will be hell to pay if they pull that off in a playoff game and it influences the final outcome.  It was league negligence not to deal with it and get rid of it in the off-season.

[bomb squad]

Easy to say but difficult to defend against when it's not top of the mind, and why should it be?  There will be hell to pay if they pull that off in a playoff game and it influences the final outcome.  It was league negligence not to deal with it and get rid of it in the off-season.

If it so difficult to defend against, then everybody would be doing it.

[dd]

A dribbled ball is supposed to be a ball kicked while on the ground not in possession by any team. To me if you're carrying th ball and 'fumble' it only to kick it with no one around you, it should be treated as a fumble and as such a fumble doesn't reset your downs

[Jesse]

A dribbled ball is supposed to be a ball kicked while on the ground not in possession by any team. To me if you're carrying th ball and 'fumble' it only to kick it with no one around you, it should be treated as a fumble and as such a fumble doesn't reset your downs

It's not a dribbled ball. It's classified as an onside kick.

[Stats Junkie]

Not sure why the pro game has this loop hole. The amateur rule is dribbling a ball does not break the continuity of downs so there would be no automatic first down on a dribbled ball. Can't believe the pros took that part of the rule out, as it allows for what is going on now, huge 2 nd and 20 situation dribble the ball and recover it to get s first down even though you didn't gain any significant years. I expect this loop hole to be closed as it is bush league.

In the CFL, a dribbled ball does not break the continuity of downs either. The play in question is NOT a dribbled ball, it is classified as a 'Kick From Scrimmage'.

A dribbled ball is supposed to be a ball kicked while on the ground not in possession by any team.

You are correct. Same ruling in the CFL.

To me if you're carrying th ball and 'fumble' it only to kick it with no one around you, it should be treated as a fumble and as such a fumble doesn't reset your downs

Again, you are correct.

Bottom line - Everyone needs to stop calling this type of play a dribble kick.

[Stats Junkie]

In 2014, Montreal showed us how to defend this play - skip to 6:43

[TecnoGenius]

There, adjusting the thread title now that the high-brains have chimed in!  Thanks for the correction guys.

However, we may need to come up with a better term than OSK or "kick from scrimmage"... as those are too long-winded and ambiguous.

Let's hear some ideas on creative names for this play.  Preferably 1 or 2 words, and catchy!

[TecnoGenius]

It's not a dribbled ball. It's classified as an onside kick.

Not quite: it would have to be an onside punt, not like an OSK KO... OSK KO has to go 10Y.  Clearly this trick doesn't require the 10Y.

[TecnoGenius]

In 2014, Montreal showed us how to defend this play - skip to 6:43

Ya, it all hinges on every D biting on clearing routes (and the O doing good clearing routes in the first place!), and the D playing "prevent D" on 2nd & a mile, which they normally do.

What you have to do is have someone spy the sneak-out RB/TE/FB route and stay within ~15Y of him to get there in time.

But as we've seen, in 2nd & mile the default formation is to sit at the 1st down marker to stop the traditional play.  By having to cover the sneak-out guy you are sacrificing an extra defender in a tight zone or man double-coverage.

Since only MTL does this so far, the only time you have to defend this trick is when playing MTL.

[TecnoGenius]

If it so difficult to defend against, then everybody would be doing it.

Everybody isn't doing it because there's so much laziness and stodginess in the CFL.  Our team is a perfect example.

Some new trick that can maybe turn a game around for you?  Nah, ignore it.

Some new roster rule (DNA/DNS anyone?) that can give you an on-field advantage?  Nah, ignore it.

One thing I've noticed about MTL is they play every single card they are dealt.  They are far & away the most creative and "tricky" and "roster smart" team in the league.  And they don't even have to be, because they also have the raw talent.  No resting on laurels over in French land.

No, Henoc is correct: every single team should be deploying this.  Pick 1 or 2 players, as MTL clearly has, and task them with specializing this play.  Just like the Hail Mary trick, we should be lapping this stuff up and scheming and practicing.  Heck, all it takes is one lesser-used dude (say JA27) who still sees the field sometimes going off to the park on weekends and dropping/kicking the ball 1000 times until they have it down pat.

But nah, we'll just sit and complain.  Less work that way.

[BomberFan73]

Pretty sure we tried it late when we were 2nd & 20, we sent 3 guys deep & Strev threw out to Brady, but ofcourse CGY knew we would go to Brady and not throw deep and he had 2 guys on him right away. But you could see Brady think about it.

[markf]

This play being legal, is absurd.

You have highly skilled athletes  beating the daylights out of each other to gain yards, make first downs etc.

But you allow this nonsensical, low skill, boring play to be legal.

And they want Americans to watch the CFL.

Makes the league look foolish.

[Blue In BC]

The NFL has an onside punt rule as well. In theory this odd 1 yard kick would work there as well. I don't remember anyone trying this but in a similar situation why wouldn't they?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's a stupid rule that should be changed. It's not "Canadian". No one has ever indentified with the CFL game and a one yard dribble kick.

The punter is not onside in the NFL, so no, it wouldn't work.

[Jesse]

Oh, you're all a bunch of old sticks in the mud.

[Blue In BC]

It's a stupid rule that should be changed. It's not "Canadian". No one has ever indentified with the CFL game and a one yard dribble kick.

The punter is not onside in the NFL, so no, it wouldn't work.

Yes he is and yes it would in theory.

A player of the kicking team (at any kick, not just a free kick) who is "onside" may recover the ball and retain possession for his team. This includes the kicker himself and anyone else behind the ball at the time it was kicked, other than the holder for a place kick.

[TecnoGenius]

A player of the kicking team (at any kick, not just a free kick) who is "onside" may recover the ball and retain possession for his team. This includes the kicker himself and anyone else behind the ball at the time it was kicked, other than the holder for a place kick.

The other week the CFL had that OSK where the kicker ran past the ball and then did some weird twist-leg-behind kick.  I wondered at the time how that was legal because he was clearly in front of the ball before touching it.  Wouldn't that kicker be offside?

The only way he wouldn't be offside is if there was a special rule that says the kicker can never be offside.

P.S. It was a great kick and intriguing kick motion.

[Big Daddy]

The other week the CFL had that OSK where the kicker ran past the ball and then did some weird twist-leg-behind kick.  I wondered at the time how that was legal because he was clearly in front of the ball before touching it.  Wouldn't that kicker be offside?

The only way he wouldn't be offside is if there was a special rule that says the kicker can never be offside.

P.S. It was a great kick and intriguing kick motion.

I remember that kick, it was the first time I'd ever seen that.  Looked like a soccer fancy move to be honest. 

Was anything ever determined about it - kicker being offside?  I didn't even think of that angle, but a good question for sure.

[TecnoGenius]

Was anything ever determined about it - kicker being offside?  I didn't even think of that angle, but a good question for sure.

No one ever said boo... until I brought it up just now.  There must be a special exception for kickers somehow because even on a normal KO the K is slightly in advance of the ball: front foot plants ahead, back foot comes through from behind.  Too lazy at the mo to check the rulebook...

[Big Daddy]

No one ever said boo... until I brought it up just now.  There must be a special exception for kickers somehow because even on a normal KO the K is slightly in advance of the ball: front foot plants ahead, back foot comes through from behind.  Too lazy at the mo to check the rulebook...

Makes sense.  I really suspect no one has ever even thought about it to that detail of being a few inches ahead of the ball.  Just assume everyone has to be behind the kicker, and the kicker is eligible because he is the one kicking.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Yes he is and yes it would in theory.

A player of the kicking team (at any kick, not just a free kick) who is "onside" may recover the ball and retain possession for his team. This includes the kicker himself and anyone else behind the ball at the time it was kicked, other than the holder for a place kick.

Show me an NFL rule that says a punter is onside and can recover his own punt. Unless something has changed very recently, I don't believe it is possible.

The punter is onside in the CFL which is why the stupid play works.

[Stats Junkie]

The other week the CFL had that OSK where the kicker ran past the ball and then did some weird twist-leg-behind kick.  I wondered at the time how that was legal because he was clearly in front of the ball before touching it.  Wouldn't that kicker be offside?

The only way he wouldn't be offside is if there was a special rule that says the kicker can never be offside.

P.S. It was a great kick and intriguing kick motion.

By rule, the kicker (and holder if applicable) are considered to be onside for all kickoffs.

[dd]

Show me an NFL rule that says a punter is onside and can recover his own punt. Unless something has changed very recently, I don't believe it is possible.

The punter is onside in the CFL which is why the stupid play works.

On or offside on a punt is determined by the players position with respect to,the ball. The punter is behind the ball so he's onside. If you line up players behind the Baal, they're onside too. This is commonly seen in high school football where the punters aren't that great so teams try to recover their own punt by lining up onside.

Not sure what the NFL rule is, never watch that league, but from what I've seen anyth8ng to make the game more boring seems to be their rules. Kickoff through the end zone and fair catch punts, ya, they keep me on the edge of my seat!

[Blue In BC]

Show me an NFL rule that says a punter is onside and can recover his own punt. Unless something has changed very recently, I don't believe it is possible.

The punter is onside in the CFL which is why the stupid play works.

That's the quote I posted on my response.  There are a few older NFL video's but you can have an onside K/O and you can have an onside punt.

[TecnoGenius]

By rule, the kicker (and holder if applicable) are considered to be onside for all kickoffs.

Thank Junkie!  That's exactly what I was looking for.  Makes a lot of things make sense, then.  Interesting trivia re: the holder!

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That's the quote I posted on my response.  There are a few older NFL video's but you can have an onside K/O and you can have an onside punt.

https://operations.nfl.com/media/tvglh0mx/2023-rulebook_final.pdf

In the NFL? I don't think so. Page 36, Article 2. After it's been kicked across the LOS, you cannot recover a punt, defined in the rulebook as scrimmage kick. As far as a kickoff goes, maybe, those rules are different, but the CFL "drop kick" would be defined by the NFL rulebook as a scrimmage kick. So no.

[Blue In BC]

ARTICLE 3. LIVE BALL. A live ball is a ball that is in play. A dead ball becomes a live ball when it is:
(a) legally kicked on a free kick down (6-1-1; 6-1-3);
(b) legally snapped on a scrimmage down (7-1-1; 7-6-1); or
(c) legally kicked on a fair catch kick down.
It continues in play until the down ends (3-9-1).
ARTICLE 4. LOOSE BALL. A loose ball is a live ball that is not in player possession, i.e., any ball that has been kicked, passed,
or fumbled. A loose ball is considered to be in possession of the team (offense) whose player kicked, passed, or fumbled it. It is a
loose ball until a player secures possession or until the ball becomes dead. If it has not yet struck the ground, a loose ball is in

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Sigh.

ARTICLE 2.  FIRST TOUCHING BEYOND THE LINE. "First touching" is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick in the field of play that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no live ball penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers; if there is a live ball foul by the receivers that is enforced, either before or after the first touching violation, or any changes of possession, the violation is disregarded, and the penalty is enforced as customary.


...Could it be any more clear? What this is trying to tell you if that drop kick happened in the NFL it would be a first touching violation and the receiving team would take over at the spot of the touch. This happens a handful of times a season further down the field when punts hit cover teams in windy situations.

[Blue In BC]

Sigh.

ARTICLE 2.  FIRST TOUCHING BEYOND THE LINE. "First touching" is when a player of the kicking team touches a scrimmage kick in the field of play that is beyond the line of scrimmage before it has been touched by a player of the receiving team beyond the line. If the ball is first touched by a player of the kicking team, it remains in play. First touching is a violation, and the receivers shall have the option of taking possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, provided no live ball penalty is accepted on the play, or at the spot where the ball is dead. First touching does not offset a foul by the receivers; if there is a live ball foul by the receivers that is enforced, either before or after the first touching violation, or any changes of possession, the violation is disregarded, and the penalty is enforced as customary.


...Could it be any more clear? What this is trying to tell you if that drop kick happened in the NFL it would be a first touching violation and the receiving team would take over at the spot of the touch. This happens a handful of times a season further down the field when punts hit cover teams in windy situations.

Cover teams are not onside or the punter. That seems clear to me.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

 

Cover teams are not onside or the punter. That seems clear to me.

No one is onside in the NFL on a punt. This is what I've been trying to tell you. It's not a thing.

[Blue In BC]

Perhaps not a typical punt but defined as a nonside punt after giving up a safety.

https://youtu.be/IFQW_gks5FQ

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Perhaps not a typical punt but defined as a nonside punt after giving up a safety.

https://youtu.be/IFQW_gks5FQ

That's a kickoff. It's totally different as you know very well.

[Blue In BC]

That's a kickoff. It's totally different as you know very well.

If you listen to the audio this example is defined as a punt.

While it's not a typical punt on offence, it still applies. I found some old examples which for some reason I couldn't copy into the string.

See post # 31 which was copied from the NFL rule book, item B.  That sounds like a punt to me in the normal sense.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

If you listen to the audio this example is defined as a punt.

While it's not a typical punt on offence, it still applies. I found some old examples which for some reason I couldn't copy into the string.

See post # 31 which was copied from the NFL rule book, item B.  That sounds like a punt to me in the normal sense.

Holy smokes man. It's not an offensive play. It's a kickoff and in the NFL you are allowed to do drop kick kickoffs in certain circumstances. He may be "punting" the ball but it's not a fourth down (or any down) play. You clearly are out of your element on this one.

[TecnoGenius]

Love it, you guys!  Getting deep in the weeds is always fun.  I have no idea what any of this NFL stuff means, though I'm following along.  Don't care about the NFL!  But comparisons never hurt, and neither do thought experiments.

However, my hunch is Sir B&G won this one.  At best BinBC is looking to win by ambiguity.  It could be a case where things aren't defined clearly enough.

It would seem to hinge on players being allowed to be "onside" on a punt.  If the NFL never does the "keep 1 or 2 players behind the punter on punts" trick like we sometimes see in the CFL, then it would seem you can't be onside on a punt.  It probably has to do with the whole lack of halo and option for the kicking team to down or touch their own punt without penalty when fair catch is called.  But I don't watch enough NFL to really know.  Nor do I really care beyond trivia's sake!

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Love it, you guys!  Getting deep in the weeds is always fun.  I have no idea what any of this NFL stuff means, though I'm following along.  Don't care about the NFL!  But comparisons never hurt, and neither do thought experiments.

However, my hunch is Sir B&G won this one.  At best BinBC is looking to win by ambiguity.  It could be a case where things aren't defined clearly enough.

It would seem to hinge on players being allowed to be "onside" on a punt.  If the NFL never does the "keep 1 or 2 players behind the punter on punts" trick like we sometimes see in the CFL, then it would seem you can't be onside on a punt.  It probably has to do with the whole lack of halo and option for the kicking team to down or touch their own punt without penalty when fair catch is called.  But I don't watch enough NFL to really know.  Nor do I really care beyond trivia's sake!

The answer is no. No one is onside on a punt in the NFL ever. The punting team cannot recover the ball unless it hits the returning team first (muffed punt).

[KINGCHARLES]

In 2014, Montreal showed us how to defend this play - skip to 6:43

Thing is Montreals defence this year might be the only defence skilled enough to stop that play

[KINGCHARLES]

I think they need to change the play so that the "onside kick" needs to cover at least the yardage required to make a 1st down.
Ex either a 2nd & 20 goes 20 yards or you dribble it, recover it and gain the 20 yards by foot

[TecnoGenius]

I think they need to change the play so that the "onside kick" needs to cover at least the yardage required to make a 1st down.
Ex either a 2nd & 20 goes 20 yards or you dribble it, recover it and gain the 20 yards by foot

Ya, making the kick go the 20Y would eliminate the trick completely, because that would defeat any benefit.  (The kick+run idea would never fly because there's literally nothing like that in football.)

I think the easier, and more familiar, way to stop it is to enforce a minimum 10Y kick distance just like on KOs.  Ya, punt is different than a KO, but at least fans would be familiar with the 10Y idea already.

Or you could maybe force all (first) punts to be made from a minimum 10Y back from the LoS... most punts are done at least that far back from LoS anyhow.  But you may need an exception for broken-down "scramble" punts.

I say "first" punts because you still want to leave in the possibility of "hook & ladder" silly CFL endings.  You also might be able to focus on the pass before the "punt", forcing it to be a lateral/pass-back and not a forward pass...

Since they said the CFL examined this in detail, I would love to see a copy of their report on this!!  I bet all of this stuff came up.  Maybe they even have an elegant solution already figured out.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I say get rid of it altogether but if they insist on keeping it then just making the punter offside probably makes the most sense. You'd then have two people stacked together which would be a tell or you'd have to scheme a more creative way to have another player around through motion or a come back route or something. Having the punter kick it one inch over the line and pick it back up makes no sense whatsoever.

[Blue In BC]

I think they need to change the rule but I'd leave the punter as onside. In the past we've seen a shanked punt recovered by the punter downfield.

The issue is a punt of 1 yard or less just over the LOS which is ridiculous.

[TBURGESS]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker. 

Examples: 

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and doesn't get it past the first down marker = next down or turnover if it was 3rd down. 

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and gets it past the first down marker = First down.  

Punter kicks ball past the first down marker & recovers it= First down.  

[Blue In BC]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker.

Examples:

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and doesn't get it past the first down marker = next down or turnover if it was 3rd down.

Punter kicks ball less than the first down marker, recovers it and gets it past the first down marker = First down. 

Punter kicks ball past the first down marker & recovers it= First down.   

In theory I agree. In reality if could be into a gale force wind on 3rd and 30 when the punter shanks the punt unintentionally.

We have seen bad punts that only travelled 10 - 15 yards due to coming off the side of the punters foot. IIRC, there was one last week which was recovered by the receiving team, or might have even gone out of bounds?

[TBURGESS]

In theory I agree. In reality if could be into a gale force wind on 3rd and 30 when the punter shanks the punt unintentionally.

We have seen bad punts that only travelled 10 - 15 yards due to coming off the side of the punters foot. IIRC, there was one last week which was recovered by the receiving team, or might have even gone out of bounds?

If you don't advance the ball past the first down marker, you should have to give it up, no matter what the wind is like. 

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no. 

[Blue In BC]

If you don't advance the ball past the first down marker, you should have to give it up, no matter what the wind is like.

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no.

That's a bit more complicated. Punts can be blocked behind the LOS and the punter can recover it but the team loses possession because it did not travel past the LOS.

A partially blocked punt can travel over the LOS and can be recovered by the punter. I can't honestly say how the rule is applied in this instance. You'd think it would be the same as the dribble intentionally over the LOS which is not where the 1s down marker sits?

Overall it's a quirk in the rule and I certainly don't like how the Als have used it. Whether that should create a change to the rules, I'd agree.

Exactly what that change would be is not as evident. Maybe the same as on a onside K/O, it has to travel 10 yards minimum.

[TBURGESS]

That's a bit more complicated. Punts can be blocked behind the LOS and the punter can recover it but the team loses possession because it did not travel past the LOS.

A partially blocked punt can travel over the LOS and can be recovered by the punter. I can't honestly say how the rule is applied in this instance. You'd think it would be the same as the dribble intentionally over the LOS which is not where the 1s down marker sits?

Overall it's a quirk in the rule and I certainly don't like how the Als have used it. Whether that should create a change to the rules, I'd agree.

Exactly what that change would be is not as evident. Maybe the same as on a onside K/O, it has to travel 10 yards minimum.

It's really simple. If you don't go past the first down marker with the ball in your possession, you shouldn't get a first down. I don't care if it's running, passing, fumbling, kicking and recovering, or anything else for that matter. 

[Blue In BC]

It's really simple. If you don't go past the first down marker with the ball in your possession, you shouldn't get a first down. I don't care if it's running, passing, fumbling, kicking and recovering, or anything else for that matter.

I'm ok if they change it the way you suggest but onside punt in the CFL has been around for a long time. We don't see many successful ones each year but a few are tried.

[TecnoGenius]

I'd like them to change it so that it's only a first down if an onside player with the ball goes past the first down marker.

If you do that then you remove this wonky play entirely, because the whole purpose is to get like 19 yards "for free".  If you still need to gain yards, then why would you drop & kick it first and waste all that time when you still need to run it the same distance?

Ya, so most people want to remove the play, so ok, let's do it.  But how do you write that into the rulebook in the most economical way?  No one wants another exception tacked on in some addendum (already enough of those): it should fit into the rest of the rules in a logical and economical manner.

I think it may be beneficial to separate a "real punter who is 10Y back from the LoS at the snap" from "Joe Shmo running back".  Any rule should focus on the fact that: one is behind everyone and taking a "lateral/backwards pass", and one is lined up like a RB or WR and taking a forward pass.

How about just say that to be a punt behind the LoS you have to get the ball via a lateral/backwards pass/snap (so no forward hitch like Antwi uses!).  Punts beyond the LoS can still occur for "hook & ladder", so no change there.  Normal punts will not be affected as they are always a backwards snap and occur behind LoS.  Easy peasy, economical (one line added!) with the rules and non-intrusive.

If someone does do a forward pass and then punt @LoS across the LoS then it counts as a normal fumble/recovery (so no first down unless yards are gained), and thus no one would do it anymore.

Problem solved.

[TecnoGenius]

Lets say a punt is blocked and the punter picks up the ball. Should the team get a first down if he doesn't advance it past the first down marker? I say no.

But this is a non-issue as the punter almost never recovers it because the team B gunners are generally 2-3 people on a "block that kick" play, and they are facing the ball and looking for a block.  The P is one guy and often staring downfield and has no idea where the blocked ball went.

And for the 0-1 times a season the P recovers it, as was already mentioned it's still a TOD if the ball didn't get past the LoS.

I can't recall ever seeing a blocked punt that passes the LoS and then gets recovered by the P and they get a free set.  Besides you can't plan and practice that like you do an Antwi punt... too many variables and too much chaos.

Just like this Antwi thing, I say worry about what teams are exploiting now, then worry about the what-ifs when teams exploit them later.

[TecnoGenius]

We still need a name for this play...

"Non-Dribbled Non-OSK Kick From Scrimmage" or NDNOKFS is a real crap acronym.

How about these ideas:

The Antwi Amble
The Antwi Artifice
The Piddly Punt
The Puny Punt
The Drop Kick
The Ball & Fall
The CONversion

Pick your favorite, and add some more!

[Blue In BC]

But this is a non-issue as the punter almost never recovers it because the team B gunners are generally 2-3 people on a "block that kick" play, and they are facing the ball and looking for a block.  The P is one guy and often staring downfield and has no idea where the blocked ball went.

And for the 0-1 times a season the P recovers it, as was already mentioned it's still a TOD if the ball didn't get past the LoS.

I can't recall ever seeing a blocked punt that passes the LoS and then gets recovered by the P and they get a free set.  Besides you can't plan and practice that like you do an Antwi punt... too many variables and too much chaos.

Just like this Antwi thing, I say worry about what teams are exploiting now, then worry about the what-ifs when teams exploit them later.

We have seen some punts recovered downfield by the punter. Usually on an unintentional shank. I think those are normally punts past the 1st down marker but it would take some research to confirm that. I have no idea where you'd actually check that.

More often you see a no yards called which is then waived because it was the punter who is onside and he did or didn't recover the kick.

[TBURGESS]

It should be easy to write a rule that says... You must pass the first down marker with possession of the ball to get a first down. It doesn't need to be specific to punts. 

[TecnoGenius]

We have seen some punts recovered downfield by the punter. Usually on an unintentional shank. I think those are normally punts past the 1st down marker but it would take some research to confirm that. I have no idea where you'd actually check that.

More often you see a no yards called which is then waived because it was the punter who is onside and he did or didn't recover the kick.

An onside player or punter recovering (in any manner) is still super rare.  The most memorable for us is the Meddy one where he kneed it out and got Lankford depersoned from the CFL.  But though it may have been a not-so-great kick, it still went 40+ yards.

We should also consider the product-on-field fan-wow-factor of these plays.  Meddy running down to knee it out is spectacular and entertaining.  Antwi punting 1Y, not so much.  Only us CFL nerds are intrigued.  I wouldn't want to do anything that inadvertently eliminates rare but exciting plays.

I wouldn't worry about any "on-purpose shank" from a real punter with a real backwards long-snap.  If they manage to kick it precisely 10-20Y and then recover by an onside guy, fans will love it and it'll be exciting and I say give it to them.  The odds of pulling that off will be the same as an OSK... which is maybe 10%.

Again, I would focus on the passing aspect of these NDNOKFS plays.  That's the way you attack this and only this particular problem.

[TecnoGenius]

In the OTT game tonight there were a few moments we were 1st or 2nd and 17-20 where I really wished Bombers had the Antwi-Antics play in their book.  At the very least forcing a DB to stay up at the line with a wide-out R or a sneaking-out RB is one less player they have to stop your 20Y pass attempt.

[BomberFan73]

In the OTT game tonight there were a few moments we were 1st or 2nd and 17-20 where I really wished Bombers had the Antwi-Antics play in their book.  At the very least forcing a DB to stay up at the line with a wide-out R or a sneaking-out RB is one less player they have to stop your 20Y pass attempt.

I think we have practiced it, and as I posted earlier, I think we tried to do it lastgame.  Doesn't work great for us though as our deep threat is not respected, and noone is leaving Brady open.

[theaardvark]

Lets get rid of he rouge, lets add a down, shrink the field...

No.

Its stuff like this that creates 4 page threads discussing the unique nature of the CFL game.  It happens almost never, and adds to the "No lead is safe" part of the CFL.

[TecnoGenius]

Lets get rid of he rouge, lets add a down, shrink the field...

No.

Its stuff like this that creates 4 page threads discussing the unique nature of the CFL game.  It happens almost never, and adds to the "No lead is safe" part of the CFL.

Ya, but: true or false, this one feels different, like it's overstepping some line.  Besides, all the other things you mentioned have been in the CFL forever, whereas this trick play is brand spanking new.  You could take it away tomorrow and in 2 seasons no one will ever even remember it.

[TecnoGenius]

I think we have practiced it, and as I posted earlier, I think we tried to do it lastgame.  Doesn't work great for us though as our deep threat is not respected, and noone is leaving Brady open.

What was the time when you think they tried to use it?  My opinion is MOS instructs his O to avoid tricks like this.

And if we can't do it because Brady is never left alone, then put JA27 in for the play.  It works in MTL because they have their #2 RB as their dedicated Antwi-Antics player.  Therefore if we're going to do it, we make one of our lesser/backup players "the guy", not Brady.  Also makes sense because Brady needs to focus on practicing being the best RB; Johnny has time to devote to learning a trick.

[BomberFan73]

What was the time when you think they tried to use it?  My opinion is MOS instructs his O to avoid tricks like this.

And if we can't do it because Brady is never left alone, then put JA27 in for the play.  It works in MTL because they have their #2 RB as their dedicated Antwi-Antics player.  Therefore if we're going to do it, we make one of our lesser/backup players "the guy", not Brady.  Also makes sense because Brady needs to focus on practicing being the best RB; Johnny has time to devote to learning a trick.

It was vs CGY lastgame, late.  We were 2nd & 20.  I'm surprised you didn't catch it, you love the little things like that.
Even with JA in, I don't think it works because it's Strev at QB. It might with Zach back there. 

[Pete]

hard to believe we have 5 pages of posts on this topic. And please dont say great minds want to know.
on the other hand our coaches seem to have forgotten the entertainment value of trick plays..
the bomberuski.
the metcalf kickoff down the middle that was caught in the air to set up the great mtrl comeback win
the kickoff return where everyone pretended it was going to the opposite side of the field
these are special moments in bomber history and we need more

I've often wondered why we dont station two recievers behind the punter and have him kick it sky high. the chances of recovering would be 50/50.

[theaardvark]

hard to believe we have 5 pages of posts on this topic. And please dont say great minds want to know.
on the other hand our coaches seem to have forgotten the entertainment value of trick plays..
the bomberuski.
the metcalf kickoff down the middle that was caught in the air to set up the great mtrl comeback win
the kickoff return where everyone pretended it was going to the opposite side of the field
these are special moments in bomber history and we need more

I've often wondered why we dont station two recievers behind the punter and have him kick it sky high. the chances of recovering would be 50/50.

Starting the gunners behind the punter, on side, and having them hit the spot at speed (punt waggle), if you have a 4.40 guy doing that, you could outrun the punt, and possibly either recover the kick or at least legally blow up the returner.

Even just one gunner... what would it remove from coverage having one guy heck bent on destruction coming downhill at full speed?  Might even be enough to make a returner bobble the kick, knowing there is a legal heat seeking missile coming his way.

[TecnoGenius]

I've often wondered why we dont station two recievers behind the punter and have him kick it sky high. the chances of recovering would be 50/50.

Because we don't have a kicker who can do that?  You need a Jon Ryan type guy who can air it that much.

And it won't work in CGY and EDM, lol (speaker in the middle!).

Other than that, I love the idea!

[TecnoGenius]

Starting the gunners behind the punter, on side, and having them hit the spot at speed (punt waggle), if you have a 4.40 guy doing that, you could outrun the punt, and possibly either recover the kick or at least legally blow up the returner.

I think the returner is protected from excessive blow-ups within the halo, even if the blower-upper is onside?

[dd]

I think the returner is protected from excessive blow-ups within the halo, even if the blower-upper is onside?

Correct. Even though you're onside, you can't run in and smoke the punt returner, it would be a 15 yd no yards call and a 15 yd UR, or 30 yd penalty.

[Pete]

Cant smoke him but you can defend him as if you were a db and cause a free ball, both ford and holm are speedy enough

[TecnoGenius]

Ya, but execution of a super-high kick and on-side recovery in the air would have to be up there with OSK-level success rate...

The Antwi-Antics play, if practiced enough, and only attempted when the conditions are perfect, could have a 90%+ success rate.

Why not focus on the slam-dunk play?

[TecnoGenius]

Ok, I have the perfect name for the Antwi-Antics play:

The Dropsie-Flopsie

You drop the ball, you flop your body on top... which leads me to another try:

The Drop & Flop

Or how about The Drop-Kick Trick.  Come on, we need some more name ideas!  We're gonna see MTL do it again... you can bet money on it.

[Pete]

Ya, but execution of a super-high kick and on-side recovery in the air would have to be up there with OSK-level success rate...

The Antwi-Antics play, if practiced enough, and only attempted when the conditions are perfect, could have a 90%+ success rate.

Why not focus on the slam-dunk play?

One does not preclude the other. It depends on the coverage and situation.

[theaardvark]

I think the returner is protected from excessive blow-ups within the halo, even if the blower-upper is onside?

Pretty sure the halo does not exist for onside players, they can chase the ball into it, and blow up a returner if they can get there in time.  Sure, you can't torpedo spear a returner without at least looking for the ball, but no reason you can't hit him as he is receiving the ball, or a split second after.

It has to be a high, short punt for an onside player to make up that 12 yard head start and still get there before/as the ball comes down.  Hence trying the waggle start.  Maybe have a guy on the sideline calling out to the onside guy if he times it right, or calling him off if he isn't onside when the punter kicks the ball.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Pretty sure the halo does not exist for onside players, they can chase the ball into it, and blow up a returner if they can get there in time.  Sure, you can't torpedo spear a returner without at least looking for the ball, but no reason you can't hit him as he is receiving the ball, or a split second after.

It has to be a high, short punt for an onside player to make up that 12 yard head start and still get there before/as the ball comes down.  Hence trying the waggle start.  Maybe have a guy on the sideline calling out to the onside guy if he times it right, or calling him off if he isn't onside when the punter kicks the ball.

You can go after the ball but you cannot blow a guy up. It's a minimum 15-yard penalty if you do. You just have to apply common sense as to why.

[theaardvark]

You can go after the ball but you cannot blow a guy up. It's a minimum 15-yard penalty if you do. You just have to apply common sense as to why.

The halo prevents a non0onside player from "blowing up" a returner.  Pretty sure a solid tackle isn't a penalty.  Otherwise Hansen would have gotten a penalty for that GC hit, or Ayers last game.  As an onside player, you have every right to be in the halo.  No reason I can see that stops you from making a solid tackle / forcing a fumble.  If you have a rule to quote, I'm eager to be corrected.  Obviously if you hit the retrner Before the ball arrives, that's interference... but once it's there, Boom.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The halo prevents a non0onside player from "blowing up" a returner.  Pretty sure a solid tackle isn't a penalty.  Otherwise Hansen would have gotten a penalty for that GC hit, or Ayers last game.  As an onside player, you have every right to be in the halo.  No reason I can see that stops you from making a solid tackle / forcing a fumble.  If you have a rule to quote, I'm eager to be corrected.  Obviously if you hit the retrner Before the ball arrives, that's interference... but once it's there, Boom.

If an on-side player on a punt were to fly down the field at full speed and time his hit with the returner catching the ball it would be a penalty. Hands down. 100%. Argue it all you want.

[theaardvark]

If an on-side player on a punt were to fly down the field at full speed and time his hit with the returner catching the ball it would be a penalty. Hands down. 100%. Argue it all you want.

Not sure why you would think that.  If an onside player is in the halo when the ball is touched, and a ref throws a flag for no yards, eye in the sky will tell them to pick up the flag as the player had been onside. 

Show me a rule that says different?

[dd]

Rule 5 article 11 section e

The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

You're welcome

[Pete]

Rule 5 article 11 section e

The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

You're welcome

As long as you hit him just after the reception its legal then, you can be within the halo., so at worst  you can limit the return before he gets momentum , if you are able to  touch the football prior to his reception all the better

[TecnoGenius]

Found it Aards... I knew there was a specific rule just for this case:

Article 10 - No Yards
(e) if a kicking team player invades the 5-yard zone, and contacts in an unnecessarily rough manner a receiving team player who is attempting to play the ball, the kicking team player will be subject to 15 yard No Yards penalty and an addition 15-yard UR or 25-yard RP Disqualification penalty, regardless of whether the ball had struck the ground.

Note that unlike the preceding "normal" No Yards penalty, this rule does NOT specify offside/onside.  It applies to all kicking team players.  Even an onside player.  It is a special rule added in just for the onside-blowing-up-returner case.

So an onside guy can come into the halo and make a form tackle that does not appear "rough".  He cannot blow up the guy who caught the ball 0.5s ago.

Also, your Hansen example is a red herring because that occurred outside the halo.  The halo area is special no matter what kind of player you are.

Sir B&G is right: it has to be this way, as CFL returners play with an expectation of not having to look for being blown up.  They are looking up at the ball, not down at the gunners.  It would completely change the game if they had to worry about in-halo blowups that could end their season.

[theaardvark]

Rule 5 article 11 section e

The kicker or an onside player may enter the restraining zone and legally recover the kicked ball, but shall not interfere with an opponent attempting to recover the ball.

You're welcome

Never said they should interfere with the recovery of the ball, that's a given on any "free ball" play.  Its the same rule as PI.  You can't impede a player's attempt at the ball.

He can hit the returner at the moment of catch and knock the ball loose instead of having to cover the five yard halo after the catch,

He can also attempt to catch the ball or knock it away, whilst not impeding the returner.

My point is that he can be in the halo when the ball arrives, and not have to wait for the returner to touch the ball to cross that 5 yard buffer.  Like a DB smoking a receiver as he catches the ball to cause the incomplete pass.  Except in this instance, the ball is live and any player, onside or not, can then take possession.

[TecnoGenius]

My point is that he can be in the halo when the ball arrives, and not have to wait for the returner to touch the ball to cross that 5 yard buffer.  Like a DB smoking a receiver as he catches the ball to cause the incomplete pass.  Except in this instance, the ball is live and any player, onside or not, can then take possession.

From the wording of the rule I quoted, and the fact it gets its own special explicit rule, I would think a DB is allowed to smoke a receiver to a harsher degree than an on-side punt-gunner would be allowed to smoke a returner.

A DB can smoke a WR right after the ball comes in as long as he doesn't "Loffler" him, and as long as he doesn't do some writhing.

I seriously doubt an onside punt-gunner could get away with the same.  No, I think the rule would require you do a wimpy "form tackle" or you're going to take the special in-halo penalty.

But we've never seen an example in modern CFL... so who knows how the refs would call it.  And I bet if the refs screwed up command would step in and apply the halo-specific rules.

[theaardvark]

From the wording of the rule I quoted, and the fact it gets its own special explicit rule, I would think a DB is allowed to smoke a receiver to a harsher degree than an on-side punt-gunner would be allowed to smoke a returner.

A DB can smoke a WR right after the ball comes in as long as he doesn't "Loffler" him, and as long as he doesn't do some writhing.

I seriously doubt an onside punt-gunner could get away with the same.  No, I think the rule would require you do a wimpy "form tackle" or you're going to take the special in-halo penalty.

But we've never seen an example in modern CFL... so who knows how the refs would call it.  And I bet if the refs screwed up command would step in and apply the halo-specific rules.

I guess my point is that there are no "halo specific rules" when if comes to onside players tackling inside the halo.  Should there be?  Maybe.  Is a returner catching a ball "defenseless"?  I guess you can argue that point.  Like a WR that goes up in the air trying to get a ball but misses it and then gets smoked. 

Just having that player able to puncture the "no fair catch" halo makes a returner incredibly more likely to drop the ball.  Making them second guess their catch could be an effective weapon for turnovers.

[Blue In BC]

I guess my point is that there are no "halo specific rules" when if comes to onside players tackling inside the halo.  Should there be?  Maybe.  Is a returner catching a ball "defenseless"?  I guess you can argue that point.  Like a WR that goes up in the air trying to get a ball but misses it and then gets smoked. 

Just having that player able to puncture the "no fair catch" halo makes a returner incredibly more likely to drop the ball.  Making them second guess their catch could be an effective weapon for turnovers.

I think if there was an onside player that entered the halo, he's more likely to make an effort to recover the ball than make a tackle.

I agree there should be / could be some rule protection to protect a defenceless returner even with an onside player.

It happens so seldom I'm trying to remember an onside kick recovery on a punt. Usually it's on a K/O where it's mad scramble to get to the ball 1st. It's not unusual to see an interference penalty on the receiving team.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Not sure why you would think that.  If an onside player is in the halo when the ball is touched, and a ref throws a flag for no yards, eye in the sky will tell them to pick up the flag as the player had been onside. 

Show me a rule that says different?

It's also just the most basic application of common sense imaginable.

[TecnoGenius]

I guess my point is that there are no "halo specific rules" when if comes to onside players tackling inside the halo.

There is!  I proved it in this post:
http://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55772.msg1627498#msg1627498

That is a specific rule that covers all "kicking team players".  Even an onside gunner would activate this rule.  You can prove that is true by looking at the initial paragraph of Article 10, where they do make a distinction between offside/onside.

If onside gunners were exempt from 10(e) then instead of using the term "kicking team players" they would have used "player who is offside" like they did in the earlier instance.

I guarantee you 10(e) means you can't do anything remotely "blowing up" on a returner, regardless of your onside/offside status.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

There is!  I proved it in this post:
http://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55772.msg1627498#msg1627498

That is a specific rule that covers all "kicking team players".  Even an onside gunner would activate this rule.  You can prove that is true by looking at the initial paragraph of Article 10, where they do make a distinction between offside/onside.

If onside gunners were exempt from 10(e) then instead of using the term "kicking team players" they would have used "player who is offside" like they did in the earlier instance.

I guarantee you 10(e) means you can't do anything remotely "blowing up" on a returner, regardless of your onside/offside status.

You're right. Of course you can't.

The fact that it needs to be spelled out to someone that a player cannot run 50 yards down the field at full speed and drill a player standing still looking up into the sky is astounding.

[Pete]

I think if there was an onside player that entered the halo, he's more likely to make an effort to recover the ball than make a tackle.

I agree there should be / could be some rule protection to protect a defenceless returner even with an onside player.

It happens so seldom I'm trying to remember an onside kick recovery on a punt. Usually it's on a K/O where it's mad scramble to get to the ball 1st. It's not unusual to see an interference penalty on the receiving team.

Ive seen it used when kickers are punting into a big wind, the ball hangs up and doesn't go a far distance. And no, you can't blow up the returner but of course you can tackle him. Just have to do so cleanly without intent to injure.

[theaardvark]

There is!  I proved it in this post:
http://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=55772.msg1627498#msg1627498

That is a specific rule that covers all "kicking team players".  Even an onside gunner would activate this rule.  You can prove that is true by looking at the initial paragraph of Article 10, where they do make a distinction between offside/onside.

If onside gunners were exempt from 10(e) then instead of using the term "kicking team players" they would have used "player who is offside" like they did in the earlier instance.

I guarantee you 10(e) means you can't do anything remotely "blowing up" on a returner, regardless of your onside/offside status.

You cannot " and contacts in an unnecessarily rough manner a receiving team player who is attempting to play the ball,"  onside or off.  note the word attempting.  Once the ball has been played, open season.  Just like PI, once the ball is touched, you can hit 'em. 

An offside player has to cover 5 yards before hitting them.  And onside player can be less than a yard away.  Timing is essential...

And when I say "smoke" a player, its never meaning an illegal hit, or "unnecessarily rough".  I'm talking a clean hit of intensity, like Ayers hit last game or the Hansen hit in the GC...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You cannot " and contacts in an unnecessarily rough manner a receiving team player who is attempting to play the ball,"  onside or off.  note the word attempting.  Once the ball has been played, open season.  Just like PI, once the ball is touched, you can hit 'em. 

An offside player has to cover 5 yards before hitting them.  And onside player can be less than a yard away.  Timing is essential...

And when I say "smoke" a player, its never meaning an illegal hit, or "unnecessarily rough".  I'm talking a clean hit of intensity, like Ayers hit last game or the Hansen hit in the GC...

And I'm telling you, you cannot do that. A legal hit in normal circumstances (a regular play) can be facemask to facemask at 100 miles an hour.

If you do that in an "onside" punt cover (timing it for the moment the guy touches the ball) you will be flagged 100% of the time. If you stop and make a tackle it's cool. If you fly down and drill the guy it's a minimum 15 yard and probably 25 yard penalty.

Go ask on the Coaches Show. Find anyone in the CFL game who knows how the game is played and ask. This is basic common sense and there's a reason why you NEVER see what you're suggesting actually happen.

[theaardvark]

And I'm telling you, you cannot do that. A legal hit in normal circumstances (a regular play) can be facemask to facemask at 100 miles an hour.

If you do that in an "onside" punt cover (timing it for the moment the guy touches the ball) you will be flagged 100% of the time. If you stop and make a tackle it's cool. If you fly down and drill the guy it's a minimum 15 yard and probably 25 yard penalty.

Go ask on the Coaches Show. Find anyone in the CFL game who knows how the game is played and ask. This is basic common sense and there's a reason why you NEVER see what you're suggesting actually happen.

I would think the biggest reason is it is almost impossible to beat a punt downfield if you are onside.  Unless the punter purposely hangs it up, or is kicking into a hellacious wind. 

The halo makes the NFL non-fair catch play smoke tackle impossible for an offside player.  No reason it limits an onside player.  As long as the tackle is clean and legal.  Ball has to be touched by the returner before contact, hit has to be a legal tackle (not low or high, or leading with the helmet) 

[TecnoGenius]

You cannot " and contacts in an unnecessarily rough manner a receiving team player who is attempting to play the ball,"  onside or off.  note the word attempting.  Once the ball has been played, open season.  Just like PI, once the ball is touched, you can hit 'em. 

That is a good point, and once again the CFL chooses poor and ambiguous wording.

However, I would still argue that "attempting to play" is still occurring even after the catch.  Maybe when they actually get a full run on you can say they are no longer "attempting to play the ball".

But I'm pretty sure "attempting to play the ball" still holds the second after the ball is touched.

Like the other guys said, no one ever does it, and not just because it's difficult.  It may take it occurring once to discover exactly how command will interpret it.  And then I would expect to see a rule clarification and off-season rewording.

I'm nearly positive if someone did the Ayers hit within the halo, even if onside, even right after the ball was touched, that it would be flagged and upheld by command.

[theaardvark]

That is a good point, and once again the CFL chooses poor and ambiguous wording.

However, I would still argue that "attempting to play" is still occurring even after the catch.  Maybe when they actually get a full run on you can say they are no longer "attempting to play the ball".

But I'm pretty sure "attempting to play the ball" still holds the second after the ball is touched.

Like the other guys said, no one ever does it, and not just because it's difficult.  It may take it occurring once to discover exactly how command will interpret it.  And then I would expect to see a rule clarification and off-season rewording.

I'm nearly positive if someone did the Ayers hit within the halo, even if onside, even right after the ball was touched, that it would be flagged and upheld by command.

Just like PI, the attempt to play the ball ends when the ball is played.  That means touched.  If you used you more loosely specified timing on that "attempt to play the ball", you would never be allowed to hit a player.

Once the ball is touched, the halo vanishes and offside players can attack the returner.  Because an onside player can ignore the halo, they can be inside the halo when the ball is touched.  And hence, can make the tackle.

They cannot interfere with the returner preparing to receive the ball.  But the moment they touch the ball, the returner is open season, and onside players are not required to yield 5 yards.

[TecnoGenius]

Just like PI, the attempt to play the ball ends when the ball is played.  That means touched.  If you used you more loosely specified timing on that "attempt to play the ball", you would never be allowed to hit a player.

Well, the rulebook doesn't define "attempting to play the ball", so who knows precisely when it goes from "attempting to play the ball" to "played the ball".  And is there an intermediate step?  "Playing the ball"?

But you make good points.  However, the point remains that anything other than a "polite" form tackle will probably draw a flag, even if not directly supported by the rulebook.

Another thought experiment: the returner and an onside team A player are both trying to catch the ball in the air.  Legit both looking at it, tracking it.  Team A guy hits the returner pretty hard (knocks him over, etc.) in the process of catching, and team A guy catches the ball.  Penalty?

[theaardvark]

Well, the rulebook doesn't define "attempting to play the ball", so who knows precisely when it goes from "attempting to play the ball" to "played the ball".  And is there an intermediate step?  "Playing the ball"?

But you make good points.  However, the point remains that anything other than a "polite" form tackle will probably draw a flag, even if not directly supported by the rulebook.

Another thought experiment: the returner and an onside team A player are both trying to catch the ball in the air.  Legit both looking at it, tracking it.  Team A guy hits the returner pretty hard (knocks him over, etc.) in the process of catching, and team A guy catches the ball.  Penalty?

Treat onside vs. returner as a forward pass.  Both have the right to pursue the catch, but not the right to interfere with the other.  Any contact that interferes (either way) draws a flag, and in this case awards the ball to the interfered with player.

Like a loose ball scramble rule.  QB drops the ball as he falls.  He starts crawling to the ball and is most likely the guy who will get it.  Dlineman grabs his ankle and stops his progress and a DB scoops and scores.  Ball is returned to the O, and a penalty is assessed for impeding access to the ball. 

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/interference/interference-on-loose-ball/

[TecnoGenius]

Well, we have a bit of an answer on blowing up a returner.  Maybe.

CGY@OTT tonight 1Q4:37 Pimpleton gets creamed by onside P Grace as they both make a play for the punted ball slowly rolling around the EZ.

I'd say Grace did basically "blow up" Pimpleton, and I think it was H2H.  No penalty.  Now, maybe it's a bit different since it's not a big D monster, but only the wimpy punter?  And maybe a mitigating factor is they collided when both were diving on the ground.

But they were both making a (legal) play for the ball.  So clearly that was a mitigating factor.

I would have rather seen the scenario of him blowing up the returner while they were standing, but this play hints that maybe you can be laying heavy collisions on returners if you're onside.  That would make Aards right.

Bonus: ironically, the only recent cases of returners screwing up vis a vis punters rushing to play the ball are both when OTT is the returning team.  This instance, and the one that cost Lankford his CFL career.  Maybe OTT needs to better train up their STs.