Als at Riders GDT Fri 8pm CT

[bomb squad]

Possible.  However, with 0.5-1.0Y to go, I think MTL goes for it on 3rd and still gets a TD from the 5.

Plus, if SSK needs just 1 to win, Lauther could do a boomer FG attempt with no regard for accuracy.  Get the rouge from 45 and win.

Since SSK outplayed MTL all night long (lost due to FG misses and a KR TD), I actually think SSK wins in OT.  Dink & dunk MTL from the 35 and win.

It would have been pretty close to 2. With the amount of times and the amount of detail with which you've looked at this play, I'm surprised that got by you.

[TecnoGenius]

It would have been pretty close to 2. With the amount of times and the amount of detail with which you've looked at this play, I'm surprised that got by you.

Nope, I studied the spot very carefully.  The same pics where he stepped out showed his body angle and ball position before I zoomed them in for the foot focus.

He was leaning heavily forward and his ball-holding arm is the one extended forward at that moment.

Assuming the yellow TSN 1st down line is somewhat correct, at worst he is exactly 1.0Y away from 1st D.  That would be the spot if command overturned the TD, because they would also determine the spot.

Remember: the spot would be where the tip of the ball is when his foot twists OOB, NOT where his foot is!

If I must I can get some stills for you.  I'm looking at them right now.  The spot is the 6YL or slightly in advance of it.

Ye of little Tecno faith!

[bomb squad]

Nope, I studied the spot very carefully.  The same pics where he stepped out showed his body angle and ball position before I zoomed them in for the foot focus.

He was leaning heavily forward and his ball-holding arm is the one extended forward at that moment.

Assuming the yellow TSN 1st down line is somewhat correct, at worst he is exactly 1.0Y away from 1st D.  That would be the spot if command overturned the TD, because they would also determine the spot.


Remember: the spot would be where the tip of the ball is when his foot twists OOB, NOT where his foot is!

If I must I can get some stills for you.  I'm looking at them right now.  The spot is the 6YL or slightly in advance of it.

Ye of little Tecno faith!

No need. You've got a point that the ball appears to be forward of the foot, if that's indeed how they spot the ball in that situation (you can get me cfl info on that if you want). Not a yard though. His upper body is turned inward with the ball. Maybe a foot. My guess is they would have spotted it close to where his foot touched since that is the only definitive look they have. So, definitely more than a yard, and certainly not less than a yard. Going for it would have been a fair gamble.

[TecnoGenius]

No need. You've got a point that the ball appears to be forward of the foot, if that's indeed how they spot the ball in that situation (you can get me cfl info on that if you want). Not a yard though. His upper body is turned inward with the ball. Maybe a foot. My guess is they would have spotted it close to where his foot touched since that is the only definitive look they have. So, definitely more than a yard, and certainly not less than a yard. Going for it would have been a fair gamble.

Well, since i have it on my screen now anyhow:




That red line is straight down, that is where the forward tip of the ball is (maybe even a bit beyond, but what I marked is provable).

So it depends on the accuracy of the yellow TSN line.  If we assume it's accurate, then we have basically a 1.0Y sneak.  Ok, it could be maybe an inch or two beyond 1Y, but note that to gain yardage they only need to hit the leading edge of the yellow line!

Not a complete gimmee, but confident-OL teams usually go for it.  With 30s left do you think about tying instead?  Maybe.  What would MOS do??  Before Strev botched 3 in 3 games, I would have said "certainly".  Now... maybe?

But in no world would command review that toe-tap and put the ball where the trailing toe is.  They would put it where the ball is because that is where the ball was advanced to.  And that's almost a yard ahead of where the back toe touched the rail!

Remember, we're not talking a ref spot in realtime with vision obscured, etc.  We're talking command left in a situation with no spot.  Therefore they would use freezeframe to generate a spot.  They'd come up with the same I did above.  3rd & 1 at the 6.

[bomb squad]

Well, since i have it on my screen now anyhow:




That red line is straight down, that is where the forward tip of the ball is (maybe even a bit beyond, but what I marked is provable).

So it depends on the accuracy of the yellow TSN line.  If we assume it's accurate, then we have basically a 1.0Y sneak.  Ok, it could be maybe an inch or two beyond 1Y, but note that to gain yardage they only need to hit the leading edge of the yellow line!

Not a complete gimmee, but confident-OL teams usually go for it.  With 30s left do you think about tying instead?  Maybe.  What would MOS do??  Before Strev botched 3 in 3 games, I would have said "certainly".  Now... maybe?

But in no world would command review that toe-tap and put the ball where the trailing toe is.  They would put it where the ball is because that is where the ball was advanced to.  And that's almost a yard ahead of where the back toe touched the rail!

Remember, we're not talking a ref spot in realtime with vision obscured, etc.  We're talking command left in a situation with no spot.  Therefore they would use freezeframe to generate a spot.  They'd come up with the same I did above.  3rd & 1 at the 6.

Not so sure about that in this type of situation as it would be a difficult for a field official to determine the position of the ball in most cases. Therefore, they would go with the where the player first touched the line. If it's ball first in the air, then yes they would have to give it their best guess. And even replay would have a hard time with that unless they lucked out with a good angle. With a routine ground tackle play on the other hand, it's much easier to see where the ball is when a players body (other than hands and feet) first touch the ground because the ball is much closer to the ground, so they can go with ball position at time of first ground touch.

In any case, I wasn't able to find any info on ball spotting rules in Canadian Football and apparently neither were you. It's probably one of those officiating classroom type rules. My own personal take on it from watching it for so many years is it's spotted at where the player first touches the line, as long as the ball is still inbounds. But I could definitely be wrong on that.

Perhaps dd is willing to weigh in on this?
 

[TecnoGenius]

Not so sure about that in this type of situation as it would be a difficult for a field official to determine the position of the ball in most cases.

But that's my point... in this case, because command would overturn the non-OOB to OOB, no on-field ref would have anything to do with any spot.  The spot would entirely be determined by command center.  And they would use freezeframe to get it right because they'd have no other choice.

And even replay would have a hard time with that unless they lucked out with a good angle.

They would just do what I did and draw a line straight down and then another parallel to the 5YL (I didn't, but could do that too).  As long as the camera shot used had the camera level with the ground (probably has gimbals or similar, so safe assumption), the method of drawing a straight line down is accurate.  They probably have software to (semi)automate this.  In any event, they'd have to come up with some spot, any spot, and do so by themselves!  I would like to think they'd try to get it "right".

In any case, I wasn't able to find any info on ball spotting rules in Canadian Football and apparently neither were you.

I didn't know it was a rulebook challenge!  Ok... I checked it out and it appears the main rule speaking to the "spot" (but not with that term) is:

Rule 1 Conduct of the Game
Section 4 Dead Ball
The ball is dead when: ... The ball carrier is contacted by an opponent and ... touches the ground.  The ball is dead at the point where it was held when touching the ground.

That's really the only rule that deals with "forward progress"!  So let's combine that with:

Rule 1 Conduct of the Game
Section 9 Out Of Bounds
Article 1 Definitions
The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline.

So if we assume the standard is always at the point of the ball, not the player foot position (or something else), then I think my Alexander spot would be correct at 1Y short.  In every other play I can think of the spot is always the furthest progress of the ball at the moment of an event (tackle, OOB, etc) (excluding retreating and reestablishing like RBs/WRs sometimes do).

If it wasn't the furthest advancement of the ball, then what body part do you pick as the spot for Alexander going OOB?  The leading foot?  Trailing foot?  The touching foot?

I find it odd that (from what I can find) the whole concept isn't spelled out in black & white in the rulebook.  Why not just say when the player steps OOB the furthest advancement of the ball is the spot?

as long as the ball is still inbounds

Great additional gotcha.  I've asked many times and never gotten a good answer that has been proven by watching CFL games... is a ball hovering/held over the sideline (i.e. OOB) still advancing as long as the player isn't OOB?  Many have told me that the standard is "within the field of play", but there are so many examples where balls hover over the rail for a moment and are still live/advanced (like on fumbles batted back in, or batted out!).

My favorite thought experiment is: a WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

I say yes based on the fact sidelines have never seemed to count for squat until the player himself steps OOB.  (The GL cone maybe being the only exception.)  However, I see no rule that specifies whether to be OOB/dead the ball has to touch OOB or just be over OOB!

Those who want to say it's not a TD... give me a counter-example you've actually seen in a real, modern CFL game.

In fact: this Alexander example might prove me right!  There are moments where his carry arm almost certainly has the ball hovering over the rail... if progress stopped the instant the ball "left the field of play" by cracking the plane of the rail, then Alexander would have his run ruled dead the instant that happened!  I think this proves that (except for at the cone) "rail planes" are irrelevant.  Only rail touches matter for carriers and for balls.

[bomb squad]

But that's my point... in this case, because command would overturn the non-OOB to OOB, no on-field ref would have anything to do with any spot.  The spot would entirely be determined by command center.  And they would use freezeframe to get it right because they'd have no other choice.

They would just do what I did and draw a line straight down and then another parallel to the 5YL (I didn't, but could do that too).  As long as the camera shot used had the camera level with the ground (probably has gimbals or similar, so safe assumption), the method of drawing a straight line down is accurate.  They probably have software to (semi)automate this.  In any event, they'd have to come up with some spot, any spot, and do so by themselves!  I would like to think they'd try to get it "right".

I didn't know it was a rulebook challenge!  Ok... I checked it out and it appears the main rule speaking to the "spot" (but not with that term) is:

Rule 1 Conduct of the Game
Section 4 Dead Ball
The ball is dead when: ... The ball carrier is contacted by an opponent and ... touches the ground.  The ball is dead at the point where it was held when touching the ground.

That's really the only rule that deals with "forward progress"!  So let's combine that with:

Rule 1 Conduct of the Game
Section 9 Out Of Bounds
Article 1 Definitions
The ball is Out of Bounds when a player in possession of the ball touches a Sideline.

So if we assume the standard is always at the point of the ball, not the player foot position (or something else), then I think my Alexander spot would be correct at 1Y short.  In every other play I can think of the spot is always the furthest progress of the ball at the moment of an event (tackle, OOB, etc) (excluding retreating and reestablishing like RBs/WRs sometimes do).

If it wasn't the furthest advancement of the ball, then what body part do you pick as the spot for Alexander going OOB?  The leading foot?  Trailing foot?  The touching foot?

I find it odd that (from what I can find) the whole concept isn't spelled out in black & white in the rulebook.  Why not just say when the player steps OOB the furthest advancement of the ball is the spot?

Great additional gotcha.  I've asked many times and never gotten a good answer that has been proven by watching CFL games... is a ball hovering/held over the sideline (i.e. OOB) still advancing as long as the player isn't OOB?  Many have told me that the standard is "within the field of play", but there are so many examples where balls hover over the rail for a moment and are still live/advanced (like on fumbles batted back in, or batted out!).

My favorite thought experiment is: a WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

I say yes based on the fact sidelines have never seemed to count for squat until the player himself steps OOB.  (The GL cone maybe being the only exception.)  However, I see no rule that specifies whether to be OOB/dead the ball has to touch OOB or just be over OOB!

Those who want to say it's not a TD... give me a counter-example you've actually seen in a real, modern CFL game.

In fact: this Alexander example might prove me right!  There are moments where his carry arm almost certainly has the ball hovering over the rail... if progress stopped the instant the ball "left the field of play" by cracking the plane of the rail, then Alexander would have his run ruled dead the instant that happened!  I think this proves that (except for at the cone) "rail planes" are irrelevant.  Only rail touches matter for carriers and for balls.

Round and round we go. Let's agree there are questions and nuances wrt ball spotting. The rulebook should definitely address them, but doesn't. I get they want to have rules that can fit into a compact booklet for officials, but no reason they can't have an expanded version available. Or is it the culture of secrecy again?

[TecnoGenius]

So what would your answer be to my scenario?  I'm really curious and no one ever answers!

A WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

[J5V]

So what would your answer be to my scenario?  I'm really curious and no one ever answers!

A WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

Yes.

[dd]

So what would your answer be to my scenario?  I'm really curious and no one ever answers!

A WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

Yes

[Pete]

Yep same thing as when a reviever catches a ball on the sideline in the endzone ,ball might be outside,but as long as one foot is in bounds its a td

[bomb squad]

So what would your answer be to my scenario?  I'm really curious and no one ever answers!

A WR catches a wide out at left side LoS.  He extends left hand holding the ball out over the rail.  He runs the whole field into the EZ.  The ball technically never returns inside the field of play.  But the WR never goes OOB.  Is it a TD?

Sorry. Great question. I'm assuming he extends the ball over the sideline after he's established a catch (that makes a difference). My answer is no and here's why: After he's made the catch, he becomes a ball carrier.  When he extends the ball over the sideline, it's ball OOB. Play dies right there.

An example that everybody has seen many times is when a ball carrier charges for the corner where the pylon is and holds the ball out to attempt to touch or break the plane of the pylon, but instead the ball breaks the plane of the sideline first. In that case it's 1st and goal at the 1. 

PS - You got treated poorly over there on RF for no good reason. Shame on them.

[TecnoGenius]

Sorry. Great question. I'm assuming he extends the ball over the sideline after he's established a catch (that makes a difference).

Yes, makes a normal catch in-bounds.  Puts it in his left hand and dangles it above the sideline the whole time.  You assumed correctly.  Though I guess if we establish the correct answer to my question, and it's YES, then we could get into the weeds some more!...

My answer is no and here's why: After he's made the catch, he becomes a ball carrier.  When he extends the ball over the sideline, it's ball OOB. Play dies right there.

Interesting.  But is the ball really OOB by rule just by hovering over the sideline?  I've seen plays where the ball is bouncing OOB and I swear it's over the rail and some guy diving from in-bounds bats it BACK into the field.  Then someone recovers it, and it's considered a recovery.  The ball didn't die when it simply hovered over the rail.  In fact, didn't this happen to our team a few/many years ago?  Rings a bell.

How would you explain that?  Refs got it wrong?

Part of the problem here is the rulebook doesn't ever speak to "a plane of the sideline", like it extends into the air like a goal-line.  We know for sure a ball dies if it physically touches the sideline at altitude zero... but I think the "plane" idea is much hazier.
 

An example that everybody has seen many times is when a ball carrier charges for the corner where the pylon is and holds the ball out to attempt to touch or break the plane of the pylon, but instead the ball breaks the plane of the sideline first. In that case it's 1st and goal at the 1.

Have we really seen that many times?  Usually it's a knee in-bounds or a foot on the rail that makes it dead/DBC, not a rail plane breakage.

Since I first thought of this scenario I've been watching really closely for examples to prove/disprove either yes/no theory.  I haven't seen a perfect example yet.

My theory about the pylon quirk is that it's kind of its own special thing.  If you're right, maybe it seems special because it's the only place where you can perfectly see & prove the bail has broken the rail plane?  But since the whole pylon idea seems like a shoehorned in modern addition, I don't get too excited about it proving anything in general.  So many one-off special exceptions in the rulebook.

So let me ask you personally another question: if the ball is OOB/dead if hovering across the rail plane at all as you say, then why didn't the refs blow Alexander dead regardless of toe-touching?  If his toe was 1mm away from touching, then certainly the ball in that same side's arm tuck would be over the rail??

Also, we now have contradictory opinions here!  I want everyone to get involved out into the weeds so we can solve this problem for good!!

Yep same thing as when a reviever catches a ball on the sideline in the endzone ,ball might be outside,but as long as one foot is in bounds its a td

Pete makes a great point.  The late-2019 CGY@WPG Zach to Darvin catch... that ball is definitely over the rail before the catch.

PS - You got treated poorly over there on RF for no good reason. Shame on them.

Ya, but don't worry, I have thick skin when it comes to Greenie fans.  While most are nice (online and in person), there's always the odd DB stubble jumper.  Most of them aren't ones for high-brain posts... there's a reason the average post there is 1 sentence! (with apologies to the smart and/or nice ones of which there are many!)  Thanks for the concern though!  You got my back?        (see my avatar)

[bomb squad]

Yes, makes a normal catch in-bounds.  Puts it in his left hand and dangles it above the sideline the whole time.  You assumed correctly.  Though I guess if we establish the correct answer to my question, and it's YES, then we could get into the weeds some more!...

Interesting.  But is the ball really OOB by rule just by hovering over the sideline? I've seen plays where the ball is bouncing OOB and I swear it's over the rail and some guy diving from in-bounds bats it BACK into the field.  Then someone recovers it, and it's considered a recovery.  The ball didn't die when it simply hovered over the rail.  In fact, didn't this happen to our team a few/many years ago?  Rings a bell.

How would you explain that?  Refs got it wrong?

Part of the problem here is the rulebook doesn't ever speak to "a plane of the sideline", like it extends into the air like a goal-line.  We know for sure a ball dies if it physically touches the sideline at altitude zero... but I think the "plane" idea is much hazier.
 
Have we really seen that many times?  Usually it's a knee in-bounds or a foot on the rail that makes it dead/DBC, not a rail plane breakage.

Since I first thought of this scenario I've been watching really closely for examples to prove/disprove either yes/no theory.  I haven't seen a perfect example yet.

My theory about the pylon quirk is that it's kind of its own special thing.  If you're right, maybe it seems special because it's the only place where you can perfectly see & prove the bail has broken the rail plane?  But since the whole pylon idea seems like a shoehorned in modern addition, I don't get too excited about it proving anything in general.  So many one-off special exceptions in the rulebook.

So let me ask you personally another question: if the ball is OOB/dead if hovering across the rail plane at all as you say, then why didn't the refs blow Alexander dead regardless of toe-touching?  If his toe was 1mm away from touching, then certainly the ball in that same side's arm tuck would be over the rail??

Also, we now have contradictory opinions here!  I want everyone to get involved out into the weeds so we can solve this problem for good!!

Pete makes a great point.  The late-2019 CGY@WPG Zach to Darvin catch... that ball is definitely over the rail before the catch.

Ya, but don't worry, I have thick skin when it comes to Greenie fans.  While most are nice (online and in person), there's always the odd DB stubble jumper.  Most of them aren't ones for high-brain posts... there's a reason the average post there is 1 sentence! (with apologies to the smart and/or nice ones of which there are many!)  Thanks for the concern though!  You got my back?      (see my avatar)

Just read the rulebook again and It's actually quite clear in Section 9, Article 1 when an OOB occurs. What remains unclear is where the ball is spotted when the player touches the sideline.

But, I'm keeping my answer because the ball never breaks the plane of the goal line in the field of play. What I don't know is where the ball would be spotted.

But is the ball really OOB by rule just by hovering over the sideline?

No. See Section 9 Article 1.

Have we really seen that many times?

Many times, a few times, whatever. Footballs been televised for a long time. Yes, players have tried to lay out in the air and touch the pylon and been unsuccessful. The ball is usually placed at the 1.

My theory about the pylon quirk is that it's kind of its own special thing

What's special about it is that it's outside of the sideline, but considered in play when the ball touches it or breaks it's plane.

While most are nice (online and in person), there's always the odd DB stubble jumper.]

Yes, that's true and it was only one poster. But nobody exactly came to your defence, did they? And what about the administrator/moderators? They let it stand. What does that say? I think I can safely say that wouldn't have happened here.

[TecnoGenius]

Just read the rulebook again and It's actually quite clear in Section 9, Article 1 when an OOB occurs. What remains unclear is where the ball is spotted when the player touches the sideline.

But, I'm keeping my answer because the ball never breaks the plane of the goal line in the field of play. What I don't know is where the ball would be spotted.

Ok, then I think I can get a consensus then with a slightly changed scenario:

WR catches the ball in-bounds at LoS near the left sideline.  Puts it in left hand and dangles it above the sideline.  Runs all the way down the field like that.  At the 1YL he puts the ball in his right hand so the ball is clearly in-bounds.  He crosses the goal line.

Is this a TD?

Can I assume everyone, including bomb squad thinks YES, this is a TD?  If so, I'll finally have my answer and can sleep at night once again.

See Section 9 Article 1.

I still see that definition as not saying anything about the sideline PLANE.  To me "touches a sideline" means it physically contacts the turf, not an abstract plane.  So I think, as written, s9a1 means hovering doesn't make a ball dead.

Yes, that's true and it was only one poster. But nobody exactly came to your defence, did they? And what about the administrator/moderators? They let it stand. What does that say? I think I can safely say that wouldn't have happened here.

Riderfans is the wild west compared to this place!  If they mod anything, I've never seen the evidence  :-)  Don't worry, I always pack my pea shooter.