QB Sliding for TD

[TecnoGenius]

In the Sep 6 HAM@MTL game 2Q0:22 BLM slides into the EZ for the first TD of the game.  I am livid they called & kept this a TD.  Why?  BLM is doing a knees-first giving-yourself-up slide.  He starts that slide between the 2 and 1YL.  By rule the ball should be placed where refs/command decide he started giving himself up.  To me that is probably (at worst) the 1YL.  1st & goal at the 1 (I also think it was RTP by hitting a sliding QB, and they move 15Y forward to the ... 1).

I understand that the on-field refs got it wrong, but "all scoring plays are reviewed" and command had a chance to step in.

If I were to take still pictures, and you didn't know this game, or the situation, or his position on the field, and I asked you what is BLM doing here... 100% would say he's hook sliding to give himself up.  100%.  I can provide stills that clearly illustrate this.  Why?  Because his knee is as far forward as the ball: way ahead of his body.  And we all know BLM never purposely takes a hit, except maybe in a final-3-mins situation.

A couple of minutes after the score, the CFL & TSN realized people might be getting angry, and offered this platitude: "Bo was diving for the EZ, going for goal, and not giving himself up".  And they know that how?

How many times do we see a RB or REC diving knees first across the goal line?  Ya, never.  That is a QB thing, because that is how some of them hook slide.  Yes, players try to protect themselves by getting low when a hit is incoming, like here, but they do that by diving low head first or sliding feet first.  No one does a knee-first "protection" because it makes you more vulnerable because you can't get low, and you can be pasted back and screw up your knee or ankles.

Now, think of this from a D player standpoint.  Knowing that a hookslide at the 1 or 2YL is going to count as a TD, you're now going to hit that QB with 100% force.  This is very dangerous.  That's why I say the hit on BLM should have been RTP, because even if this slide wasn't a hook slide, it could be perceived as such.  Ironically, it would have helped had the MTL D jumped over BLM showing he's avoiding the hooksliding QB.  Then all of MTL could point to the BLM saying "see, hookslide!".  It could even have been that command gave BLM the TD because he had to take that punishment so he "earned it".

And this isn't just trivia for the uber-football-nerds: there are huge gambling repercussions.  You can gamble on "First TD of the Game", and the odds are quite big.  Betting on a QB only pays if the QB runs it in himself.  BLM getting the first TD is like the lamest oldest slowest horse winning the Triple Crown.  From memory, BLM was paying over 100-1 odds for 1st TD -- actually the most I've ever seen.  As TSN said, he hasn't done it in 10 years, and he isn't likely to do it now that he's 100 years old.  Disclosure: yes I did have about $20 riding on 1st TD, picking only the usual HAM suspects.  No, I did not pick Bo.

No, the $20 isn't why I'm livid.  I'm livid because they got this wrong.  And they often do when it comes to QB slides, because they often don't properly apply the "when he started giving himself up" rule, which is somewhat new since they allowed "any form of slide" to count.  Sure looks like "any form of slide" to me.  In fact, if TSN was reading from a CFL memo, CFL spelled it out: "Bo was diving".

[jdrattops]

In the Sep 6 HAM@MTL game 2Q0:22 BLM slides into the EZ for the first TD of the game.  I am livid they called & kept this a TD.  Why?  BLM is doing a knees-first giving-yourself-up slide.  He starts that slide between the 2 and 1YL.  By rule the ball should be placed where refs/command decide he started giving himself up.  To me that is probably (at worst) the 1YL.  1st & goal at the 1 (I also think it was RTP by hitting a sliding QB, and they move 15Y forward to the ... 1).

I understand that the on-field refs got it wrong, but "all scoring plays are reviewed" and command had a chance to step in.

If I were to take still pictures, and you didn't know this game, or the situation, or his position on the field, and I asked you what is BLM doing here... 100% would say he's hook sliding to give himself up.  100%.  I can provide stills that clearly illustrate this.  Why?  Because his knee is as far forward as the ball: way ahead of his body.  And we all know BLM never purposely takes a hit, except maybe in a final-3-mins situation.

A couple of minutes after the score, the CFL & TSN realized people might be getting angry, and offered this platitude: "Bo was diving for the EZ, going for goal, and not giving himself up".  And they know that how?

How many times do we see a RB or REC diving knees first across the goal line?  Ya, never.  That is a QB thing, because that is how some of them hook slide.  Yes, players try to protect themselves by getting low when a hit is incoming, like here, but they do that by diving low head first or sliding feet first.  No one does a knee-first "protection" because it makes you more vulnerable because you can't get low, and you can be pasted back and screw up your knee or ankles.

Now, think of this from a D player standpoint.  Knowing that a hookslide at the 1 or 2YL is going to count as a TD, you're now going to hit that QB with 100% force.  This is very dangerous.  That's why I say the hit on BLM should have been RTP, because even if this slide wasn't a hook slide, it could be perceived as such.  Ironically, it would have helped had the MTL D jumped over BLM showing he's avoiding the hooksliding QB.  Then all of MTL could point to the BLM saying "see, hookslide!".  It could even have been that command gave BLM the TD because he had to take that punishment so he "earned it".

And this isn't just trivia for the uber-football-nerds: there are huge gambling repercussions.  You can gamble on "First TD of the Game", and the odds are quite big.  Betting on a QB only pays if the QB runs it in himself.  BLM getting the first TD is like the lamest oldest slowest horse winning the Triple Crown.  From memory, BLM was paying over 100-1 odds for 1st TD -- actually the most I've ever seen.  As TSN said, he hasn't done it in 10 years, and he isn't likely to do it now that he's 100 years old.  Disclosure: yes I did have about $20 riding on 1st TD, picking only the usual HAM suspects.  No, I did not pick Bo.

No, the $20 isn't why I'm livid.  I'm livid because they got this wrong.  And they often do when it comes to QB slides, because they often don't properly apply the "when he started giving himself up" rule, which is somewhat new since they allowed "any form of slide" to count.  Sure looks like "any form of slide" to me.  In fact, if TSN was reading from a CFL memo, CFL spelled it out: "Bo was diving".

Once again we're talking EITS, a department run by Bradbury.  Unfortunately the CFL have no clue how to properly use EITS, they haven't for years.  Now they put Bradbury in charge of it... A recipe for complete failure.

[TecnoGenius]

No one else wants to chime in with a quick "was a TD" vs "was a hookslide"?

I guess I should have made a poll.

[TBURGESS]

IMO he was giving himself up, so the ball should be marked where it was when his knees touched the ground which means first down on the 1. 

[Waffler]

+

No one else wants to chime in with a quick "was a TD" vs "was a hookslide"?

I guess I should have made a poll.

100% right. Down at the one.

[TecnoGenius]

So how does command get this one so wrong?  It might be the worst call I've seen in a decade.

Anyone here want to take the counter-argument and say "he was sliding to go for it"?  Even one person?

[Jesse]

So how does command get this one so wrong?  It might be the worst call I've seen in a decade.

Anyone here want to take the counter-argument and say "he was sliding to go for it"?  Even one person?

LOL @ the hyperbole. Never change Techno.

first question: do players need to be touched by a defensive player to be "downed"?

second question: if there was no player ahead of him that he was "giving himself up to", can it be deemed that he wasn't giving himself up? Just sliding through?

third question: Can any player slide into the endzone? Or would you be marked down were your body hit the ground? Somewhat related to the first question.

[TecnoGenius]

LOL @ the hyperbole.[.b] Never change Techno.

But I'm serious.  Even the weak-butt DPIs and fixed-game no-end call WPG has taken over the years doesn't anger me as much as this garbage.  Why?  Because I'm not sure you find anyone who watches the BLM hookslide and says "oh ya, BLM's going for it baby!", and with gambling these days a lot depends on this.  It doesn't look good for the league.

first question: do players need to be touched by a defensive player to be "downed"?

No.  QBs have always been able to "give themselves up".  And with recent rule changes even RBs/RECs/whoever can go down or stay down and the ball be dead (and they get protection from egregious late hits).

second question: if there was no player ahead of him that he was "giving himself up to", can it be deemed that he wasn't giving himself up? Just sliding through?

Are you talking in general or this play?  In this case there was a beefy guy (LBer?) gunning straight for him from the side.  BLM slid roughly at the time one would slide to avoid a massive LB->QB hit.  He was a bit late and so the LBer decided to cream him anyhow, which he did.

If you're talking in general, then if no one was there for miles, why would the guy hookslide knee first?  He'd just keep running.  QBs aren't known for goal line theatrics like flying body rolls or backflips.  Find me one example in the CFL in 10 years where the QB slid for no reason at the GL.

third question: Can any player slide into the endzone? Or would you be marked down were your body hit the ground? Somewhat related to the first question.

Yes, anyone can slide.  Non-QB players would not be deemed to have given up, even if they hook-slid (which no player ever does ever, but let's pretend).

But, entire paragraphs in the rule book are dedicated to the SPECIAL CASE of when a QB slides.  A QB is treated differently than all other players when it comes to sliding.  There is literally no reason to consider any aspect of "normal player" sliding when trying to figure this scenario out.

[TecnoGenius]

Rule 1 - Section 4 - Dead ball
===
The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up by sliding in any manner or diving.  The ball is dead at the point it was held when another part of their body, other than the feet or hands, touch the ground.
===

There is no carve out for "except when command deems the QB was going for it"!

Did BLM "slide in any manner"?

Yes?  Clearly, even command admits that and we all saw it.

Then there is NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE.  The ball is dead when his legs first hit the ground, which is between the 2 and the 1.  The rule is clear, and there is zero reason to gauge intent, because intent has nothing to do with the predicate for this rule to apply!

The ball is dead somewhere in there and it's 1st & goal at the 1-ish.

"He meant to go for it" is NOT A THING, Command Center!  You made that up out your butt and it was egregious and I'm livid.

I hope MOS is all over this and I hope the league issues an apology and memo saying this won't happen again, OR they are writing "except when BLM is going for it" into the rules.

* Bonus: If BLM didn't really slide, but he slid anyway, then that could qualify as a "fake slide", which is an OC foul and they go back 10Y.  Those are the only 2 options: a real slide and dead ball, or fake slide and penalty.  There is NO OPTION for a "he went for it" slide.

Yes, this may be the worst CFL screw up in 10 years.  No hyperbole.

[bomb squad]

Rule 1 - Section 4 - Dead ball
===
The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up by sliding in any manner or diving.  The ball is dead at the point it was held when another part of their body, other than the feet or hands, touch the ground.


===

There is no carve out for "except when command deems the QB was going for it"!

Did BLM "slide in any manner"?

Yes?  Clearly, even command admits that and we all saw it.

Then there is NOTHING ELSE TO ARGUE.  The ball is dead when his legs first hit the ground, which is between the 2 and the 1.  The rule is clear, and there is zero reason to gauge intent, because intent has nothing to do with the predicate for this rule to apply!

The ball is dead somewhere in there and it's 1st & goal at the 1-ish.

"He meant to go for it" is NOT A THING, Command Center!  You made that up out your butt and it was egregious and I'm livid.

I hope MOS is all over this and I hope the league issues an apology and memo saying this won't happen again, OR they are writing "except when BLM is going for it" into the rules.

* Bonus: If BLM didn't really slide, but he slid anyway, then that could qualify as a "fake slide", which is an OC foul and they go back 10Y.  Those are the only 2 options: a real slide and dead ball, or fake slide and penalty.  There is NO OPTION for a "he went for it" slide.

Yes, this may be the worst CFL screw up in 10 years.  No hyperbole.

I don't remember the details of the play, but going by your description of it I would say "he went for it" is meaning he wasn't giving himself up.
If you accept that that's what they meant (and I think it's reasonable to do so) then the "slide in any manner" or the entire rule you referenced becomes redundant. The "giving himself up" aspect of the rule is judgemental.

[Stats Junkie]

I don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.

https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19

[Jesse]

I don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.

https://x.com/CFL/status/1966186103930761469?t=Jxbt9qn5DPc465pyteu4-Q&s=19

This camera angle makes is seem as if the ball was pretty close to the goal line when Bo went down. Probably would just stay as called on the field if it went to the challenge  both. It also wasn't much of a slide. He just went down awkwardly trying to both get the TD and avoid the hit.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't remember the details of the play, but going by your description of it I would say "he went for it" is meaning he wasn't giving himself up.
If you accept that that's what they meant (and I think it's reasonable to do so) then the "slide in any manner" or the entire rule you referenced becomes redundant. The "giving himself up" aspect of the rule is judgemental.

Like most CFL rules, it's badly written, and so ambiguity can lead to your interpretation.  We shouldn't have to get a lawyer to parse the words to figure out what the rule is supposed to mean.

To my interpretation, the "sliding in any manner" is the predicate.  Change the word "by" to "when they start".  This is my interpretation, and would have solved all ambiguity.

"The quarterback... in possession of the ball, gives themself up when they start sliding in any manner"

Or just re-order it to emphasize the "sliding in any manner" is the controlling phrase:

The quarterback..., in possession of the ball, who starts sliding in any manner is deemed to have given themself up.

But even as written it is clear to me, if you really look at it, it leaves zero room for the QB to "slide in any manner" without it causing the result of "thus he gives himself up".

Keep in mind the fact the EZ was right there should not factor into whether refs/command deem it a giving-up slide.  If BLM had done that same slide and taken that same hit mid-field, would they still deem him "going for it" and give him the progress at the final point of the ball?  Never!  Name me one time this has happened.

Now add in the "diving" part that was added a couple of years back.  Diving has no "is it a hookslide" ambiguity.  If you dive, you dive.  Let's say BLM dove for it instead of the weird knee-first hookslide.  What would you say then?  Suddenly there's a "he's going for it" dive?  It's asinine.

What you're saying is INTENT is the driver of the result.  And no one can know the QB's intent.  There is zero way the refs or command can judge a DIVE as being a "going for it" dive vs a "giving himself up" dive.  And that's why diving was added into the rulebook: so that there is never any question about intent.  If you dive, you've given up.

There are some really bad sliding QBs in this league.  Zach is pretty awful at it.  No one can tell what the heck he's trying to do half the time.  Yet every single time it's deemed giving himself up and the ball is placed where he started the slide, and unless he's super late, he's always been protected by the refs throwing RTP flags.  The good form (or not) of the slide shouldn't be the deciding factor on anything.  And by my reading of the rule, it isn't.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't see a hook slide and I have no issue with the tackle by the defender.

That's literally the worst angle of this play.  TSN provided much better angles.  This is TSN's Twitter account?  The fact they chose this angle smells more to me like they are covering their butts because they know they made a mistake.

It's the same reason for the hasty memo TSN reads on air a couple of minutes later.  Someone was saying somewhere "uh guys, I'm pretty sure that's not a TD".  Then they consulted the (newish) rule verbiage and realized their mistake.

I guess I'll see if I can dig up some vid clips that show better angles.

Keep in mind, Junkie, the QBs no longer have to do the traditional legs-slightly-forward "hook slide".  Every slide is now a "giving up" slide -- every slide/dive becomes a hookslide in effect.

That said, BLM did slide knees first.  That's not a slide anyone except a sliding QB ever does.

Since the sliding rule change a couple of years back, show me one instance of a QB sliding into the EZ, let alone doing it and it counting.

It will get very interesting if a QB does a dive for the cone like RECs do.  Because any dive is a "giving himself up".  Diving ball-first to the cone is the one exception I would be less angry about.  But that specific case should be written into this rule.

Again, ask yourself if you would think any differently if the play was at mid-field.

[TecnoGenius]

Ya, looking at the TSN replays again, they had brilliant slow-mo super zoomed views of what BLM actually did.  The fact the CFL Twitter chose that crap angle to highlight tells me they are in full CYA mode.

I'll post the vids shortly.