QB Sliding for TD

TecnoGenius · September 12, 2025, 05:24:12 AM

One of the good video clips from TSN showing the slide

Someone explain why the CFL Twitter didn't use this clip? (They could have done it full speed to shorten it)

Never seen a player slide knee first like that... unless they are a hook-sliding QB

bomb squad · September 12, 2025, 07:56:37 AM

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 12, 2025, 03:52:38 AMLike 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.

If I understand your interpretation correctly then, since you can't determine or judge a players intent, anytime a qb slides in any manner or dives it automatically constitutes "giving himself up". Ok, fair enough. That's your interpretation. So, if that's the case, then the words "gives themself up" shouldn't even be in the rule. Or, let's just say it's not really required information insofar as rules go. Is that correct?

Waffler · September 12, 2025, 12:31:28 PM

The standard has to be any slide, if it is not then we have to review if it was "hooky" enough to constitute protection. For a running back that is a touchdown but because he is a QB and scrambling as soon as he puts his knee down the whistle is supposed to go.

TecnoGenius · September 13, 2025, 04:19:42 AM

Quote from: bomb squad on September 12, 2025, 07:56:37 AMIf I understand your interpretation correctly then, since you can't determine or judge a players intent, anytime a qb slides in any manner or dives it automatically constitutes "giving himself up". Ok, fair enough. That's your interpretation. So, if that's the case, then the words "gives themself up" shouldn't even be in the rule. Or, let's just say it's not really required information insofar as rules go. Is that correct?

Yes, completely correct.

Let's take the refs out of it for a sec, let's pretend they have the magic crystal ball that let's them perfectly gauge "intent" in real-time (or after the fact for command center)...

If intent was critical, then the D also has to gauge intent. The LBer is 2s away from a sliding QB going into the EZ. You want him to start guessing if this is a "he meant to go for it" vs "he's giving himself up", ESPECIALLY given how the CFL is trying to stop QBs from getting hurt at all costs?

You have now put a D player in an impossible position where he's doomed either way. But if you say, as the rulebook does, that ALL SLIDES ARE GIVING UP, then there is no quandry for the D and they must ALWAYS let up when the QB makes for the turf (in any manner).

And that is exactly what I think the league did when they added "in any manner" and "diving" to the rule. It was to take ALL hits away from a QB making his body go to the ground.

TecnoGenius · September 13, 2025, 04:21:33 AM

Quote from: Waffler on September 12, 2025, 12:31:28 PMThe standard has to be any slide, if it is not then we have to review if it was "hooky" enough to constitute protection.

Yes, exactly. And that is exactly why the CFL added "any manner" and "dive" to the rules. As of a few years ago there is supposed to be no pontificating over "hooky enough" at all.

The BLM slide TD ruling just threw all that out window. Command in essence DID just say "it wasn't hooky enough".

This is moving backwards.

bomb squad · September 13, 2025, 03:09:20 PM

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 13, 2025, 04:21:33 AMYes, exactly. And that is exactly why the CFL added "any manner" and "dive" to the rules. As of a few years ago there is supposed to be no pontificating over "hooky enough" at all.

The BLM slide TD ruling just threw all that out window. Command in essence DID just say "it wasn't hooky enough".

This is moving backwards.

Looks to me then, your beef should be with how the rule is written, not with how the refs and replay center carried out the ruling on the field. IMO, the way the rule is written, the refs have the discretion to determine or judge if the qb is giving themself up, regardless of the slide and dive. That's what they did on this play. There are others that agree with that judgement of Mitchell's intent on the slide. All your arguments are sound as to why it should not be like that. And, that may in fact have been the intent of the rule. But IMO, with the way that it was written, a reasonable person, or a referee, could interpret it the way that it was carried out on that play.

TBURGESS · September 13, 2025, 03:18:27 PM

Quite frankly, I preferred it when the rule was you had to slide feet first to get the protection. It was simple for everyone to understand.

TecnoGenius · September 14, 2025, 03:41:48 AM

Quote from: bomb squad on September 13, 2025, 03:09:20 PMLooks to me then, your beef should be with how the rule is written, not with how the refs and replay center carried out the ruling on the field.

And this happens all the time. The rule book is clear as mud on so many things. This exact same conversation has happened before here regarding many other rules.

I strongly stand by my point that the rule says what I'm saying, though. Besides the actual wording, look at the intent of the league when they added the "any manner" and "diving" words a couple of years back -- it wasn't to make things more ambiguous for refs/command, it was to make it so you couldn't ever hit a QB doing any towards-turf movement. What makes QB's safer: having LBers and DBs and refs all guessing intent, or just protecting EVERY slide/dive?

However, I totally agree your interpretation of the words has validity, but I think that it requires slightly more linguistic gymnastics to make it stick. But that's just my opinion.

TecnoGenius · September 14, 2025, 03:44:32 AM

Quote from: TBURGESS on September 13, 2025, 03:18:27 PMQuite frankly, I preferred it when the rule was you had to slide feet first to get the protection. It was simple for everyone to understand.

I agree. Just having every QB do the ol' hook slide removes all doubt of everything, and probably protects QBs more. (The problem was some QBs couldn't slide feet first if their life depended on it (like Zach), it's an unnatural motion.)

Or, equally, do like the rule is trying to say and every slide/dive ever is a dead ball at the start of the slide. "Going for it" or not. Also simple and 100% crystal clear, and safer for the QBs.

I'd really hate to be a LB/DB having a bead on a QB going for the TD right now... stop a TD or potential huge flag and fines?

dd · September 14, 2025, 05:23:17 AM

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 14, 2025, 03:44:32 AMI agree. Just having every QB do the ol' hook slide removes all doubt of everything, and probably protects QBs more. (The problem was some QBs couldn't slide feet first if their life depended on it (like Zach), it's an unnatural motion.)

Or, equally, do like the rule is trying to say and every slide/dive ever is a dead ball at the start of the slide. "Going for it" or not. Also simple and 100% crystal clear, and safer for the QBs.

I'd really hate to be a LB/DB having a bead on a QB going for the TD right now... stop a TD or potential huge flag and fines?

Agree, in this day and age of protecting the Qb, it should be automatic that a Qb slides when in open field or is assessed an OC if he 'goes for it' when a hit is certain. The league is trying to protect them, and if they arent' going to cooperate, flag em

TecnoGenius · September 20, 2025, 07:45:17 AM

BC@CGY 3Q13:21 VAJ hookslides, and not late, at the 1st down marker on a QB draw. Gets drilled by a BC D (FS?). Total concussion. Was as much a zombie walk as Trevor the other week.

THIS IS A DIRECT RESULT OF COMMAND SETTING THE PRECEDENT THAT QB'S ARE ABLE TO "GO FOR IT". This is on YOU command. This is on YOU CFL. YOU just took QB protection progress back 8 years.

Because the D now must assume all forward progress will count, and that it's all ambiguous now, the D MUST drill the QBs as though they were a RB.

And the worst part is NO flag thrown, NO EITS flag thrown.

This is a complete shambles and I KNEW it would happen.

If I was a QB, I wouldn't do any scrambling or running or drawing right now. It's full open season on QBs. If Zach took a knee to the head and turf-bounce like this hit he would be in the hospital for a month.

What must happen now is the league MUST issue a memo that they are going back to the QB protection from a season ago. This would have been a flag all day a year ago. AND they MUST clarify that the "giving themself up" rule means that EVERY SLIDE/DIVE by a QB anywhere on the field is a "giving themself up" slide. AND the ball is ALWAYS to be spotted at the beginning of the slide/dive (which the league is horribly lax on), NOT the end. They must clarify that there is NO SUCH THING AS "GOING FOR IT" when any movement towards the turf is occurring.

P.S. CGY knows it was dirty and because there was no penalty, they are going head hunting for the rest of the CGY game, 3Q8:42 they are putting massive late shots in on Hatcher. I haven't finished the game yet but I fully expect them to try to get some massive hits on Rourke.

TecnoGenius · September 20, 2025, 08:23:14 AM

Oh ya, WHEN the CFL gives that D guy a fine midweek, I'm going to go mental. If it's good enough for a fine, it should be good enough for a EITS flag in the game. It's the same guys reviewing it in both cases!

TecnoGenius · September 20, 2025, 08:55:00 AM

Also, every QB, at all times, everywhere on the field, is protected from a "head or neck" hit. VAJ took a knee to the helmet. That is a RTP all day every day.

Rule 7 - Section 2 - Article 5 - Roughing the Passer
Delivering a blow to neck or head of the passer

A change was made a while back where that rule applies anywhere on the field, not just in the pocket ("pocket" isn't even mentioned anymore in the RTP rule).

TBURGESS · September 20, 2025, 03:51:47 PM

VAJ went head first. He wasn't a passer any more. He wasn't in the pocket. The BC player tried to go over top and his knee hit VAJ's head. No penalty should be given.

TecnoGenius · September 21, 2025, 03:12:05 AM

Quote from: TBURGESS on September 20, 2025, 03:51:47 PMVAJ went head first. He wasn't a passer any more. He wasn't in the pocket. The BC player tried to go over top and his knee hit VAJ's head. No penalty should be given.

CFL changed that definition/rule a couple of years back. DIVING is included as "hooksliding" now. If he went head first, it changes NOTHING, he's still protected. Also, being in the pocket has nothing to do with the protection either. Why would you ever slide in the pocket? The sliding protections are for anywhere on the field. At least they are supposed to be.

And you're wrong. VAJ did NOT go head first. He had the knee even more forward than BLM had in his slide (that I started the thread for). VAJ was doing a classic knee-first hookslide and I can't believe they didn't give him protection. I guess I'll have to make a video clip.

I wonder if everyone, both here and on the SSK forum, are trying hard to not look at this and/or not caring because VAJ being knocked out may help both WPG and SSK going forward... Riderforum didn't make one peep about the VAJ hit. You can bet they'd be freaking out if the same hit was on Trevor!

This is important stuff because a) I thought they cared about protecting QBs so we don't have only 3rd stringers starting CFL games, and b) Zach is going to scramble and slide one day and a D is going to late-hit cream him and end his career because they now have carte blanche to put these hits on QBs. Command will just say "he was going for it".

P.S. They called UR on a hookslide in the HAM game today for even less of a hit, so maybe CFL is waking up to the insanity.