The good, the bad, and the ugly.

[bomb squad]

There was a missed Illegal Participation penalty on the Jamieson Sheahan punt single. McAllister stepped out of bounds at the Calgary 2 yard line before recovering the ball in the end zone.



Reminder that the penalty for Illegal Participation in this manner is the Loss of Ball (LB) at the Point of Foul (PF)



As the penalty was triggered when McAllister recovered the punted ball in the end zone, we need to look to another portion of the Rule Book to determine what happens when Team B (Calgary) commits a penalty in its own goal area.



Illegal Participation triggered in goal area of Team B. Option to decline the score and apply the penalty, LB at PF, from the 15 yard line.

It should have been 1st & 10 Winnipeg at the C15. Instead Winnipeg scored a point and it was 1st & 10 Calgary at the C40. BTW, Calgary scored a TD on that drive.

EDIT - video of play in TwiXter post
https://x.com/NoahBeauso/status/2063083620709855293?s=20

2 items here( with lot's of questions I'm afraid):

1. If the ball is loose (which I agree it is) and McCallister then touched it, thus illegally participating in the play, isn't it just Loss of Ball at the Point of Foul, per Article 8? Why would the other rules even apply? A foul can only apply to one rule, correct? Illegal Participation is the foul.  Are you saying Article 8 is superseded by Section 6-1c? Why?

2. If the Point of Foul happened when and where he touched the ball, isn't it then Bomber touchdown, since it happened in the end zone?

[Tecno]

1. If the ball is loose (which I agree it is) and McCallister then touched it, thus illegally participating in the play, isn't it just Loss of Ball at the Point of Foul, per Article 8? Why would the other rules even apply? A foul can only apply to one rule, correct? Illegal Participation is the foul.  Are you saying Article 8 is superseded by Section 6-1c? Why?

Because the Section 6 qualifies how many/most/all other fouls get special treatment in the rarer case of when they occur in-goal.

2. If the Point of Foul happened when and where he touched the ball, isn't it then Bomber touchdown, since it happened in the end zone?

No, because of the previous answer.  I think you already sussed this out.  Pretty sure there's no foul that can result in a "free TD".  Putting it on the 15 is the next best thing!  Kind of like a DPI in the EZ isn't a free TD either.

[Tecno]

We don't run the ball every play. Having the extra import receiver is only a choice in how we deal with the Woodbey injury and no direct replacement.

Said another way, we can't do Singer or another IMP REC with the ratio the way it is with Elsbury IMP at C.  Can't see it happening, unless some matchups allow for Eli to start.

[Tecno]

There was a missed Illegal Participation penalty on the Jamieson Sheahan punt single. McAllister stepped out of bounds at the Calgary 2 yard line before recovering the ball in the end zone.

This is insane.  Insane that:

a) This is near-identical to what you spotted in PS, and

b) How did the refs miss this?, and

c) How did command miss this?, and

d) How did MOS miss this, especially given point (a)!

Once again, SJ, good catch.

[Tecno]

Demski was limping pretty good after the missed catch. Didn't see him do anything after that.

He was on-field for most of the rest of the game.  I think he did a couple of touches after that.  Seemed fine.

[Tecno]

Was Condell the "heavy set" coach in Hamilton?

Might be a return of a version of that.....which was really effective as I recall.

You bet.  We got a fair bit of jumbo this game.  But since we aren't dressing 2 extra OL, the jumbo was combos of Eli / Daniels / Ike.

My definition of Condell's super-max-pro is on pass plays, though.  I'll have to go back to see how often we did that.  Seemed to using the extra jumbo on running downs this game.

7, 8, 9 super-max-pass-pro in 2019 HAM just couldn't be beat in-season.  If you can, watch some of those.  Then they didn't use it in GC and we hosed them.  I'd like to see a form of that here a couple/few times a game.  Eli/Daniels/Ike gets us 8 blockers.  Brady staying in makes 9.  Pokey out left side, White out right.

[Tecno]

Surprised with how much playing time Daniels received, he was out there every series and may have played more snaps than MCI, Corcoran and Cobb.  Looks like he's going to be a huge part of the offensive game plan, stoked to see the TE position make a comeback, the last one I can recall was Brian Jack.

He's this year's seal.  But with the correct FB/TE passport this time!!

[Tecno]

Seemed well reffed. Although on a pi called on the bombers I thought the Calgary receiver pushed the db.

It was a classic "mugging".  The same thing Sayles used to get caught out on in '18.  Often it's the REC purposely trying to hit the DB, but the DB needs to get out of the way.  Doesn't seem fair, but it's clear CFL precedent.

The mugging has to be super blatant before the CFL will penalize the REC.  And even then...!

[Tecno]

Perkins reminded me of good Dan Lefebvre

Anyone mentioning The Feve gets 10 updoots from me!  If Perkins can be half of what Feve was I'll be one happy SY fan.  I just worry about all the dancing/delay...

[Pete]

Said another way, we can't do Singer or another IMP REC with the ratio the way it is with Elsbury IMP at C.  Can't see it happening, unless some matchups allow for Eli to start.

Id like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)

[Tecno]

Id like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)

And not using the RR properly either.  Isn't this a way to get +2 to the total roster??  Sure, it's on the SMS, but who can argue with +2 to total roster?!  We always say CFL roster sizes need to be bigger!

I think league needs to clarify that RR is not optional.  Every team must have 2 on RR.  If you don't like it, park an ELC there.

[bomb squad]

Because the Section 6 qualifies how many/most/all other fouls get special treatment in the rarer case of when they occur in-goal.

No, because of the previous answer.  I think you already sussed this out.  Pretty sure there's no foul that can result in a "free TD".  Putting it on the 15 is the next best thing!  Kind of like a DPI in the EZ isn't a free TD either.

I would argue, however, that Section 6 doesn't cover this situation. It deals with fouls in the endzone that happen while Team B is in possession of the ball. An illegal block for eg.. The IP foul is triggered the very moment the player touches the ball. I know I'm seizing on a technicality here, and the refs may very rule using this Section 6, but nevertheless it is true. While I agree it probably "shouldn't" be a touchdown, the ball could just as easily be placed at the 1, for all the rulebook says.(As far as I know. I'm just basing this on the info the poster provided in the post.)

I'll give you an example using a modified version of the situation in question. Say the ref did take note of McAllister's foot and was ready to throw a flag. Say it was a short punt and Sheahan is closing in fast. McAllister, rushed, muffs the recovery, but touches the ball. The ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?
 

[Pigskin]

Id like to see Fletcher added to the dline. we need a bigger body to go in to spell off dt, Jenkins is too light. Looking tat the pr why do we have 4 wrs ? (and no import lbs)

Fletcher also has some quickness. Thomas has some speed drills for the DL. He beat Willie and then Dixon in the final.

[Tecno]

Hmm, after looking at the surrounding context of section 6, maybe you're on to something.

So let's break it down.

The ill.part. (IP here; not to be confused with IP=illegal procedure) play in question is at 2Q1:16 in case anyone wants to find it on their PVR.

CGY returner puts a foot clearly on the sideline at around the 2.  Ball is still untouched.  Ball rolls 2Y into EZ.  CGY guy goes and secures the ball with knee down, all in goal, for a rouge.

So handle the IP part first: Rule 1, Sec 9, Art 8 - Illegal Participation
Paragraph 3 applies.  Penalty LB PF.  Stats Junkie nailed all of this.

And Junkie is right.  We now need to look to see if anything "modifies" the "LB PF" because of the special case of being in-goal.  Why do we need to do this rather than just assign the ball to WPG 2Y in goal?  Because that's how many other fouls are handled -- they get a special in-goal case.

However, the special in-goal cases are usually listed in each specific foul rule, often as an extra note, or an exception sentence added to the penalty verbiage.  In other words, they are not listed somewhere separately and one is expected to make the connection.

Examples of this: intentional grounding being a safety in-goal, DPI in-goal, and holding in-goal.  (Any other examples of special in-goal rule modifications?)  In every case the "in-goal modifier" is stated right there with the rule.

BUT, Rule 8, Section 6 does appear to be a catch-all that would supersede all other rules where those rules did not explicitly specify an in-goal carve out.

I think a stumbling block to understanding is defining possession on a punt.  You hint as much with your applying bold font in your post.  Rule 1, Section 3 - Possession, last paragraph says "if a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession".  So that means the returning team (team B in this case) gains possession the instant they first touch the ball.

It also means the "possession" and IP occur at the exact same moment!

So back to 8-6-1, apply (c), because team B did commit a foul in its goal area (check!), while in possession of the ball (check!).  And one of the options is (c)(iii) where team A can retake the ball at the team B 15YL.

So, Junkie is right, as he usually is.  And yes, it's because of a superseding rule that overrides all other rules.  And the magic point is the special application of "possession" on a punt play.

Perhaps to make things clearer (and easier for future generations of officials), they should add an extra sentence to the IP rule for this special case.  Just spell it out closer to the actual foul verbiage.  i.e. 1-9-8, added: "If Team B commits this foul in its goal area, rule 8-6-1 applies".

As a thought experiment, this superseding rule can be applied to basically everything team B can do in goal.  If a returner or interceptor is dancing around the EZ and his team mate does an illegal block, crackback block, or holding in goal -- trying to help their dude get out of the EZ -- then this rule would also apply.  That is very interesting, as that could happen more often than this extreme case!  Pretty sure I've never seen a move out to the 15 applied, though.  Refs might not even be up to speed on this at all.

[Tecno]

The ref now throws the flag for IP. Chaos ensues, the ball gets batted around, but another player from Calgary finally recovers the ball in the end zone. The IP foul occurred well before possession. Does Section 6 apply/cover this?

Yes, because, as per my last post, possession is instant and simultaneous to the IP foul.  Though it may help to think of it as possession occurring 1 nanosecond before IP.  Otherwise you get into strange bashing-head-on-wall thoughts of "what occurred first when they are both simultaneous".  Then it becomes a matter of semantics.  Best to go with the clear intent/spirit of the rule.

Now, after this deep dive I know I'm going to be watching in-goal plays & fouls more carefully!