A Question about "Play under review"

If all Turnovers and Touchdowns are automatically subject to review by the CFL Command Center,
and if penalties are spotted they are to be applied to the review

Why was this No Yards infraction ignored on this fumble lost by Banks?

And also on this TD by Rutley, this illegal block at the point of attack was ignored.

Please don't get me wrong,I admit that MTL deserved that win last night, It is simply a question of
What exactly are they reviewing in that Command center when these blatant infractions in slo-mo and stop action replay are available and being overlooked or ignored.

I believe only reviewable (challengable) penalties can be enforced during the command centre automatic review. In the case of both penalties you've correctly highlighted neither is reviewable.

Only penalty that is reviewable is PI but penalties can be called during a review

I believe that a replay can only catch uncalled MAJOR fouls.

Question that applies to the missed non-call - was the play even reviewed?

As for the missed illegal block on the Rutley TD, I have seen at least one other pic that shows a ref standing close to the play (just out of the range that is shown here) but he seems to have been looking the other way for some reason. :frowning: :?

The only aspect of the play that would have been reviewed was whether or not it was a fumble, which was obvious.
No yards and recovery of a fumble are not reviewable. So the automatic review would have been done, and done quickly.

When a play is under review the whole play is under review and not just certain portions of the play.
This includes all penalties on the play.

All reviewable penalties. No yards is not one of them.

Because it was a fumble and a lost turnover it is automatically reviewed at the Command Center.
Once it is reviewed, the whole play is reviewed, including penalties

This is exactly correct so the no yards can be called.

I have the feeling the command centre might just give a cursory review of a play they think is a slam dunk and dont look at the replay in great detail. I think a head coach should be able to tell the ref if there is a peticular aspect of the "automatic" review he would like to be looked for, no yards, illegal block, etc.

That said I have limited faith in the CC, with all the obvious missed or wrong calls that have been made.

There needs to be transpaency in the review process as to why the decision made was done. Send out a tweet or other similar message beyond the ref saying rulling on the field stands or over ruled, explaining in greater details the mechanics of the ruling.

The NHL does something similar with goal review, or goalie interference.

Unfortunately that is not the case. When asked about the call in the post game media scrum, Austin mentioned that because it is so hard to make an accurate call on no yards, he has lobbied for it (as well as OPI) to be challengeable. Since he is on the rules committee, maybe at some point, coaches will be able to at least challenge if they think there has been a missed no yards. Many seem to think that it would have been a 15 yard penalty, but because the ball was not caught (bounced of Speedy B's face mask) I think the Als would only have been dinged for 5 yards but at least we would have maintained possession of the ball instead of having to hand it back to the birds.

Re: the missed block on the Rutley TD - the pick that can be seen on Jeff Reinebold's Twitter account clearly shows an official not that far from the play but it appears he may have been looking away from the play, ergo - no flag.

Unfortunately your thought is incorrect as according to the rule book it does not mention that the ball must be caught in order for a 15 yard penalty to be called:

b. if the player does not allow five (5) yards to an opponent attempting to gain possession of the kicked ball. The 5-yard zone is determined by a circle with a 5-yard radius; with the centre point being the ball at the instant it is first touched.

PENALTY - in field of play - L15 from PBT

  • in goal area - L15, penalty applied at 10-yard line
[url=https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/kicking/kick-from-scrimmage-and-open-field-kick/]https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/kicking/kick- ... ield-kick/[/url]

Really?
Then the same thing would apply on scoring plays.
When's the last time you saw a touchdown called back because the command centre saw a hold or an illegal block or a receiver offside that wasn't called? You know when? Exactly never. Because penalties (called or not called) are not reviewable unless there is a specific rule saying they are reviewable (like QB being over the line of scrimmage when throwing a pass, or a turnover being caused by a major foul like a facemask).

Re: the posts, just before mine, from Grover, smogmoster and JerkFaceLoser, prompted by the earlier posts in this thread.

Is there any way we can get confirmation, with proof, on who's right here? Folks in the club, the league, and the media, do read some of our posts. It would make for a very interesting and informative report if somebody, connected, followed through for a clear explanation of what can, and can't, be changed, or called, during the review of a play, initiated by league policy and/or by a coach's challenge.

After posting above, I read this, which ties in here, in the "No Yards" thread:

Re: No Yards
New post by Blogskee Wee Wee » 29 Aug, 2015 - 01:04
To everyone - there are far too many to reply to - who are saying that on a review that a penalty can be applied, you are all incorrect. Reviews cannot attribute penalties after the fact (with the exception of the PI challenge, obviously). A similar scenario came up last week on the first Shakir Bell fumble (the one that didn't go for a touchdown). Taylor Reed should have been called for face masking or something of the like because he was touching Bell's helmet when trying to make a tackle, but it was said on the broadcast that even on replay, the refs could not assign a penalty. So regardless of whether the fumble was reviewed by the command centre, they could not have called the Alouettes player for no yards.

While I'm inclined to agree with Blogskee's expressed belief here, the question still remains -- who's right on this?

These are the excerpts about this that I could find in the rule book. (I don't think the no yards would have been reviewable from my reading).

It is reviewable ....

Where a turnover is the direct result of a major foul which was not penalized (e.g. clothesline which caused a fumble, face mask on a tackle when a fumble occurs) Note: The reviewable aspect of this play is that the alleged major foul was the primary cause of the turnover. If there was no change of possession, this play is not reviewable.
Instant replay can be used for timing, downs and distance only in conjunction with a reviewable play. Situations involving the clock; penalty administration; spotting the ball other than for first down; etc. are not reviewable.

When reviewing a play, the Referee may change the ruling on any reviewable aspect of the play. Penalties which are created as a direct result of the change in ruling may be applied even though a flag had not been thrown, and penalties that were called during the play may be cancelled as a direct result of the change in ruling. A penalty which occurred after the ball was ruled dead by replay review will not be applied, unless it is a Major Foul.


I'm a little unclear on what they mean by 'Penalties which are created as a direct result of the change in ruling may be applied even if a flag has not been thrown'.

I read that to mean that they can't call a penalty per se on replay review (other than a major foul causing turnover) if everything else is being upheld in the play. They can only add a penalty if the penalty is caused by a change in the reviewable aspect of the play. Is that how others read that?

I appreciate your effort in finding, and sharing, these rule book quotes, TravePatB. I think what you call "a little unclear" is likely related to review of a "defensive pass interference" call. The review could change the call to "no defensive pass interference" and might also show "offensive pass interference." If the OPI could then be applied, it would be a "penalty caused by the change," but I'm not sure it would be considered to be "in the reviewable aspect of the play," since OPI, when called by officials on the field, is not reviewable. In our search for a definite understanding of the review rules, we're getting there.

ALL turnovers are reviewed Automatically and if a penalty is spotted on the replay it can be called by the Command Center
This is my Understanding of the Rule.

This is what I have concluded also, BUT, As Ottawacat has posted, we really have no idea what is reviewable in a review,
I have heard on the TSN broadcasts many times, that when a play is reviewed that other infractions can become included into the review.
Maybe Caretaker could get some clarity on this for us.

TSN has ask the ref for the NHL on their website where Kerry Fraser answers readers questions on NHL calls.
Perhaps TSN, could run a similar function for their CFL coverage.