A Question about "Play under review"

[JerkFaceLoser]

@"ottawacat"

@"TravelPatB"

… 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.

One example (in this case of a penalty being nullified by a replay reversal) would be on a pass interference call, where the coach could challenge that the ball was tipped, which would make the interference legal, and thus cancel the penalty.

[CatsFaninOttawa]

@"JerkFaceLoser"

@"ottawacat"

@"TravelPatB"

… 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.

One example (in this case of a penalty being nullified by a replay reversal) would be on a pass interference call, where the coach could challenge that the ball was tipped, which would make the interference legal, and thus cancel the penalty.

Or an illegal block is called on the way to the end zone. The coach challenges that the ball carrier stepped out of bounds early in the run. Challenge upheld, so the run never happened, and therefore the illegal block penalty couldn’t have been called.

[TravelPatB]

@"BoLtZ"

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.

No. If I read the excerpts from the rule book I posted yesterday only a major foul causing a turnover can be called by the command centre when reviewing the Banks fumble play.

So for example in the Banks fumble case if they are reviewing a fumble and they see that Cox was within 5 yards and it was not called on the field - they can’t call it because it is not a ‘major foul that caused the turnover’.

If Cox had grabbed Banks facemask - and that penalty had not been called on the play - and Banks fumbled as his facemask was being grabbed - they then could have called the facemask penalty because it was a ‘major foul that caused the turnover’.

[Crash]

I think what the rulebook means is the following...

Player A fumbles the ball and is called down by contact - Coach challenges play and upon review it is noted that the ball DID come loose before the knee hit, however Player B that caused the fumble grabbed the facemask (or kicked him in the helmet..whatever). The official can determine that the penalty not called is what called the fumble.

In the Shakir Bell play the broadcast DID say that a facemask could be called but it was unclear whether he grasped the facemask or simply brushed it but didn't grab.

In the banks example the turnover was not caused by a missed penalty. The result of the missed call was a turnover, but the player being inside of 5 yards is not the reason Banks fumbled.

Having said that, No yards should absolutely be a reviewable call. Its not a judgement call, its 5 yards, period. CFL needs to get this one right. There is no logical or justifiable reason not to make no yards a reviewable call since its obvious when you slow it down. The head coach only gets 2 reviews (or 3) so why limit what he can challenge?

[Grover]

@"Crash"

I think what the rulebook means is the following…

Player A fumbles the ball and is called down by contact - Coach challenges play and upon review it is noted that the ball DID come loose before the knee hit, however Player B that caused the fumble grabbed the facemask (or kicked him in the helmet…whatever). The official can determine that the penalty not called is what called the fumble.

In the Shakir Bell play the broadcast DID say that a facemask could be called but it was unclear whether he grasped the facemask or simply brushed it but didn’t grab.

In the banks example the turnover was not caused by a missed penalty. The result of the missed call was a turnover, but the player being inside of 5 yards is not the reason Banks fumbled.

Having said that, No yards should absolutely be a reviewable call. Its not a judgement call, its 5 yards, period. CFL needs to get this one right. There is no logical or justifiable reason not to make no yards a reviewable call since its obvious when you slow it down. The head coach only gets 2 reviews (or 3) so why limit what he can challenge?

If the opposing player is outside the 5 yards, perhaps Banks has a better chance of recovering his fumble, just sayin.

[TCHABS]

@"Grover"

@"Crash"

I think what the rulebook means is the following…

Player A fumbles the ball and is called down by contact - Coach challenges play and upon review it is noted that the ball DID come loose before the knee hit, however Player B that caused the fumble grabbed the facemask (or kicked him in the helmet…whatever). The official can determine that the penalty not called is what called the fumble.

In the Shakir Bell play the broadcast DID say that a facemask could be called but it was unclear whether he grasped the facemask or simply brushed it but didn’t grab.

In the banks example the turnover was not caused by a missed penalty. The result of the missed call was a turnover, but the player being inside of 5 yards is not the reason Banks fumbled.

Having said that, No yards should absolutely be a reviewable call. Its not a judgement call, its 5 yards, period. CFL needs to get this one right. There is no logical or justifiable reason not to make no yards a reviewable call since its obvious when you slow it down. The head coach only gets 2 reviews (or 3) so why limit what he can challenge?

If the opposing player is outside the 5 yards, perhaps Banks has a better chance of recovering his fumble, just sayin.

Or perhaps, the player within the 5 yards was enough to distract Banks leading to the fumble.

[Spinner]

Cocks made it look like he was gonna paste Speedy up until the last second.
Then makes as if he is trying to get out of the zone. Sell job.
An effective strategy when you have a cheap shot artist like cocks.
Cocks was 40% into the no-yards zone FFS.
Should have been no-yards, Hamilton accepts penalty, kick again.
I seem to me we have a bunch of refs who apply the blind eye and even it up that is hockey.
The CFL refs are either inept, biased, bought or a combination of any.
Bring in USA refs. They are better.

[TravelPatB]

Oh yeah. The US refs that the NFL tried to get away with using when their officials were locked out worked out really well for that league didn't it. Let's call them up to work CFL games. :roll:

The refs miss the odd call but generally they get the calls right. So yes they missed that No Yards. But most of the flags we are seeing them throw in big numbers this year are because they are getting the calls right - and the players are screwing up WAY too often.

The performance of Riders players today for example was pathetic. A ton of errors. Way more than the refs are making.

[tabbiefanmcb]

@"Mikefrmthhammer"

@"tabbiefanmcb"

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.

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]

Thanks for the correction - you obviously know the rule book much better than I do!

[Mark]

@"ottawacat"

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.

Now Tom Higgins, when he was Director of Officiating, used to occasionally issue comment on how penalties were called. Now that he’s free again … anybody got his number?

[guelphcatsfan]

A bit of an aside - but does anyone else think the CFL looks bush-league when it's on-line Rule Book dates from 2013?