How was that play in the SSK/HMT game called a fumble but the MTL/WBB one was not.

you know there is a serious problem when a rule can be interperted 2 different ways. what a disgrace.
really hope there is none of this bs in the CGY/BC game

it is so simple. they decided they made a mistake in the MTL game and fixed it in the SSK. They should be congradulated for that. Or would you prefer they make the same mistake twice in a row??

so.. you complain about the refs being wrong all the time, then when they do it right you want them to be wrong?

the league admitted it's mistake. why would they then go and make it again?

I have complained once about the ref's, and im not saying they should have called it the other way. What im getting at is that they should make rules that have a set requirements/components so that they can call it consistanly each game.
the inconsistancy is what makes cfl rules's so sad.

Its quite simple.. the players knee was not on the ground before the ball came out. Hamilton is fortunate that there was an early whistle, or that would have probably been six points the other way.

They were called differently because they weren't the same situation. The ruling in the game today was that Cobb was down by contact before he fumbled. In that situation the Riders could challenge the play as to whether he fumbled before he was down. Since the Riders recovered the ball immediately after the fumble they were awarded the ball at the point of the fumble.

In the game last night, because the play was ruled as an incomplete pass, all that could be reviewed was whether it was complete or not. Even if they had ruled it a completed pass they could not have ruled on the fumble because the rule is stupid and needs to be changed.

What i am confused about is that the whistle blew before the Sask player touched the ball. I agree Cobb was not down when he fumbled but as soon as the whistle blew with the ball laying on the ground should it not have been a dead ball and therefore should it not have Hamilton’s ball.

I posted this in another thread as well...

The rule is that if a player is ruled down by contact before the fumble that it can be challenged. If it is ruled a fumble and if a defensive player recovered the ball "directly and immediately" after the fumble then the defence is awarded the ball at the point of the recovery.

This was in the Winnipeg Free Press after the command centre blew a call in one of the Ticats-Bombers game and explains the rule:

Just to recap, Glenn fumbled in the third quarter with the Ticats marching and ahead 14-0 after being hit by Bombers defensive end Deji Oduwole at Winnipeg's 21-yard line. Bomber tackle Don Oramasionwu dropped on the ball, but after a quick whistle by the official. The ruling on the field was the Ticats QB was down by contact.

Bombers head coach Paul LaPolice challenged the call and while the replay officials at the command centre in Toronto agreed Glenn had fumbled, they ruled Oramasionwu hadn't fallen on the ball "directly and immediately," as per the rule book. Glenn then sealed the victory two plays later with a TD toss to Maurice Mann.

"It became very obvious in the command centre that the ball was fumbled," said CFL director of officiating Tom Higgins on Monday. "But it's the second part -- was it picked up directly and immediately? That's where I erred. The decision was made under the auspices that (the ball) laid there for a count or a half a count before it was recovered.

"Slow motion is sometimes our friend and not our friend because you play it in slow motion and the ball may look like it's been there for a long time and not picked up. The new instruction going forward is really simple: give it another half a count. We tell the coaches that even though a whistle goes if there's a ball on the ground make sure somebody gains possession immediately. In that respect, if we had to do it all over again and if it were to come up again next week the instruction is you have give more time when the ball is on the ground for someone to gain possession."

That is certainly not the first time this season that the play has been blown dead when it was a fumble then recovered by the other team. Last week Cates fumbled against Calgary, the whistle was blown, then Calgary recovered. It was Calgary football. The issue I had with that one last week was that there was a Rider player going for the ball, but the whistle was blown and he gave up on it. It definitly wasnt as clear cut as the Cobb fumble this week.

That was a bonehead move by the Rider then since the league instructed teams to have players not give up according to that article I posted.

Ya but when the ref blows the whistle, waits and blows it repetedly if you dont stop you run the risk of taking a penalty.

What do you mean? He scooped the ball up, you didn't expect him to keep running with it did you?

I was responding to greenandwhite's post about the Riders/Stamps game, not today's game.

Let’s just say that this was the proper interpretation. Suppose the Hamilton player was not yet in the endzone and the ball happened to be fumbled into the endzone and then the whistle is blown before a Rider player takes posession of the ball but after it is already in the endzone. By your interpretation, Hamilton would have a TD, even though no Hamilton play had control of the ball at or afer the goal line. I’m sorry; it just can’t work that way - that would be a worse result than what, in fact, was ruled on the play in question.

Yes, because it would have helped the Cats. :slight_smile: But it was a fumble, and the correct call was made. I can't really grouse about that.

I almost wish that they ruled it correctly to begin with and that the Riders took it the distance. It would have left more time for the Tabbies. The Riders scored a TD anyway, and since the game came down to the last play with 0:00 left on the clock, it would have been nice to see a couple more minutes added to the game. Who knows how the game turns out if the Cats get the ball back right away.

But haven't we been told time and time again that when the official blows the whistle the ball is dead?

Isn't this the same issue we debate year after year?

It is dead but on this particular type of play (player ruled down by contact before he fumbled) the players have been instructed to fall on the ball because the ruling of down by contact is a reviewable play. If the ball isn't recovered immediately then there will not be a change of possession. As well, the ball is spotted at the point where the fumble was recovered - there is no forward progress.

By strange CFL rule from my perspective as I found out, it seems TWO calls were corrected on that play. Ultimately the right calls were made. In addition to the determination that it was a fumble, forward progress also was negated pursuant to the rules regarding any turnover in the goal area other than by kick in the CFL:


The rule about such turnovers in the CFL is very strange for a non-Canadian viewer south of the border indeed, but also that rule has absolutely no origin in rugby either to make it even stranger for me and others who have played rugby!