Black and Yellow glasses

Few things,

because the rule didn't favour the ti-cats doesn't make it a dumb rule. It's not like the NFL because it's the CFL. The rule has always been that way and always should be.

I don't see how fumbling OB at the 1 or fumbling 1 yard further should constitute a change of possession.

There's no clear evidence who in fact touched it last. It doesn't matter either way because the punch-out does not count as a touch (maybe that's "dumb" too).

If you want to argue that it was Hamilton who last touched it then it gives the Riders a Safety, 2 points and the lead.

There's no way 25 was going to catch up to that ball.

It's a rule that cost Hamilton the game and that's the only reason people here are calling itd a dumb rule.

Looked on the replay like, even if the rule was different, it'd be Riders ball.

Personally, I think there should be definitive possession -- and that would include a distinctive kick, or batting of the ball out of bounds.

A lot of times a ball gets squirted out of bounds...are we gonna have to sit through video reviews everytime?

If the ball had skipped up a bit, we might have been able to tap it out of bounds for clear possession.

But calling a change of possession when a ball has been punched out of the bread basket -- that'd be pretty ballzy.

Not at all. I am not against the rule because it cost Hamilton (being aa Cats fan). I believe it IS a stupid rule because if a fumble is caused and the ball goes out of bounds past a dead ball line, it should be forfeited by the offensive team. That's just my opinion.

There is clear evidence as to who had possession last BY RULE. Dressler. Case closed.

Oski Wee Wee,

Because the other 5 threads on this weren't enough??

I didn't see a thread on the reaction of this board, just reaction to the call itself.

Correct.

Just to be clear, the Riders would never have received a safety. A safety is when you have possession of the ball and even if the cats did have possesion his progress took him into the end zone, so you argument goes out the window.

Next, the ball is awarded to the team who last touches the ball at the point where it was last touched in the field of play. We punch it out and SSK gets the ball? Give me a break!

I wasn't going to weight in on this topic this week but reading some of the other posts on this did pique my interest. I find the argument that the ball being fumbled by offense and rolling past the dead ball line and going out of bounds should constitute a change of possession in the form of a touchback to be very interesting. I never thought of it like that. Just so we're clear - dead ball line = goal line? Is that actually a rule? I know the rule for field goals used to be if you hit the cross bar at all it's dead ball. Is that because it is on the goal line? If there is any argument at all about this rule then I think the dead ball argument is a pretty good one; not to say the ref called the rule wrongly here, but it is a logical argument against the rule itself.

you're making up situations that did not happen in yesterdays game.

First off, The ball doesn't get ruled to have progress of itself where as a player with the ball does. If you say that the punch out would give the ball to the Ti-cats then you would be ruling the TiCat player punching out the ball, turned the possesion over at the one yardline and then fumbled into their own goal area out of bounds. That is called a safety.

Supposed a ball is fumbled by the offense at the 5 yard line, a defender subsequently bats the ball while outside the goal area say at the 2 yard line, back into his own goal where it then goes out of bounds, by RULE it is a safety. Suppose that same ball fumbled at the 5 and is batted within the goal by a defender and goes out of bounds, it's a touchback (whether it goes out of bounds in the goal area or forward back out of the goal as a loose fumble cannot ADD progress.

That is only if the ball advances forward for one. Two, the rule says punch out is not considered contact prior to going out of bounds.

So how do you want it? The Rider player fumbling forward out of bounds where it then get's spotted BACK to the point it was fumbled? Or the Ti-Cat player batting or "directing" the ball from the field of play into his own goal area out of bounds which is ruled a safety?

The way it is written those are the only two outcomes without re-writing the rule on fumbling through the endzone, but you would be re-writing the rule on contact of a loose ball prior to exiting the field of play.