Can an out of bounds player cause a fumble

Watching the BC Calgary game. Bryant obviously fumbles, but it is forced by a player who goes out of bounds himself. The refs have called it BC ball, but can a player who goes out of bounds, stay in the play and cause a fumble?

clearly he was in bounds when he created the fumble.

Not quite so clear to me, but maybe I’m not seeing clear enough. I saw BC player right foot down (out of bounds), then caused fumble, then Bryant out of bounds. either way, can an out of bounds player cause a fumble. To my knowlege, no, but I was looking to see if that is a correct interpretation of the rules.

I have this play on my PVR and I will stand by my original observation. BC player right foot on ground (out of bounds) then punches the ball out with his right hand before Bryant goes out of bounds. It is very much a bang bang play. Now I know that the officials, during a challenge, have the right to look at other aspects of the play. They obviously focus on Bryant to see if he was in bounds when he fumbled, but not if the BC player was also in bounds.

...the only thing clear here is your bias for a BC win, as demonstrated in the other thread, so your opinion on this subject is questionable at best....

...I believe the BC player can make the play after leaving the field, the only play he could not make would be an interception...

...in the end though, karma prevails as the Lewis 'catch but no fumble' play early in the year was as questionable as this one...

You know I never even looked at the BC player, I recall a few plays this year where they've called something on a defender who goes out of bounds and comes back in and makes a tackle.

I never thought to look at the BC player either, but if he was out he should've been ruled ineligible to make the play, thus no fumble. That's IF he was out however.

if you truly saw the replays, he never stepped out until AFTER the ball came out of his hands..

If a player goes out of bounds on their own they can't come back in bounds and make a play. If a player is forced out of bounds by an opposition player then they can come back in bounds and rejoin the play.

i missed this play, does someone have a time for it so i can watch it?

I never even looked to see if he was out of bounds,so ill stay out of it.But I did see a handfull of players showing some skin on their legs and untucked jerseys,and according to the rule book,those are penaltys,so I guess it all evened out in the end. :lol:

The play happened at about 11:20 of the 4th quarter I believe. The game isn't up at the Games on Demand part of the TSN website yet though (I just looked).

As has been stated, a player cannot comeback into the play once they have gone out of bounds, unless they were forced out. So, if the player causing the fumble was out before, then no fumble.

My thought on that play, was that Bryant fumbled while inbounds, was then forced out, while out of bounds touched the ball (he was in mid fumble), so doesn't that make the play over then because he is out and the ball is touching him, making the ball out of play as well.

That's always been my interpretation of the rule. But that brings up an interesting question: if a guy grabs the ball carrier near the sideline, steps on the line, then completes the tackle, should there then be a penalty? I would say no, and the fact that I've never seen a penalty for that in the nearly 30 years I've been watching CFL football would seem to confirm that.
I think if a player steps out of bounds WHILE making a play, he may continue making the play. But he cannot step out, then come back in and make a play.
I didn't actually see the play in question, but from the way it's been described here, the fumble should stand, according to my understanding of the rule.

That's what I saw too. Bryant fumbles while inbounds, steps out and then touches the ball.

Any referee types out there? Does an out of bounds player touching the ball kill the play?

The play was correct as called.

Had the ball gone out of bounds after it was punched out, it would have been Calgarys ball. But since it was recovered in bounds by BC, it's BC ball. But if it had been recovered by either Bryant or the defender who stepped out of bounds ?????????????????? then I believe it goes back to who touched it last, which would have been Calgary, as the punch out doesn't count as possession.

no, it does not.

in the CFL, doesn't a player have to only keep one foot in bound, like in NCAA, to stay in bound? unlike the NFL that requires both feet to be in.

I have been wondering that question myself. I also have it on my PVR. The play in question with 11:20 to go in the 4th qtr, the defender (Toncy for BC) clearly stepped with his whole right foot completely on the wide white sideline boundary (out of bounds) line way before his right arm came up to knock the ball out of Bryant's right arm. I think that the play could have been a penalty against BC, for an ineligible player causing the fumble, and not a fumble. Calgary should have also challenged BC's challenge if that is allowed. Any Ref's out there, or maybe someone from officiating or CFL reps. I think it really should be looked at.

I hope they only have to keep one foot in, the NFL rule about both feet to me is a bit ridiculous, and although the CFL isn't Rugby, in that game (and Australia football I believe) any part of a player's body can do out of bounds and they are still in, but the ball has to stay in bounds. The CFL IMHO by allowing players to have one foot in is kinda keeping in tradition (as the game developed from Rugby) to this if that's the case.