CFL ref should be suspended/fined - wpg-ham game

The ref that made the call for roughing the punter should be suspended and fined. That call is embarrassing. The blue bomber player never touched the punter. Once again refs are making calls assuming they call it. ''IF YOU DO NOT SEE THE PENALTY. IT DID NOT HAPPEN'' is the simple motto all refs have to use. You just can't make a call because you think it happened.

Even CJOB Bob Irving called for his suspension and you know he never calls the refs out.

There is zero accountability. That ref needs to be held accountable. There is too much at risk. And that play was a massive blunder by the CFL.

They need to take control of this game.

What does that mean?

You might want to watch the Contacting the Kicker play again. Unamba stepped on Medlock's planting foot before Medlock's kicking foot touched the ground. Usually, that is called Roughing the Kicker due to the potential for serious injury, but the referee decided for some reason to only assess the lesser penalty. But a penalty either way.

It means he’s really WinnipegBeach_BlueBombers.

It was the correct call.

There is absolutely no doubt that was a terrible call. Kim Murphy should be suspended as he clearly doesn't understand the CFL rules. Roughing the kicker is put in place to protect the kicker from possible injury.

Last week Murphy didn't call roughing the kicker against Saskatchewan on a play where the punter was nearly killed. Saskatchewan scored on a punt return TD on the play. Without that TD Ottawa most likely wins that game. Murphy's terrible call cost the Redblacks a game. This week he was reprimanded by the league for his blown call. So to compensate, he calls the tiniest thing this week as roughing the kicker. There was absolutely no danger to Medlock on the play. His kicking foot was nearly back on the ground, and he was barely even touched by a Bomber. This call may or may not have impacted the outcome. Certainly if Murphy doesn't blow the call, the Bombers have much better field position with much more time left and a much better shot at winning.

The disturbing thing here is Murphy has shown in back to back weeks that he clearly doesn't understand the rules. Roughing the kicker is in place to protect the kicker while he is vulnerable in the act of kicking. If he doesn't have an idea how to call a game, he needs to go for the sake of the league.

If anyone suggest this was the correct call last night, give me an example, a real example when something this small was actually called as a penalty in a CFL game please.

There is a contacting the kicker call which is a 10 yard penalty. He contacted the kicker while his leg was still in the air - actually stepping on the plant foot and as a result slightly bending the kickers plant leg in a direction it is not supposed to go. It was worthy of a contacting the kicker call IMO.

That is different from the 15 yard Roughing the kicker penalty FYI.


The reason I asked for a example of something this small being called for contacting the kicker, is because you won't be able to find one. Something this tiny is NEVER EVER called. Except for last night. The point is there needs to be consistency in the officiating, and if one ref is not calling it the way every other ref is, that is a major problem.

The point which you may have missed is that Kim Murphy clearly doesn't understand the rule. He didn't call something that clearly was roughing the kicker the previous week. The league spoke to him during the week and then he comes back the next week and calls contacting the kicker on something that is NEVER EVER called. Perhaps when the league spoke to him this week they reminded him that contacting the kicker can also be called. He came back and decided that any time a player touches a kicker the tiniest bit a kicker, he will call a flag.

I've seen plays like that called contacting the kicker before and as a result of that thought it was the correct call last night. Was it less contact than the blown call last week - sure - but I thought it was a good call last night and almost everybody agrees last week should have been called too.

Off the top of my head I can't think of specific example of other contacting the kicker calls - although I know I've seen it called before with minor contact on the kicker similar to last night - which is why watching the game at the time I thought it was a good call because it was similar to the type of contact I've seen called before.

Having said that I can't give you a specific player/punter or game that a similar call was made - just like if you asked me now for an example of a chop block - I know I've seen one but I can't remember a specific play or player it was called on nor do I have a video library of penalty calls catalogued to post one here.

But bottom line in my opinion - the correct call last night - the wrong non-call last week.

What about the non-call last week Ott/Riders game. The kicker was contacted with his leg in the air, it wasn’t called!!
I wonder if the ref was trying to make up for that?

Hey Slimjim - I absolutely agree last week should have been called contacting the kicker just as Suitor obviously thought when showing replays of the non call. That one bordered on roughing the kicker it was so blatant IMO. Last night to me was more typical of contacting the kicker - not roughing the kicker by any stretch.

Watched the replay and IMO it was the correct call. Even if it wasn't the correct call, at worst, one could say it's borderline (it's not) and in no way should result in a suspension or fine for the ref.

Contacting the kicker on the plant leg = roughing the kicker.

While this is an old reference, it does show the way the league at the time wanted the rule applied at the time. And that probably hasn’t changed.

[b]For the 2008 season, the following standards will be applied:[/b] [u]Contact with kicking leg[/u] – a Contacting the Kicker penalty [u]Slight or Incidental contact which does not affect the play[/u] – NO foul [u]Contact with the plant leg[/u] – a Roughing the Kicker penalty
The only debate would be around the "Slight or Incidental contact which does not affect the play" part. Is stepping on the kicker's plant foot slight or incidental? Not in my opinion. But if not, this says the penalty this week should have been Roughing the Kicker, not just Contacting the Kicker.

I disagree, to me that is incidental contact… Medlock sold it to the ref, that is why the flag was thrown… a judgement call, but the wrong one… they got it backwards… Ford should have been flagged and Muamba should not have…

I thought it was a BS call.

Fire them all, what the heck. Then you and the other zebra haters can slip in and do the job to perfection…although I’m guessing you wouldn’t know a rule or official’s mechanics book if it fell on your head…

If it hit me in the head - would that be incidental contact? :stuck_out_tongue:

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking!

It also means a whole lot of people are hanging from his hook. Again.