Challenge flag fishing expeditions

It is time to put an end to the constant game interruptions from coaches challenges.

A 10 yard penalty should be called on any coach who challenges a play and gets it wrong.

Agreed. It has gotten to be a fishing expedition now and thats unacceptable!

Agree. Enough.

totally agree should be delay of game infraction.......

Utterly ridiculous , Sask at Calg game last night 5 plays in and 3 challenge flags to start the game . Dickinson is really starting to annoy me as it seems he wrote the book on how to go fishing 101 as a CFL HC :thdn: . The sad thing about it all though is that if the on field official was actually doing his job instead of checking out the hot blonde in the 3rd row there never would've been a need to see 2 challenge flags on the same play . This challenge flag BS nonsense for PI on a player on the other side of the field not involved or affecting the play has simply got to STOP !!!! Quite simply and to the point.....It's ruining the game , period , full STOP . :thdn:

Just remove illegal contact from plays you can challenge and include DPI only. With the exception that if the illegal contact happens where the ball was thrown (I.e. before DPI would be called) it's allowed.

And change the rule on PI. Allow mild contact and hand jostling, or even contact until the ball is thrown. NCAA and NFL games would never see a pass thrown without a flag if they used our rules. And letting the receiver run into a defender, and then calling “illegal contact” on the defender is assine. Or, as I said in another thread, let the on field officials review the call, and let them determine if they are happy with the original one, or wish to change it.

Guys like Dickinson, Campbell and Jones drive me nuts. If they want to call the game, buy a striped jersey and change professions.

If the rule was changed so that only infractions that actually made a difference to the play would be upheld, then it would stop a lot of the abuse of the challenge flag.

It is ridiculous when a challenge is upheld based on an illegal contact that is on the opposite side of the field.

There should be a double penalty in cases where a receiver has run into a DB to try to draw a flag. 10 yds for the offensive contact, and another 10 for the frivolous challenge. Moving the ball back 20 yds would sure cut down on the number of challenges.

The problem I see with this is that the receiver that was “fouled” could have been the primary receiver on that play. A similar play happened with Zach and Speedy last year. Speedy was contacted i the end zone, so Zach had to pass to a secondary/tertiary receiver for an incompletion. Zach yelled for Austin to throw the challenge flag, and we got a first down on the one.

Good points raised that I am going to just cut with a dull knife so forgive me.

To me the #1 thing I would do is do away with challenges for non-calls (penalties). I would rather live with the outcome of fighting the real flagged wrongs.

So a receiver that’s getting man-handled while the ball is in the air, but no flag is thrown, is a play that you would not review? That’s precisely the reason that the coach’s challenge was instigated.

My problem is that there is no consistency with how the calls are interpreted game-to-game, or even WITHIN a game. That, and the absolute incompetence of the video review officials…

BINGO! Consistency is the key. Players will generally conform to the rules IF they know what they really are. I miss the days when we actually knew the players who did or didn't follow the rules. Now half or more of the players who look genuinely bewildered after receiving a penalty are really not faking it!

It will soon come to, the Coaches and Coordinators will always have at least 1 REC accidentally intentionally change directions on their route once they are 10 yards downfield to accidentally intentionally induce contact even though there was no intention of throwing to that REC so if the intended 2nd down play that went incomplete to another REC then the Coach always has a Illegal contact challenge to call.
The Coaches could and will be doing this on every 2nd and long pass play.

Maybe we need a "diving" penalty" before the CFL coaches adopt the soccer mentality of players collapsing from the breeze caused by a passing player?

I said it once and I'll say it again the coaches challenges are ruining the game.
It has interrupted the flow and is no longer Fan friendly.
There should be some kind of penalty for getting them wrong.

You mean the Montreal play in Guelph? :slight_smile:

I didn't enjoy the delay either. However, Dickenson was doing the referees jobs for them, so I don't think it fair to criticize the coach for looking out for his team. Given the same situation, I would want my coach to be just as persistent and diligent.

What we should be getting annoyed about, in my opinion, is the need to throw two flags on the same play. If these blind mice could perform their jobs with ANY degree of competence in the first place, then there would be a lesser requirement for the flag dispersal.

Perhaps, the league should measure those with the stripes by the number of flags thrown in a game and calls overruled. Two flags tossed on one play should generate an immediate alarm for their bosses.

I know....wishful thinking....

How about just two challenge flags per team total - independent of time outs, and right or wrong? When they are done, they are done, forcing the coach to be serious about the challenge. I didn't see the Calgary - Saskatchewan game, but why two challenges on one play? Challenging the same thing or different calls? It boggles my mind that the video review doesn't fix any and all errors all at once.

It is not so much the challenges that we are so concerned about as it is the misuse of the challenge process. Well, that and the apparent incompetence of the video review officials :smiley: .

In answer to your question , it was two different calls that were challenged : Jones threw an initial flag for an incomplete pass called a catch by a Calg player . The ridiculous thing about it was it was an obvious in-completion as in real time you could see the ball hitting the turf and the receiver never having complete control over the pass . The on field official nonetheless called it a completed pass (I still have no idea what he was looking at . It was nowhere near a completed catch . )
Video review came back and confirmed it was indeed an in-completion , so Jones and the Riders won the initial challenge . Net result equals loss of down for the Stamps and a punting situation.

Not to be outdone Dickensen promptly throws his flag saying that there was PI on the play anyways . It goes to Video review and the Command Centre indeed determines PI on the play . So now Dickensen and the Stamps win their challenge . Net result equals the Stamps retain possession of the ball with a fresh set of downs and go on to score a TD to finish the drive .

The thing of it is though is that if the on field official was paying attention to the play in the first place and called
it correctly in the first place as an OBVIOUS incomplete pass with PI on the DB then there would've been no need for any challenge flags to be thrown by either HC either way, let alone back to back on the same play .

It would be interesting to know how much of this illegal contact that the Command Centre sees and penalizes was seen by the on-field officials but deemed to be inconsequential.

Something I've suggested before is that, before going to the Command Centre and a pass interference or illegal contact review, the referee asks his officials if they saw contact. If they did, then the challenge is denied immediately. Only if they didn't see contact would the review go to the Command Centre, and then the Command Centre should use the same criteria as the on-field officials for whether the contact actually affected the player's progress.

And when a pass interference or illegal contact penalty is challenged, the only reason the Command Centre can overturn it is if they determine there was no contact.

Perhaps the inactive referees or senior officials could rotate through manning the Command Centre to provide the on-field perspective.