Cross Over Rule - Just for The Record Rod Black

I am very disapointed and shocked that Rod Black does not know the cross over rule.

He incorrectly stated that a team needs MORE WINS to cross.

NO NO NO.

In case anyone else is unaware :

The cross over is MORE POINTS.

A team will cross over with the same amount of wins if they have more points because of a tie .

EXAMPLE:

MTL 6 -11 - 1 = 13 points
BCL 6 - 12 = 12 points
Win 6 - 12 = 12 points

MTL would be 3rd in the West.

Please Rod, you have been broadcasting in the CFL since 2004.
Please get your rules straight and report just the truth..

I am not a defender of Rod Black, believe me, but I can see why he said that. It is just so unusual for a game to end in a tie these days. The last one I can remember was about 3 years ago (don't quote me I maybe wrong). So one may assume that it is most wins.

However What IF??
Example
BC 5 wins and 2 ties total points 12
Montreal 6 wins 12
Then it depends on WHO crosses over. If BC was trying to cross over. Montreal would make playoffs
If Montreal was trying to cross over BC would make playoffs
So it is "more points to crossover"

He just did it again in the Mtl - Ham game.

Suitor is sitting next to him, he could correct him.

Yes a tie is very rare. Now that the 2 pt convert is mandatory, even more rare.

I just say in his job capacity, he should be more accurate.

I hope players and coaches know they could get in with a mere tie game with more points.

Suitor probably doesn't know either

Well in this case, there would be no cross over. The Als would be out as they have no chance of 3 rd in the East.
Even though your idea has the Als with more wins, it would not matter as the CFL cross rule is clear. More points.
If they are tied for points yet the Als had 1 more win , it would not matter.

Bombers fans, I was not ignoring you. I was just using the Lions as an example.
Since the Lions have no idea how to win, I am thinking the Bombers now have the hammer with 2 wins over the Lions.

That's it and that's all. If you're not sure, just don't get too deeply into the subject.

(He should be less repetitive, too, but that's beside the point).

This is true rcon. There are very few tie ball games in the CFL but many fans watch these games on television and many do not know the crossover rule. Rod Black, not describing it correctly actually, detracts from the excitement/enjoyment as the season winds down for those fans trying to figure who can still qualify for post season play.

Let us say Montreal and B.C. have the same number of points and the same number of wins. A fan listening to Black's explanation would assume that one of the teams must win it's remaining game to advance thus having more wins. But that would be incorrect. One team would have to lose and the other just tie to advance.

Let's look at a second scenario: Both have one game remaining but the Lions are one point ahead in the standings because of an earlier tie. The Lions would simply have to tie their game to secure a playoff spot… even if the Als won their final game. If the Lions lost, the Als would have to win their final game.

Of all the ample ammunition Rod Black gives us on every broadcast, I'm not going to hold this one against Rod that much. Ties are a rarity in Football. Neglecting to say "Barring a tie" isn't grounds for a tar and feathering.

What ever the case as to who gets 3rd in the West. I just hope it does not come down to a tie breaker between Wpg and BC.

BC, Wpg or Mtl. I just hope some team wins 1 or 2 games and earns the 3rd spot.

Yet all 3 keep losing.

Regardless, neither the Stamps or Esks should look past whichever team finishes 3rd.
Respect your opponent or they could be watching the West Final on tv.

you're really reaching for an excuse to slam Black here. :roll:

I am not reaching to slam him.

I am just saying he should know the play-off rules.

I would say the same as though it was Cuthbert or Miller.

He has only been a CFL broadcaster for 12 years. :roll:

technically he's correct you know.

I'll hold it against him because;

  1. He's an idiot;
  2. He never does any research, just opens mouth and inserts foot; and
  3. He has a history stating incorrect information over and over and over and over (until this season he has incorrectly stated game in and game out that a no yards flag "tacks on another 5 yards", but at least now he's finally correct without ever having to change his words).

Rowdy Rod is the Yogi Berra of the CFL just far less entertaining in his stupidity.

Years ago I read a book about the first few years of Monday Night Football. In it they mentioned how the guys in the booth would be coached out of bad habits during the week. Normal, conversational stuff, like if you started every statement with "Well, you know..." for instance.

Does anyone know if that is still done? It doesn't seem like it. One Twitter account, for example, counts the number of times that Phil Simms says "talked about" as in "We talked about it earlier Jim, the offensive line...". Sometimes his total is in the 20s. Or count how often Troy Aikman uses the word "job". "The running back sis a nice job of picking up the blitz". Joe Theismann used to do that one a lot too.

It's not just in football. In NASCAR, half the announcers will throw in "Now remember..." to make their point. "Gordon is sneaking up on the rest of the field. Now remember, he started slow here last year too before coming back and earning a top five finish."

I would think that if Rod Black consistently gets a piece of information wrong, somebody should be responsible for pointing it out to him.

Like who? Duanne Forde? Forde only looks intelligent when he's with Black. If they ever get rid of Rod Black people will finally see what a football moron Forde is and we fans will have nothing to keep us entertained during those boring blow out games.

Most definitely not Duane Ford.

No, someone involved in the show's production. But again, just because such a person existed for NBC (?) when MNF started doesn't mean that anyone still does it now. Based on some of the other sports broadcasts I see, it certainly doesn't seem like there is.

Certainly never in Canada. If it did we would never have had Rod Black. Or Duanne Forde. Or Chris Walby, or Pat Marsden, or Al Strachan, or Bob McKenzie, or Dick Irvin ect.......

I think what may have happened is that when a couple of these guys became "characters", like John Madden for example, they decided to just let them do their thing because it became part of the entertainment.

Short of being outright offensive, you can get away with being repetitive, getting information incorrect and in some cases, actually being a terrible speaker. there doesn't seem to be much of a standard for the role anymore.

Rod Black must be very good friends with TSN management.

TSN kicked kick John Wells off to make room for him.

In 2004 Wells was the main guy til 2005 when they got Cuthbert from CBC.

After that Wells became # 2 then was promptly ousted to make room for Black.

I always thought John Wells was good for the CFL.

Not sure what went on , but I just think Black had friends high up.