Fumble on the field of play not reviewable?

Is this a season opener joke, or is this actually in the rule book this year?

The guys on RDS said that the rule is that a fumble can only be reviewed in the end zones, but not on the rest of the field. Sounds strange... If so, it is a bad rule.

Here are the rules (from this site) for instant replay:


That is last years rules but as per those rules


The instant replay system will cover a variety of plays in three main areas:

  1. possession rulings in the end zone; forward progress with respect to first down or goal line; and end zone plays involving the sideline in goal and dead ball line

  2. passing plays – pass complete or incomplete. If a pass is ruled incomplete, then the defence cannot get possession of the ball

  3. other detectable situations, such as a ball carrier ruled down by contact, and a fumble which occurred prior to down by contact


These include, but are not limited to:

* Proper down
* Status of the clock
* Penalty calls and their Administration
* Forward progress not relating to a first down or goal line
* Force outs on pass plays near a sideline
* [b]Recovery of loose ball in the field of play[/b]
* Field Goals</blockquote>

Wuuuuuuuuh??? :?

Thats incredibly embarassing for the CFL.

No I dont believe that is the case.
Anyway I just sent off an Email to ask the ref.
Lets see what they say

I look forward to his response!

Guys if this goes on all season long its gonna be horrible for possible turnovers for all teams. Seems like a rule for refs to cover their bad calls :frowning:

Refs dont make the rules....the teams do

Yeah, I don't know if I'd say the rule covers the ref's butts. But I do agree that if it continues to be called this way, it's going to make for a bad season... :frowning:

Well to be honest it wont be any worse than before they have video review

I can explain the rule, sort of. The key word to remember is recovery. Whether or not a fumble occurs is reviewable, recovery of said fumble is not. Basically, on a loose ball, the player to end up with the ball when the refs get in to the pile is the one who gets posession. An example is a big pileup. Until the refs get the pile sorted out and see who has the ball, it may change hands more than once. The only thing that matters is who has the ball when the refs see it.

As it applied in this game, on the fumble that Masson recovered, the ball was on the ground, and when the play ended, it was Masson who had posession of the ball. I understand all the Ticat fans on here will say that the receiver had the ball under him, Als fans will say that the ball was never controlled (which is supported by replay). Regardless, as per the rules of the CFL, that part is not reviewable. Basically what the refs did was review to see if the original fumble happened, which it did. From there, they looked at who had the ball whne they ended the play.

On the second time it came up, the refs missed the boat prior to the challenge flag. Basically, they didn’t realize when the Ham player ripped the ball out of Armstead’s hands. That play should have been reviewed to see whether or not there was a fumble, not whether or not it was recovered. What they must have thought was that the ball came loose in the scrum at the end of the play, not so early. Had the refs seen the original strip, there would have been no need for the replay. So they applied the rule correctly, based on an incorrect call on the field.

Hope that clears it up.

True... but I've gotten used to video review. :lol:

yeah sorry refs do try and do a good job they're just applying the rules my bad.

Clear as mud! :lol:
From your explanation
Basically they should have said that its the recovery that is not reviewable and not the fumble itself

So Taffe should have challenged WHETHER or not there was a fumble rather than who recovered it? seems like a no-brainer to me considering they initially called the play down for the Als but Beveridge stripped that outright. That just sucks for the TiCats tonight, and for possibly many teams throughout the season.

Exactly. The refs made it more confusing by saying "fumble" in the field of play instaed of "recovery"

If that's the rule, then I still don't agree. Why isn't the recovery reviewable? I've never heard that rule before...

There was nothing for Taffe to do. Basically the refs thought Armstead still had the ball when they whistled the ball down, and thereofre there was nothing to review.
Instant replay is great for close plays, but unfortunately, it often can't do anything if the refs really mess up a call to being with.
Also remember that this is not a new rule this year, it is just one of those rare things that came up twice in one game. I don't think it came up once all last year. I doubt that we're seeing a trend or anything.