There’s a lot of discussion in the “change the rouge” thread about this, and I think a new thread is appropriate to specifically discuss this other Canadian-exclusive rule.
The rule is 1.9.3: Fumble out of Bounds
When, on any play, the ball is fumbled Out of Bounds, or touches a player in the Field of Play and then goes Out of Bounds, it shall belong to the team that last touched the ball in the Field of Play.
A team shall be entitled to possession when a player of the team, while off the ground, knocks or bats the ball directly Out of Bounds, provided he lands in bounds.
This rule also applies to kickoffs that go at least 10 yards, and punts (for any onside player, or after the receiving team has touched the ball)
I see no reason to change it … makes onside kicks more exciting and otherwise rewards teams for trying to recover a fumble rather than rewarding a teams’ luck that thier opponent didn’t recover the ball.
I’m probably in the minority here, though that’s often not the case off the forum around football fans, in wanting this rule changed.
Possession means possession, which includes full control of the ball with at least one hand and not mere touching of the ball inbounds with any part of the body.
The problem is that if a fumble is rolling out of bounds nobody HAS possession … the NFL takes the approach that a player fumbling the ball should have no consequence if neither his team nor the other team can gain full possession … the CFL takes the approach that after a fumble both teams have the chance to gain full possession and if neither can then reward the team that last touched it … neither approach is perfect … but I prefer the CFL rule.
I’m of the opinion that a live ball should provide no advantage to either team. Once the defence has gotten the ball loose, if anything, they should have the advantage, like they do in the American game when the ball is in the end zone.
Ball contact is also much more objective and easier to review than possession, should there be a fumble recovery review.
I agree. The loose ball after a fumble is identified as a ball not in possession. …Senario: Team A punts. Attempting to field the ball a team B players has the ball bounce off his head and go out of bounds. A ruling that demands possession on an out of bounds would return the ball to team A at the point the ball was knocked out by team B’s returner. Just doesn’t seem right to me. Presently that same punted ball being knocked out of bounds off the team B players helmet is awarded to team B. This ruling makes more sense to me.
Rulebook: Sec 3 Possession If a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession.
Therefore, it is incorrect to say possession is automatically established as soon as a punt crosses the line of scrimmage. A punt is "NOT in possession’ until LEGALLY touched by a member of the kicking or receiving team.
I was simply indicating a senario and the effect that would occur if 1.) if upon a fumble the recoverer was forced to have full grasp possession as he goes out of bounds in order for his team to claim possession and,
2) the present rule that gives possession the last team to TOUCH the ball before goes out of bounds.
…but when it comes to skill, you can’t call having the ball bounce off your ass out of bounds a skill play either…
Plus as much moaning that goes on here when the CC gets involved - and this play gives them free reign most of the time to go “doesn’t look like he touched it” half of everyone is pissed off.
Possession is clear. Fumble? Just knocking the ball OB wouldn’t cut it. Get the ball hold the ball, or its not a fumble.
While I think that Canadian football should focus on control of the ball as possession as a first principle, when it comes to kicking, there is also this:
Sorry Joey, but a fumble off the head of a kick returner and going out of bounds is not considered a kick out of bounds therefore the rule you present is not applicable in a ruling concerning possession after a fumble out of bounds.
That said I believe @mysecondname was drawing some comparison between gaining possession by way of last touch of a loose ball out of bounds to gaining possession by way of touching a ball kicked over the line of scrimmage.
So I thought to add that kicks out of bounds result in change of possession.
Maybe I should elaborate. We have rules that say purposely kicking a loose ball out of bounds results in change of possession. At the same time batting or accidentally touching a loose ball that subsequently goes out of bounds gets you possession.
I am happy either way but when I look at football I sometimes wonder if rules are needlessly complicated.
Maybe knocking a loose ball out of bounds any which way (kick or otherwise) should be a change of possession while carrying a ball out of bounds maintains possession.
It would put a premium on ball security while not changing the kick or run game at all essentially.
Its splitting hairs. I understand if people don’t like the suggestion. But it seems consistent and simple to me.
I don’t think anyone here has ever considered it a skilled play. But because it’s not a skilled play is no reason to the elimate the rule as it sits now. Unskilled occurences abound in every aspect of a football game, poor punts, missed field goals, interceptions, penalties etc…
No kidding, there are bad plays and accidents that don’t result in player and team benefit in the entire rest of the game, and then there is this rule that does!
The rule would be better at the very least if touching the ball before going out of bounds to secure possession were defined explicitly as only by the hand or lower arm (elbow or above does not count), but I doubt they would even consider such a minor change.
Actually Joey in my 2 earlier posts, while mentioning the present fumble out of bound rulings, I was trying to point out, the effect on the results, if instead, the “grasp and hold in possession” of the football was in effect. I contend with “grasp and hold” requirement a punt returner who fumbles the ball out of bounds before getting a “full grasp” would forfeit possession to the other team. That is, unless the rules are adapted further, but doing that would only needlessly add complication the rules.
I understood your point the first time when posting the rule on kicks out of bounds.
This was a great clarification for the sake of both consistency in rules before a ball is kicked out of bounds or a loose ball is touched out of bounds,
both usually without intent,
as well as not affording via the rules either party a benefit when taking such an action to kick or touch a ball out of bounds,
irrespective of intent (with noted exceptions for some kicks from scrimmage).
