Graham Harrell

I'm not sure you have that right...or maybe I just didn't understand your post.

For several years, it has worked this way: if a player is in the 5 yard zone and the ball is fielded in the air, it is a 15 yard penalty. If it hits the ground, and then there is no yards, it becomes a 5 yard penalty. What has changed is the yardage assessed if a ball stikes a player of the kicking team before it is fielded - that used to be 15 yards. Now, if it hits the ground first, it is also 5 yards, reducing what was a harsh penalty for a guy that often did nothing but be the victim of a weird bounce.

Yes Artie right I had the last part right as you explained but not the first part thanks for clearing up. And definitely 15 yards for what in most cases was an innocent victim of a bad bounce was too much.

All the same I do believe with regard to the 5-yard zone, as I was thinking as well but did not clarify, it is a 15-yard penalty if even the ball hits the ground AND the offside (or even onside) player makes physical contact with the receiver before the receiver fields the ball. Also I think if such contact is a blatant hit and deemed grievous it is instead 25 yards and possible expulsion.

Did I miss anything with regard to such PHYSICAL interference with the receiver by a kicking team player before the receiver has the chance to catch the ball whether or not from the air or ground?

the one thing about the return rules i would like to see visited... The iligal blocks that dont affect the play. im not saying this should not be punished. of course it should. Perhaps where the player goes down, they could run the first play from that point, but as as first and 25 or something. so there is still a penalty, but the return is not negated. if a TD is scored, tack the yards to the convert, or to the kickoff. just noticing how many great returns were called back for something that happened not even close to the play. not like in 91 when toronto got away with one that lead to a rocket TD. they miss that one, but call ones with no effect to the play.

This is a good idea, but how would you make it work without resorting to high discretion and sometimes even greater error from the referee in the determination of a foul "away from the play?"

Perhaps establish some guidelines such as the following in the event of a penalty by the receiving team? Some quick questions for clarification here:

  1. I guess your proposal would apply mostly to only fouls on the receiving team AFTER the ball has been caught, or changed possession, to be returned on any sort of kick?

  2. Also we are assuming no personal foul before the return such as roughing the kicker too?

  3. Doesn't the kicking team get to replay the down in the CFL on a punt or field goal attempt when the receiving team commits a foul BEFORE the return?

  4. And on a kickoff, does not the kicking team retain the option to either accept the penalty on the return or re-kick if the foul takes place BEFORE the return?

Just thinking aloud here long as possession changed hands with the fielding of the ball by the receiving team, as you explain why not penalise without yardage marked off on the return but rather on the down, so long as ALL the following below are not the case?

Otherwise after change of possession, the normal penalty ought apply from the spot of the foul or final position of the ball carrier, whichever is nearer the goal line of the receiving team.

Possible guidelines to allow the return yardage ought to stand, though with the appropriate penalties still called and marked off on 1st down for the receiving team/new offence, if and only if ALL of the following are true:

As indicated by the official throwing the flag and indicating the spot of the foul with also a separate marker, the illegal block did not take place ANYWHERE forward of the ball carrier at the time of the foul.

  1. The illegal block did not take place anywhere within a 10-yard radius of the ball carrier.

  2. There was no personal or unsportsmanlike foul anywhere on the playing field during the play.

i know it would never happen and needs some work, but basicly, you get the idea.

Signed by Green Bay ...I am not cheering for this dude for sure:

[url=] ... raham.html[/url]

Come September, that backup spot for Harrell in Saskatchewan might start looking good... :wink:

Found this on TSN's website. Graham Harrell has signed a contract with the Green Bay Packers. Could this be why he wanted out of his contract witht the Riders. Link Attached.