Higgins Answers - The Fumble Call

2008-07-14 17:25:00 by Tom Higgins Question

In Saturday night’s Saskatchewan at Hamilton game, there was an unusual play near the end of the game, when Hamilton’s Jykine Bradley chased down Saskatchewan’s Weston Dressler and punched the ball out of his arms just before he reached the goal line. The initial call was Touchdown. The Replay overturned that call and gave Saskatchewan the ball at the one yard line. How come?

Answer

Instant replay, initiated by the Replay officials in the booth because the play happened in the last 3 minutes of the game. Replay allowed the Referee to see that, in fact, a fumble had occurred and that the ball subsequently went untouched through the end zone and across the dead ball line.

The officials ruled correctly that the ball belonged to Saskatchewan as first down on the one yard line.

This play is governed by Rule 1, Section 7 Article 4 (page 18 of the 2008 CFL rule book), which indicates that the ball belongs to the team that last touched it in the field of play, at the point it was last touched. That meant Saskatchewan ball, because creating a fumble by punching the ball out of a player’s hands, does not constitute last touching.

If a Hamilton player had touched or recovered the fumbled ball in the Goal Area, then Hamilton would have been given possession as first down at their own 25 yard line.

And there you have it

Re-"This play is governed by Rule 1, Section 7 Article 4 (page 18 of the 2008 CFL rule book), which indicates that the ball belongs to the team that last touched it in the field of play, at the point it was last touched". fare enough BUT :roll: ___This does not cover a live ball fumbled over the goal line. and exiting the end zone --A similar play happened in a minor football game i coached d, and the ref ruled a single for the offence. :twisted: I would love to read the BOG meeting minutes over this one __ imho( after some research) it would be Riders ball at the end line of the endzone making a touchdown Riders was the correct call :?

Ya cant use a minor league ref as a reference....

I remember arguing with a ref over the infield fly rule..... He insisted you only needed one man on base! :roll:

Actually that's exactly what it covers.

Sure wish the operators of this site would get the access to the rule book fixed.

http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1

2007 but better than nothing

But click on the picture of the book to get the pdf and it doesn't work.

...you know what would be awesome?...if you clicked on the rule book and it linked you to a picture of Adriana Lima...

...that would 'rule'...(haha, get it? rule? rule book?....haha)....

I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule.

OOOOOHHHHHH
I saved the PDF last year and never went back to that link

try this

http://www.proplayers.ca/themes/cfl3/pdf/07rulebook.pdf

so did i but i must've deleted it at some point.

Shouldnt someone be saying edit off topic. I asked I believe Billy Soup about a month ago about some girl he met while talking to a roughrider and that happens to me. What gives with the double standard?

I like that call better I think it makes sense.

...how could you propose to edit Adriana?...that is just wrong...

Write what you want I just dont like the double standards.

...its probably what you wrote, that's all, maybe made Billy upset...

Double standards do s.uck. Without seeing your post it sounds like both of the posts in question should have been left they way they were. Like Red said though, there was probably something offensive or something that led to the "edit" in question.