Yes, and this is what it was called. UR. So again, I think it actually had more to do with the fact it was a QB
The CFL rule book has no mention of a downward pull.
4 Likes
There you go again, and we covered it, and yes on a pass rush more players are at hand so if ONE commits such a penalty, it is called but not simply because it’s the quarterback and especially not because it’s YOUR quarterback.
1 Like
For what it’s worth (next to nothing) I liked the horse collar call, the OPI was a little weak as Lawlor was somewhat just ushering the DB past him, his momentum was already going past the ball but I’ve seen worse not called.
1 Like
If a defensive BC player were called for use of the same illegal tactic to grab the horse collar on a pass rush on Collaros last night, I don’t think this thread would exist.
Sure it would. Maybe a different poster, maybe not. But it would.
1 Like
I was surprised that Mike O’Shea challenged that horse collar penalty. Watching it live I thought it was a textbook horse collar and after seeing the official ruling from the rule book proves that. I didn’t know that it included the shoulders of the jersey and not just the name-plate and numbers and I also thought it had more to do with pulling violently downwards. I’m sure lots of us learned something there, players and coaches included. We still only gave up a field goal after that though so it was fine.
The penalty I didn’t like the most was the unnecessary roughness on Adam Bighill for making one of his routine hard hitting tackles. He clearly lead with his shoulder and it was not a helmet to helmet. Although the referee was on the opposite side of the player and couldn’t directly determine that, I still don’t think the flag should have been thrown. Even after it was, it should have been reversed by the command centre, but I have no idea what they can and can’t overturn during live play.
Most of the other penalties are arguable as are they with most games. I’m fine with letting the players play and calling only the most egregious penalties, but not every crew thinks that way and I suppose it’s up to the players to quickly figure out how tight the game is being called and play accordingly.
4 Likes
This 
3 Likes
FFS Paulo, A BC player was (against Lawler) and I have said many times here that I did not like that call either!
Go grab one of your strong drinks and step away if it bothers you.
1 Like
I’m sure that penalty against Bighill was a make-up call for the pile drive on Evans that wasn’t called.
1 Like
OK, so lastnight there was a play where T. Wall tackled an Argo, and he was flagged for UR. Suitor was thinking it was facemasking, but Wall had clearly grabbed the collar/nameplate area. I think it was the ref calling it a horsecollar, and I feel they are calling this more recently. Wall was clearly upset with the call, and honestly I don’t think it was a dangerous play which is why the rule came to be. There has been a more “liberal” sence of the term where it doesn’t have to be a violent or dangerous play anymore.
Like I said, you’ll see a play like this everygame. Grabbing that area as part of a tackle is common.
I was at the game and very confused about this. It should have been a fumble, but if they ruled in incomplete, shouldn’t it have been intentional grounding?
On that play, if we are talking about the same one, the ball carrier was grabbed under the helmet and there was a twist of the helmet. Not a face mask but a clear penalty.
1 Like
The league may have mandated the officials to focus on that foul. Like they did with Pyramiding a few years ago. It does happen.
This is what I’m thinking. Along the same lines of the increased calls on anything around a QBs head, even to the point of glancing swipe of a hand.
I really can’t see, or approve of, making a horsecollar a judgement call. To me it’s a black/white call, keep it simple for the officials.
Add this to the on going list of badly inconsistent officiating
Rember a few games back in the rider lions game whebn a lion defender grabbed the inner rim of a rider helmet and pulled him backwards … no call which is unprecedented in football
Beyond making it impossible to predict how rules will be applied it is also a ticking time bomb that risks catastrophic injury as playess keep pushing the limits of what is being allowed
Like i said after that game - pick a single standard of applying the rules and stick with it …full.stop
And i dont think thr rule on the helmet grab needs fixing … i think that although totally inncent the play was a clear penatly that not only should have been called.but must be called
Now some nitwit could do it intentionly and the cfl would lose any challenge to discipline as they have etablished that its not finable or an on field penatly
To fix that at this point now would require.the cfl to communicate that to players that.they intend.on calling it going forward
In that aame game multiple head.shots on Fine and again … in a complete reverral of the rules ( only AFTER ) giving the call for Evans then putting away rhe whistle for the rest of the game.
As they kinda plays are not consistently called or atkeast fined after the games … players keep pushing the boundriess more and more and the inuuries keep adding up…
Consistency is the problem… the cfl needs it badly
2 Likes
The Bombers recovered the fumble / incomplete pass so the point is moot anyways.
1 Like
In this case, perhaps. The issue is the frequency of incorrect or inconsistent rulings. Luck won’t self-correct officiating errors every time.
1 Like
You make a point. If it were not fumble and an incomplete pass, it is not intentional grounding because it was not intentional.
Intentional grounding does not come into play when a quarterback’s arm is going forward but the flight of the pass is disrupted by the hit(s).
Of course that’s not what most agree happened such that it was a bad call because it was a fumble.