Intent to injure penalties

Was it me or did the refs seem to let things get out of hand at the Edmonton Rider game.

Coe - Roughing after play on a late hit during a kick return
Two contacting the kicker penalties, which should have been ruffing. Kicker is hurt now because of one of them.
Roughing the passer by hitting/tackling quarter back below the knees in the pocket (Jyles has injured leg now)
I thought they were to call this stuff to protect the players?

I agree that there should have been a Roughing the Kicker call in the first half.

And yes, by current rules interpretations, the hit on Jyles MIGHT have been a call. I've seen calls like that made before.

But it is football, not girl's Tiddely Winks, and its supposed to be physical. I personally think the "protect the stars/quarterbacks" mentality has gone a bit too far. Lets let the guys play already.

Quit whining already, this is football. The "hit" on Jyles wasn't a hit at all, he was holding his foot and Jyles twisted it. The refs got it right on the contacting the kicker call, he went for the block and narrowly missed, his momentum carried him ito the kicker. If a player is in the air he can't stop and if he had contacted the ball (which he was abour a centimeter away) there would have been no penalty at all.

I thought the officiating was pretty good last night (unlike the Riders performance). Some calls were made and some weren't. Nothing really stood out. I didn't agree with some of the calls or non calls but that is football and that is the way it goes, and it goes both ways. Boreham may have been injured on 1 of the hits but that is hardly the refs fault. The Ref called a penalty based on how he saw the play but where was Borehams blocking. I don't think we can blame the refs here, the Riders stunk. They got exactly what they deserved. Its a good thing we wern't playing the Als or Stamps or it would have been really ugly.

Doesn't matter how close he was to the ball, as far as I'm aware you contact the kicker on your own (he wasn't blocked into the kicker) then it is roughing the kicker. If you are going for a block you have to take an angle to avoid hitting if you want to try and block it.

The Jyles hit an illegal tackle that has been called many times before and I'm not sure why it wasn't called this time. The only reason I can think of is if the ref thought the Eskimo was blocked into Jyles at which point it's no penalty.

On all the plays mentioned though I did not see any intent to injure, just some rough play in a rough sport.


Not much more to be said that hasn't already been said.

Jyles should have probably been a penalty

The attempted block call was a decision call, I kind of disagree but I am not impartial

Depends on which leg is contacted. If there is no intent to injure and you contact the kicking leg, it is a contacting the kicker penalty (which was called on the play). If you contact the plant leg, then it is a roughing penalty.



Rule 7 Section 1 Article 2 outlines the provisions governing Contacting the Kicker:

Rule 7 Section 2 Article 3 identifies the Roughing the Kicker as:
“Unnecessary Roughness against the punter, kicker or the ball holder on a place kick.?

When applying these rules, Referees have been instructed for several years to apply the following:

Contact with the kicking leg, before it returns to the ground, should result in the application of a Contacting the Kicker penalty, unless the contact was severe in nature (in which case Roughing the Kicker would be applied).

Contact with the plant leg, on which the kicker balances, should result in the application of a Roughing the Kicker penalty, regardless of the severity of the contact (contact with the plant leg will almost always take the kicker off his feet)

From the CFL rulebook:

For the 2008 season, the following standards will be applied:

Contact with kicking leg – a Contacting the Kicker penalty

Slight or Incidental contact which does not affect the play – NO foul

Contact with the plant leg – a Roughing the Kicker penalty

If a player blocks or touches the ball, he will not be penalized for Contacting the Kicker
If a player blocks or touches the ball, and commits no other act other than running into the kicker in his attempt to block the kick, he will not be penalized for Roughing the Kicker.

One of the plays did contact the kickers plant foot the other didn't. Comentators even mentioned it after the replay. The Jyles tackle below the knee has been called many times this year, and against the riders also. It should of been a penalty. The repaly showed that he actually twisted the leg on the tackle.

The rule book specifically states on hits below the knee forceable contact, holding a players foot IMHO is not forceable contact.

To be fair I did not see the contacting the kicker play some have reffered to in the first half. I was commenting on the Brandon Guillory hit in the 3rd quarter.

There was a play earlier (last play of first half)where the Eskimo player contacted the punter and recieved a roughing the kicker penalty. I'm not sure who the player was but he got a severe tongue lashing from the specialty teams coach on the sidelines after the play.

Forget about the Jyles hit but when they didn't call roughing the kicker that was the biggest bs missed call of the year besides the infamous PI call. Usually whenver the kicker is contacted no matter how little they have 99% of the time called roughing the kicker. What made this different i dunno? maybe Boreham didn't crash as hard to the ground as he had to? i dunno. but that was retarded

Which play are you reffering to, the final play of the first half where the Eskimo player was called for roughing or the 3rd quarter play where the Eskimo player was called for contacting the kicker.

The penalty is contacting the kicker if contact is concidered incidental (the was no intent to hit the player) and the contact is to the kicking leg not the plant leg. The Riders chose to decline the contacting the kicker penalty in the 3rd quarter because it was 3rd and 20 and the penalty would not have given them a first down.

Third and 13. Cates acually run for 12 yards on 2nd and 25. Roughing the kicker would have given the riders a first down while contacting the kicker still made it 3rd and 3.

the Scott Coe hit was dirty and should have been a UR.

but he's known for being cheap.

still, what the hell were the refs thinking?

The one "contacting the kicker" call definitly should have been roughing. He took out his plant leg. Luckily he didn't get seriously injured. Regardless, the Riders were brutal and need to give their head a shake for that performance.

Just maybe it was his turn to show up on the IR list. :lol:
The ref's are picking on the riders! :lol:

Which one are you talking about?/

Cant't seem to get anyone to specify which hit on the punter was so problemic so I will assume that you mean the one on the last play of the first half. If that hit, by Chris ciezki, I agree completely and so did the refs, roughing the kicker was called and the Riders ellected to apply the penalty on the second half kick-off.

The other play which you could be refering to (although I can't figure why you would) Brandon Guillory clearly made contact with the kicking foot and the refs correctly flagged him for contacting the kicker.

As for any of the above plays or any other play in either of this weeks games being an "intent to injure", I would suggest that you are very disallusioned, you have never played this or any other contact sport and you should seriously consider watching another sport because you clearly don't understand this one.

By the way I have not seen any comment from the Riders organization with regard to any suggestion of foul play so I will just chaulk it down to lack of understanding by some fans.

The Riders can't comment on it or they will get fined again.

You must have a very very short memory. Do you not remember Mr. Sean Fleming?? He was the king at going down like he got shot when someone hit his kicking leg. Always a 15 yard roughing the kicker penalty. Double standard I guess but what else is new...