Langa Fined

CFL.ca Staff

TORONTO -- The Canadian Football league announced today:

Hamilton Tiger-Cat Jonathan Langa has been fined for an unnecessary hit on an opponent who was outside the play during last Friday's game against the Calgary Stampeders.

As per league policy, the amount of the player fine was not disclosed.

CFL Commissioner Jeffrey L. Orridge also issued the following statement regarding Toronto Argonaut defensive lineman Cleyon Laing's low hit on Edmonton Eskimos quarterback Mike Reilly while he was in the act of passing during last Saturday's game:

"There has been significant interest in this play and for good reason: it resulted in injury to Edmonton quarterback Mike Reilly, which is very unfortunate not only for the Eskimos, but for our league. We take the health and safety of all players very seriously, and the CFL has taken particular steps over the years to protect quarterbacks. One of those is a rule that outlaws low hits on a quarterback when he is in the act of passing. We reviewed this play very carefully, several times and from multiple camera angles. It is clear that Laing (a) tripped on an offensive lineman's foot and (b) was pushed by another offensive lineman. Those actions, combined with Laing's upfield momentum, resulted in Laing falling towards the quarterback, making the low contact unavoidable. For these reasons, Laing has not been assessed any supplemental discipline. We are determined to protect quarterbacks in accordance with the rules. We must also evaluate each play on the facts."

Was that the hit on the Stamps player who had just stepped out of bounds? As I stated in the game thread, I think the rule should be changed to allow hits on players still on the white stripe, or maybe who have taken a certain number of steps out of bounds. But under the current rule, it was a penalty. Worthy of a fine? Meh.

The problem I have with the Reilly hit is that Lang has a history for low/late hits on quarterbacks. :roll:

Pat Lynch(the old guy)

He plays for the blew team. It's the way they're trained.

CFL Commissioner Jeffrey L. Orridge....

"...We reviewed this play very carefully, several times and from multiple camera angles. It is clear that Laing (a) tripped on an offensive lineman's foot and (b) was pushed by another offensive lineman. Those actions, combined with Laing's upfield momentum, resulted in Laing falling towards the quarterback, making the low contact unavoidable..."

The issue there is that the WIDTH of the sidelines is not consistent throughout the League. Some stadiums have thick sidelines, some are thin. It is also the beginning of the season, so the zebras are going to call EVERYTHING. But I agree with you, it may not have been worthy of a fine.

The line is painted on. Making them a standard width would be a very easy change.

And I suspect that this call would have been made more than half the time now and at the end of the season. A judgment call, which could be changed easily.

I think it's the same thing with goal-lines, too. Maybe you're right, maybe there should be a league-wide directive on the width of sidelines and goal-lines, just for uniformity throughout the league. And that "judgement-call" thing? We have a hard time getting consistent calls with the same CREW throughout a single game, let alone multiple crews through an entire season... lol

I don't think the width of the white line really matters. The field is the same width whether the line is 10 cm wide or 30 cm wide. Guys need to know where they are on the field at all times. Period.

Now, was the Langa thing worthy of a fine. I don't know. I mean, if Laing's hit wasn't, then I don't think Langa's was either.

A line is a line is a line, but a thicker line is easier to see; both on the TV, and on the field, at speed.

The width of the line would matter if they changed the rule as I suggested. Otherwise, you're right, it really doesn't matter as long as it's visible.

I think it was actually a late block on a punt return by Banks near the end of the first half. The ref initially called offsetting penalties, then corrected it to 2 penalties on Hamilton (one for illegal block, one of unnecessary roughness).
The U.R. call was the one on Langa, although the CFL stats show it as objectionable conduct on Emmanuel Davis (#20 instead of 30).
So, nothing to do with the out of bounds stripe.

OK. I had interpreted "outside the play" to mean out of bounds. Given your explanation, I'm thinking now that it was probably a hit on a player completely out of the play, possibly the punter, who wouldn't have been expecting to be hit. If so, I can understand the fine.

I'm going to have to look at this play to see what he did to get the penalty.

(I still think the hit out of bounds rule needs to be changed, regardless, to eliminate the judgment call.)

http://i1226.photobucket.com/albums/ee406/CatsFaninOttawa/TSN%20Screen%20Shots/Langa%20late%20hit_zpsdlbtj0qv.jpg

So "outside the play" probably means after the play was complete. A blatant late hit on a player, well after Banks has been tackled and all the players - except Langa - have eased up.

Definitely merits a fine.

Bang on Mate, you called it.

I remember seeing the replay and thinking that this rookies number will be up if this trend continues.

Austin doesn't condone this type of "aggressive" play.

“Roid” rage = “aggressive play” It was definitely a stupid unnecessary penalty by Langa. The young lad needs to settle down and relax a bit or his number will definitely be up for sure.