last play argo game.

On that last play of the argo game was it only apparent to me that the argo who kicked it out had stepped way out of bounds before coming back and kicking the ball or is that allowed?

People are making a huge deal about the play and head guys are saying it was a perfect job by the refs but noone even mentions this, i really didn't think you could go outta bounds and come back to kick the ball.

It was illegal participation however the Als would've declined this penalty and accepted the result. Since this error didn't impact the result of the game, no big deal was made of it. It was mentioned briefly on TSN by the panel.

It was an error nonetheless.

it would have been huge if the argos did get the ball out of the endzone, the whole play wouldn't count right?

[url]The-Snap | Montreal Gazette

The replay officials noticed it, but basically told the ref to ignore it since the Als would have declined the penalty and taken the TD anyway. Just avoiding any extra confusion I guess.

If they aros had gotten the ball out of the end zone, the replay officials would have had the ref call the illegal participation penalty, Montreal would have accepted the penalty and gotten one point, and the aros would have had one last play from their own 35 yard line since the game can't end on an accepted penalty.

Not totally sure about the result of accepting the penalty in this case. The rule book lists "LB PF" as the result of the illegal participant playing a loose ball. Meaning, Montreal ball "in the endzone". Of course, they can't award a touchdown as a result of a penalty, so I think it would have been Montreal ball on the one with no time remaining.

Whoa...

DIg a bit bit deeper, folks...

From TSN's article on the PLAY OF THE YEAR. LOL :wink:

"Here's a step-by-step breakdown of the play and the factors the on-field CFL officials had to consider in the heat of the battle on the final play of Montreal's 37-30 win over Toronto on Friday night:

  1. Is Montreal kicker Damon Duval's field goal good? Usually this is easy to answer, but what adds to the difficulty is the height of the kick and its location. A kick that's short or goes through the uprights is easy to decide upon. It's much trickier to determine if a towering boot to the left or right is inside the uprights. But in this instance it was clear to the two officials under the goalposts Duval's attempt was wide.

  2. Toronto's Mike Bradwell, punter Noel Prefontaine and backup kicker Shaw are all in the end zone awaiting Duval's kick. When it sails wide, Bradwell goes high at the back of the end zone to prevent the ball from sailing out of bounds for a single. If he had come down with it, officials would have to determine if Bradwell did so in bounds, because if he hadn't, Montreal would have been awarded the game-winning single. But because the officiating crew was short one, there wasn't anyone standing at the back of the end zone to see Bradwell was out of bounds on Duval's kick then came back into the field of play to punt the ball out. Bradwell could have been called for illegal participation but in the end it was moot because the right decision on the field had been made.

  3. Upon Bradwell's kick, though, Toronto becomes the punting team and must give Montreal five yards to gain possession. Duval settles under it at the Argos' 22-yard line and game officials had to determine whether he's been given the necessary five yards. He had and punted the ball back into the home team's end zone.

  4. If Duval's punt sails through the end zone, the Als would have been awarded the single for a 31-30 win. It didn't but the ball was still bouncing around, creating the possibility of it taking a weird hop and going out of bounds, which again would give Montreal a single.

  5. The Argos become the receiving team, meaning Montreal must give five yards to let them take possession. If the Als are called for no yards, the ball comes out of the end zone and the game heads into overtime.

  6. Argo Grant Shaw can't field the ball cleanly but, like a catcher blocking a wild pitch, does a nice job of sliding and letting it hit him and remain in play rather than potentially skipping out of bounds for the single. Shaw then tries to kick the bouncing ball out of the end zone and manages to contact it with his foot but couldn't get it out. As a result, though, it's now a free ball.

  7. Toronto must not only recover the ball but get it out of the end zone to force overtime. Montreal has to not only prevent this, but also safeguard against the Argos possibly returning it the entire length of the field for the victory. After the ball bounces off various players, Dahrran Diedrick corrals it to secure the wild win for the Als*.

http://tsn.ca/cfl/story/?id=339550

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ

Did this article answer the "what if" scenario asked about? "What if they argos had gotten the ball out of the end zone?" If so, I missed that in reading it. All it said was "Bradwell could have been called for illegal participation but in the end it was moot because the right decision on the field had been made."

Or are you just responding to the statement that no one had noticed or reported that Bradwell was out of bounds? In which case, fire away.

JFL is absolutely correct re his explanation/interpretation.

THE MAIN CONSIDERATION IN ANY PLAY SUCH AS THIS IS DEFENCE OF THE GOAL AREA AND THE NULLIFICATION OF THE ROUGE ATTEMPT. :wink:

Here is the issue re the end of the game and penalty on the last play:

http://www.cfl.ca/article/can-the-game-end-on-a-penalty

Tom Higgins answers this well:

"The answer to our question:

If the non-offending team chooses to decline the penalty the game is over. However, if they accept the penalty, they get one final play even if no time remains on the score clock."

Case in point: Duval's "do-over" FG to sink the 13-man Riders in the Grey Cup last year.

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ

Tom Higgins in the article JFL cites, re Bradwell's illegal participation:

"Tom Higgins, the CFL’s director of officiating, confirmed on Saturday to Als Inside/Out that Bradwell indeed went out of bounds and Toronto should have been penalized for illegal participation. Furthermore, the league’s Command Centre arbitrarily decided the Als would have declined the penalty, and notified referee Bud Steen simply to count the touchdown. Had the Als declined the penalty and taken a single, the Argos would have scrimmaged from their 35 for one play, with no time left, since a game can’t end on a penalty.

“Should we have decided? No. But the right call was made,? Higgins explained. “But it caused a misunderstanding, and people think we’re incompetent, which is not the case. The ruling, quite simply, was a no-brainer.?"

Clear to me, but not in the article. The bolded and underlined sentence should read " Had the Als ACCEPTED the penalty...". The ball didn't get out of the end zone and the Als recovered, so that was all she wrote.

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ

Duval sure likes to tempt fate when it comes to big FGs at the end of the game. In last year's Grey Cup, he tried his best to lose the game with his first attempt, and only a 13th Roughrider allowed him a second chance. Last game, same thing. 36 yards should be automatic, but Duval has a flair for the dramatic.

One other comment on the play: the Argos made a heads-up play in giving Duval 5 yards after their guy kicked it out of the end zone. But once he caught the ball they should have charged him to block his punt or at least disrupt his attempt. Check out Argos #21 at the 1:40 mark of this clip. He's content to bounce up & down, wait for Duval to punt, and then try to jump up and block it.
[url]Crazy Argonauts - Alouettes CFL ending.mp4 - YouTube

Understand that end zone plays leading to potential scores ARE reviewable under the spirit of the replay regime re dead ball aspects.

A kick out of the end zone that occurs as a result of illegal participation causes the play to be effectively dead at the moment of the penalty. All that is the issue is whether the non-offending team gets a TD from the ensuing kickathon or if they take the penalty and go prevent the last play of the game to hold its one-point lead. :wink:

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ

So it's "LB PF" everywhere except the endzone, where instead it becomes "dead ball PF"? I had assumed that it would treated similar to PI in the endzone, where the offence gets the ball on the one. I was also assuming, given the wording in the article, that the reporter had added some of his own comments based on misinterpretation of the rules ("since a game can’t end on a penalty"). I guess it sort of makes sense, knowing that there are a number of other rules that deal with the endzone differently than the field of play.

Consider me corrected. :slight_smile:

Interesting that an Illegal Participation penalty in one’s own goal area would result in a single point, but an Interference penalty on a loose ball in one’s own goal area results in the non-offending team getting the ball on the 10-yard line.

Now, if the illegal participant had interfered with his opponent going for a loose ball in the goal area… I think I need to lie down for a bit.

How does he say there not incompetent. Noone threw a flag at all on a play, which tells me THEY DIDN'T EVEN SEE IT!! and then he admits pretty casually that instead of following the rules and throwing a flag regardless of what the assumed outcome would be they decided to go ahead and decide what was ultimately the Alouettes decision for them.

YOU AND YOUR CREW ARE MOST DEFINITLY INCOMPETENT MR HIGGINS.

The replay officials don't have flags to throw. They're the ones who (correctly) decided not to bother with the illegal participation penalty.
The on-field officials were short-staffed, and no, none of them saw Bradwell step out of bounds. That's why there's replay.

how is it that not one official was focused on the guy with the ball and who kicked it out of the endzone? INCOMPETENCE

how is it that they were short staffed on the most crucial and most obviously tricky play to officiate in the entire CFL game? I'd love to say incompetence but I actually don't know why they were short-staffed so it's a real question.

One of the officials suffered a hamstring pull earlier in the game. I thought the CFL supplied an alternate but perhaps that's only for Grey Cup?

Well, from the tsn.ca analysis of the play:

"The seven-man unit was reduced to six when side judge Rob Skaggs of Edmonton left in the first half with a hamstring injury. Higgins says the officiating crew handled the last-minute mayhem flawlessly, despite being a man down."

The final play sure slowed us down while packing up to leave the Dome. Then it kept us talking all the way out of the dome. A few long Argo fan faces, but I got to high five with another Ticat fan I noticed on the way out.

Oskee wee wee

INCOMPETENT!!!!

Suffering an injury is not incompetence, it's bad luck. And how realistic is it to have an alternate official on standby for every game? As far as I know, no pro league in any sport does that in the regular season.