Last Play - Headache For Officials!

While the refs and head office were busily verifying whether the 5 yard restraining zone was being respected on each kick on the wild last play in Toronto on Friday, none of them seems to have noticed that both Prefontaine and Bradwell actually left the field of play while desparately keeping Duval’s original errant kick in the field of play. Since Bradwell left the field of play and returned, he was ineligible. Consequently, as soon as he touched the ball it was dead and the Als should have been awarded a single. Als 31, Toronto 30.

I love the fact that the CFL still has the rouge. A kicked ball should be live until fielded or it goes out of bounds. This is much more exciting than the NFL variety. Contrary to the naysayers, as the above play proves, a point is NOT awarded for missing a field goal but it is awarded for FAILING to run the ball out of the end zone.

The penalty would have been declined anyways so it is somewhat of a moot point

Nonetheless, jesse has a point. It is illegal to leave the field of play and return. I don't knwo what the call should have been, and whether or not it would have favoured the Als, but good on you for noticing that.

Il est vrai que l'une ou l'autre des situations aurait fini par faire gagner les Alouettes. On peut d'ailleurs questionner la décision de Trestman d'y aller avec un placement plutôt qu'un dégagement, mais disons que normalement, Duval était censé réussir un placement de 36 verges et un simple supposait un dégagement de 56 verges, ce qui est un bon coup de pied. Espérons que Duval s'en remettra.

Là ou je trouve que ce qui est soulevé ici est important, c'est que si les Argonauts avaient compté, plutôt que les Alouettes, ce point aurait été déterminant. L'infraction n'avait pas été signalée. Or, on ne peut pas lancer le mouchoir jaune pour faire valoir une punition. Comment alors la contestation aurait-elle pu être formulée pour réussir à faire renveser le jugement? C'est là tout l'intérêt de ce que notre ami a soulevé : le jeu était terminé dans la zone des buts des Argonauts. J'espère que les Alouettes liront le commentaire de notre ami et en tireront un enseignement précieux. On ne sait jamais ce qui peut arriver, et ce jeu en est la preuve.

Herb posted on his blog that the Command Centre was aware of the player going out of bounds but instructed the officials to ignore it because the Als would have declined the penalty.

Est-ce que le centre de révision peut décréter une infraction qui n’a pas été signalée sur le jeu? Il me semble que cette autorité ne lui est pas attribuée.

Actually, as has been previously noted...the play should been blown dead at the point when a player has left the field of play and come back in to play the ball...usually the only time it's adjudicated "post-play" is when the player "without the ball" goes out then in.

While the league tries to cover it's collective assets by obfuscating on this point, the fact is the officials missed yet again another key play...

Besides, from what I understand the official explanation was
"well the Alouettes would have declined the penalty anyway...so we decided to ignore it".
So they are either completely incompetent...or so unprofessional that they're now making decisions for head coaches.

Or are they making those decisions because the play was more fun left the way it was. Gives further credence to the contention that the league is deliberately targeting the Als for PI to create artificial parity in the East. If they're tampering with officiating for one...then why not the other?

Can we please make some more money available for officiating before someone has a stroke!?!
And by someone I mean ME

First off, I have been very hard on the refs this year but in this case I will cut them some slack because they were 20 yards away under the goal post

now

We don't know what they were reviewing, we assume it was no yards but we don't know for sure, at least I have not read any statement as to exactly what was being reviewed.

Second
The ball was not dead as soon as Bradwell touched it because he touched it while he was in the air. He was not out of bounds until he touched the ground. But at that point the ball was well inside the endzone

No, it should not have been blown dead..Look at the TD that Toronto scored in the same game. The receiver went out of bounds then came back in and caught the pass. There was no whistle, the play was not blown dead. It never will be because had the same thing happened on the 50, the receiver could fumble and be recovered by the D. The d then has the option to accept or decline the penalty.

However had Bradwell gone out of bounds with the ball in his possession, then yes it should have been blown....but as I pointed out, he was not out of bounds when he touched the ball

Had Mtl accepted the penality they would have rekicked 10 yards closer. Duval would have kicked again....He could have missed. It could have hit the post or it could have been blocked....All 3 cases result in OT. Or they take the 7 points and the win.
What do you think Trestman would have done?

Good agruments, Guys. Keeps us thinking. Do you agree, at least, that the rouge makes for a much more interesting game?

J’ai toujours été d’accord avec cette règle. En fait, quoiqu’en pensent bien des gens, les règles et le terrain du football canadien en font un football plus excitant.

Besides, from what I understand the official explanation was
"well the Alouettes would have declined the penalty anyway...so we decided to ignore it".

Looks like the CFL is taking notes from the NHL in becoming street garbage league in it's officiating.
Ridiculous :roll:

L'explication rapportée par la Gazette diffère subtilement de celle rapportée par Rue Frontenac, mais ce qu'on doit se demander, c'est pourquoi Timmins arrive avec une réponse aussi tordue alors que toute la situation s'explique par les règlements de la ligue. À moins que je n'oublie d'autres règles, la situation aurait facilement pu s'expliquer comme ceci.

Parmi les éléments qui ne peuvent être renversés en révision vidéo, il y a les punitions décernées et leurs applications, et le recouvrement d'un ballon libre sur le terrain. Donc, à plus forte raison, les punitions non décernées sur le terrain ne peuvent pas être infligées suite à une reprise vidéo.

À partir du moment où le jeu a été déclaré terminé par les arbitres, sans qu'une punition ne soit signalée sur le jeu, elle ne pouvait plus être décernée. Ce faisant, le seul élément sur lequel les arbitres pouvaient toujours se prononcer était sur l'équipe qui a recouvré le ballon dans la zone des buts, élément qui n'est pas non plus sujet à renversement suite à une révision vidéo. Il est clair qu'il y a eu une erreur d'arbitrage qui a eu un effet sur le pointage final, mais peut-être pas sur l'issue de la partie.

Looking around the US blogosphere it's amazing how many people were offended by that one play.
Someone went so far as to suggest (jokingly I hope) that it was sufficient reason to "Annex Canada".
Now why does that expression sound so familiar? :roll:

No doubt the rantings of arm-chair experts don't represent the viewpoint of the average viewer.
When do they really?
One guy I read did say he was canceling his UFL subscription in favour of a CFL package.
Smart move.

Even those who were neutral seemed to imply that the CFL implemented it's crazy rules to make us more interesting than the NFL. I guess the American school system isn't any stronger on history than the "3 R's".
Still...I guess Democracy means the ignorant have just as much right to flap their jaws as anyone.
I'm on the fence as to whether it's a right I'd "die to defend' however.

For the record, I loved the play. As I do so many of our "quirky" rules.
The CFL continues to excite and suprise.
In contrast, I tried to watch the Steelers/Saints game and fell asleep after about 15 minutes.
Woke up just before half time. Someone was leading 3-0. Yawn

Go Als Go!!!

I would love to read those.
Do you by any chance have the link?

Oups! J'aurais dû parler de Higgins.