Montreal's dribble kick

Why wasn’t there a no yards penalty tacked on? The defender was within 5 yards while the ball was still in the air. Did the Refs blow the call or does the CFL not know what they are doing with this?

Do you have a clip of that play?

Curious as I didn’t see the game.

I PVRed the game and replayed it a few times. It was close but still, it was no yards. If this play is a legit punt then do it any time a defender is close and it should always be a no yards call . You don’t even have to catch the ball because it’s a penalty anyway.

Why would No Yards be called on the defense?


I’m not sure I follow you. Toronto is the team defending against the punt/dribble kick. If anyone is guilty of no yards it would have to be a Montreal player. The Argo player can come right in on Antwi.


Hmm lol, I might have to figure this again. I guess you’re right. Just seems wrong. But then why isn’t the kicking team called for no yards?

1 Like

Toronto are the “returners”

Montreal would be the ones called for No Yards. But they make sure Antwi is open in space. He’s onside, he can recover.

Now if another Alouette is too close he can be called for No Yards and it would negate the recovery.


Yes. I guess you’re right. Stupid play anyway. It should be tossed out just like a lacrosse goal in hockey shoud


Different conversation. And I completely agree. It’s stupid.



the Michigan is a legit hockey goal and hard to pull off. dribble kick is ridiculous it’s absurd it’s even allowed.


Sorry, but that is incorrect. It does not matter if another MTL. player was"too close." Too close to what? The no yards call occurs when the receiving team catches/touches the ball when the kicking team has a player within 5 yards. But NO Toronto player touched the ball.
ie. Any kicking team’s player can come within 5 yards of a returner, as long as he scrambles back outside of 5 yards when the catch is made. We see this all the time when a kick bounces back toward the kicking team. The dribble kick is a stupid rule that needs to be changed.
IMHO so does the current no-yards rule…when a punt spins back toward the kicking team. In this scenario, if the player within the zone peels back, out of the way, and makes no attempt to impede the returner, but is still within the zone, there should be no flag. In some instances, a tackler may have run right past the returner, thus has no impact at all on the return…but still gets flagged…dumb rule!

1 Like

I agree … logical … the key SHOULD be whether being inside the “halo” gives the covering team an advantage.

But in the scenario if the tackler running past the returner, well we know some returners like to take a step back or two to try and get an outside angle or go back to see the best lane to take, for the return so they actually want to go backwards. Just saying here. In which case you actually might have a guy go past him within the halo for strategic purposes if you have other tacklers in front. You surround then such a returner. Here’s an example of a guy going backwards for a bit then going forwards. From NFL:

The rule book actually doesn’t specify who has to touch it first. It just says first touch.


Well…with all due respect, if you read carefully, it says “must allow 5 yards to an opponent” No opponent made a “first touch,” thus the kicker, being onside, was not required to allow 5 yards. The 5 yard halo only applies when the receiver touches the ball.


If you would point to where it states that in the rule book it would clarify it.

And I didn’t say onside players have to give 5 yards. I said offside players do, from the ball, on first touch.

1 Like

All they need to do is change to the rule to the rule in the entire rest of Canadian football, which is the required yards must either be gained for a first down or it’s the next down just like any play.

For those interested in how this rule got here, it has very old roots in gridiron football in the early 20th century and before and once did exist in American football but was rarely used.

Though this video is about the history of American college football, many of the rules existed in both codes at the time. The onside kick from scrimmage, for example, was removed from American rules in 1912.

Though not mentioned specifically, many of the explanations of the differences in rules as compared to Canadian football are at hand here as well.

If I could find a video about the roots of Canadian football that covered the period around 1912, I would like to see it.

This one is worth putting on the YouTube watchlist for those interested in gridiron football history:


Just to follow up: the defender touching the ball is what “activates” the 5 yard zone encroachment penalty. Prior to that, “no-yards” is not in effect. Therefore, it does not matter how many players from either team are within that zone.
BTW, while we are on the topic. When did the term “onside kick” become synonymous with the short kick attempted by the kicking team? That term seems redundant as ALL KICKOFFS are onside, as all players line up behind the kicker. At least they are supposed to do that, but on some, maybe most, there is a guy that is a step past the ball. I don’t know why that is never called, because offside is always called in every other situation.

1 Like

As noted within the prior post, the term “onside kick” is likely as old as gridiron football as it began to deviate from rugby and soccer rules, including when from scrimmage as was the case in much gridiron football played before 1912 and likely almost always in Canada.

In rugby and in soccer / football, there has always been a rule for onside kicks and/or offside position of players relative to the moment of the kick, so the terminology derives from those games.

1 Like