Mugging at Balsam Ave

Did anyone hear about the mugging at Balsam Ave??? A lot of people got robbed. The assailant made off in a zebra coloured outfit.

Ironically, the zebra mugger simply followed the procedure as set by rule. Most muggings or such violations of people in the real world are by individuals following procedure. :wink:

The rule on fumbles leaving the end zone needs to be changed, period. I don't sweat it when the refs make the right call on a stupid rule, just stupid calls/interpretations of acceptable rules.

Oski Wee Wee,

It all depends on who had touched the ball last though. And it sure as heck looked to me and a lot of other people like the tiger-cat player punched it out. I can't wait for this video to be on youtube or wherever.

No. THE KNOCKING OUT OF THE BALL (that causes the fumble) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAST TOUCH OF THE BALL BY RULE.

Okay???

Some other Ticat would have had to touch the ball before it went out of touch for Hamilton to have been awarded the ball.

The refs got it right on possession, not on the ballspot (Lancaster and Zamperin stated it should have been Sask. ball near the 1.5 yard mark or on the two).

Oski Wee Wee,

No. THE KNOCKING OUT OF THE BALL (that causes the fumble) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAST TOUCH OF THE BALL BY RULE.

Okay???


Since when? And what is your source? Every CFL game I've ever seen, it's always questioned "who touched the ball last" when there is a fumble and the ball goes out of bounds.

It stinks but Russ ir correct. The Ref's made the right call as the rule is written...PS. We should have stopped them anyway...

I'm pretty sure my interpretation of the rule is correct. I've now heard that the official explanation from the CFL head office is that the Tiger-Cat player did cause the fumble, but that the Sask. player made last contact with the ball before it went out of bounds.

Apparently our guy didn't touch the ball last according to them.

Bush League, that's about it, I love this league but this rule, that call, was bullshit.

EXACTLY! there, case over that post just ended this whole discussion :smiley:

No. THE KNOCKING OUT OF THE BALL (that causes the fumble) DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAST TOUCH OF THE BALL BY RULE.
I've been looking at the rules myself now, and I listened to the official CFL explanation on the 5th Quarter, and it looks like the knocking out of the ball does not NECCESSARILY give the Tiger-Cats posession. It very well could have, but the refs ruled otherwise.

This isn’t a matter of fans, or myself, not understanding the rule. The rule really is the last person to touch the ball after a fumble when it goes out of bounds gets posession. And sometimes that happens when a player knocks it out, if it touches them last! So I am not that far off the mark in my opinion or understanding (not at all actually, unless you can cite a rule otherwise…).

It all depends on who had touched the ball last before it went out of bounds.

The refs ruled that that’s not what happened in this case.

EXACTLY! there, case over that post just ended this whole discussion
haha ok, I'll shut my trap now... can't wait for next week now though... :-)

We had a battle royale over a similar live-ball situation in a Hamilton-Winnipeg game in 2006.

See here:

[url=http://www1.ticats.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=9166&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=possession]http://www1.ticats.ca/index.php?name=PN ... possession[/url]

Understand that the CFL website currently doesn’t have the 2006 rulebook online and the 2007 one is offline.

The practical reason for the stripping of the ball not being considered a touch re change of possession is that the last player to have actual contact with the ball is often the player who is stripped of it (the ball sliding off his arm or slipping off his hands, etc.). There has to be an additional contact past the actual stripping/knocking out/dislodging of the ball for a team to get a change of possession.

Oski Wee Wee,

No, it doesn't. LMAO The possession rules of this league are suspect in my opinion, particularly when a ball is stripped from a player and proceeds to roll out of a DEAD BALL LINE outside the field play. I believe that if the defensive team can achieve what Bradley was able to cause (a fumbled ball rolling out the end zone), then the offensive team SHOULD lose possession.

However, I am not going to crap on the refs for correctly interpreting a stupid rule. It's when they blow calls on acceptable rules that I freak. It's the job of the league's Rules Committee to fix the end zone fumble rule.

Oski Wee Wee,

Russ, I completely agree with you, I'm not trying to bring down the referees, I was prior to learning the rule, but me calling that call bullshit, is more of an anger towards the bush league rule. It'll be fixed, or else you're going to see the Tiger-Cat Organization light a fire up under the asses of whomever deals with the CFL Rules.

I seem to recall that

a fumble that goes over the touch [end] line
in the end zone is different than a fumble
that goes over the sideline in the open field,

In the latter case, the ball is awarded to
the team whose player last touchs the ball.

apparently, from what I saw today,

If no player gains possession
of a loose ball in the end zone

before it crosses the touch line,

the team which had possession before
the ball came loose retains possession.

and the ball is placed on the one yard line.

P.S.

A lady on our post game Call-in radio Show,

'The Fifth Quarter' said that

a linesman signalled "touchdown"

and a Ticat player nearby thought the
ball was dead and didn't go after it.

And the UB40 Award goes to Miller91.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? Fill me in, and I'll give you a reply on whatever award I just received, good or bad.

I don’t get it either dude. I wikipedia’d it and all I got was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UB40

UB40 was/is a username here. I would like to drink some red, red wine now, but I digress! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :wink:

Oski Wee Wee,

I do remember the user, just don't remember what they posted, or how they did it. If he's anti-CFL, I'm not, I'm a paying season ticket holder, who tries to watch every CFL game. If I happen to find one ruling extremely bush, sorry, but it's my opinion, and likely the opinion of a very important 50 or so players and coaches on our sideline tonight.