No Consistancy whatsoever

The correct rule was applied in the game.
It is your interpretation of the rule that is wrong .

OKā€¦could you quote the rule?
Thanks

It was quoted already.

No rule to prove or disprove my point was posted
There was a rule about intentional grounding that was posted, but that has nothing to do with the post
I believe you are misunderstanding my point
Please post it again
Thanks

Did their opponent accept the penalty? They can refuse it and that burns the down and if the infraction happened on second down then the Riders have to punt or give up the safety themselves.
Dave Dickenson obviously knew the three options after a Safety and knew his brothers team would punt rather than concede a safety. So Calgary would have a short field and score at least a field goal or at worst keep the Riders pinned deep in their own end.

I still dont think you understand
Intentional grounding is not the issue
Yes the accepted the penalty the ball was placed on the 1but that is irrelevant
The command center ruled there was intentional grounding but the was NO SAFETY because even though both feet were in the endzone, the ball was passed the goalline when it was released!

There was no safety to accept or declineā€¦
Now my point all along has been that for one play they looked at where the ball was, the feet did not matter
For the other they looked at where the feet were, the ball did not matter

Yes yes and yes big no to the opposing argument as it has no legs to stand on just as every time it is proven wrong it becomes just one more red herring to chase down one more obtuse tangent.

The very fact the CFL always admits when the refs make a mistake and that has yet to happen despite it all can only mean anything that is thought to be a good argument is in fact not soā€¦
Maybe there should be a mercy rule here and this post shut down

1 Like

Not that it matters but with the ball on the oneā€¦SSK would have given up the safety Iā€™m sure

That was a mistake by the league. Should have been a safety IMO.

That is my pointā€¦If it was not an illegal pass yesterday, it should have been a safety
If it was not a safety, it should have been an illegal pass

Inconsistency

Hey ro, thought youā€™d be watching the Montreal game?
I have it on PVR just starting now.

I can do both

1 Like

Just a reminder, someone forgot the BC vs Bombers yesterday until half time.

I havenā€™t seen either of these - but just from reading the thread, was Zach in the air on his throw? If so, I think the rulings seem fine to me. My interpretation would be Zach is not across the line of scrimmage till he lands. But if the QB is on the ground, like Cody, it would be based on where the ball is. However if Zach was on the ground, I got nothing.

Zack was in the air but why would it make a difference?
It makes no difference for a first down. How far you advanced the ball is all that matters. Not where your feet are!
Againā€¦inconsistency is the issue

I figure if heā€™s jumping out of bounds but still in the air, heā€™s considered in-bounds till he lands. Even if the ball itself is past the out-of-bounds mark.

But he is considered oob where he crossed the line.
Think of a puntā€¦the ball hits the ground oob in line with the 10 but the refs walks forward to the 18 where it crossed the line

I didnā€™t see the plays themselves, but if I understand correctly, one of the play had intentional grounding with no safety and the other play was called a valid forward pass even if the ball was passed the LOS. Is that right?

1-7-11: The ball is in goal if it is on or behind the Goal Line, even in the air.

So, if the feet where in the end zone, but the ball was completely all of the end zone, Itā€™s not a safety. It can still be intentional grounding if the pass doesnā€™t cross the LOS.

6-4-3: A pass may be thrown by any Team A player who was behind the scrimmage
line when passing the ball. The passer needs at least one foot on or behind the
line of scrimmage when the ball is released to be considered behind the line of
scrimmage.

In this case, for a valid forward pass, we need to look at where the passer is, not the ball. Si, if any foot was behind the LOS, a forward pass can be thrown.

Iā€™m not sure if these are the rules you were looking for, but I can point you out to other rules if it doesnā€™t fully answer.

Yeah and that is my pointā€¦its inconsistent
For play a b and e its were the ball is
For play c f and g its were the feet are

PS
Forget about the groundingā€¦grounding was never the issue

Yeah, I get your point, and it certainly makes it harder to understand football, even if people that just start learning about football usually donā€™t really try to understand every single rule (not talking about you here, I know you understand football quite well).

My guess here is that the ball is considered for the progression (first downs, touchdowns, safeties), but the eligibility of a passer is determined by the passer himself. Itā€™s still not fully clear though and I guess it could be simplified with the ball all the time.

2 Likes