Penalty not applied in late 2nd Quarter

My group and a couple fans noticed on Thursday that late in the 2nd quarter after STE returned the kickoff to the 30, it didn’t appear that the penalty yardage was applied. I just went back and looked, and it’s true, the refs simply did not move the ball after Hamilton accepted a 10 yard illegal block penalty.

Here is the description from the PBP:

(02:27) H. O’NEILL Kickoff (68 yds), Returned by S. THOMAS ERLINGTON from H7 (22 yds, 13 credited), Penalty: Offside, Offence called on Edmonton (C. NORMAND) Declined, Penalty: Illegal Block, Return called on Edmonton (T. GREEN) (10 yds.) - Enforced From

Here is where the kickoff was returned to:

And here is where the Ticats scrimmaged from the next play… the same spot:

Why was an EE player blocking on a Ticat kick return?

The penalty was hands to the face, which falls under illegal blocks.

We noticed that as well. Both the unusual blocking call on the kicking team, and then the failure to apply the penalty. As I recall, it was called just before a time out, and then never enforced.

We assumed it had been a mistake, and corrected by the replay official, and in that case, the offside would have applied, but the Cats chose the position rather than a re-kick. But no announcement was made.

From the pictures and the game log, I’m assuming that STE caught the ball at the 7, and ran it 22 yards to the 29. The penalty was called after he had run 13 yards to the 20. Penalties on kickoff returns are applied from where the infraction occurred

(c) When a penalty is called on a kick return for a foul such as holding or an illegal block, the return will be measured only to the point at which the penalty is applied.
so the Ticats had the option of taking the play as it ended, at the 29, or at the 30, ten yards from where the infraction occurred. They chose the latter.

(They also had the option of having Edmonton kick over from five yards back from the offside penalty, which they declined.)

Real question is why we wouldn’t take a re kick… Team with field position issues happy to take it on the 30?

well, if I recall, EE was kicking with the wind…which was quite stiff that early in the game.

starting at the 30yd wouldn’t be considered bad…

To make them rekick from 5 yards back…after all of their players have just run the field seems like the conventional thing to do. Can’t do much worse than the 30 in that situation.

I wondered that at the time as well. I was thinking that would be the time to put Banks and Williams back to try to take advantage of a tired coverage team. But yes, the wind was pretty strong, so I guess they figured the 30 was good enough.

Rules question. If the return team chooses not to change players, is the kicking team prevented from substituting players?

I don’t think the rule quoted is referring to the ball placement? It looks more to be stating how long of a kick return the runner will be credited with? I guess the “return will be measured? and “penalty is applied? language is puzzling me. You’d think it should read to the effect that the LOS would be applied, or even measured, from the point that the penalty had occurred? And when the receiving team is penalized, it seems the penalty is enforced from the point of reception more often than the point of infraction.

Regardless, from the stands, it appeared to be somewhat confusing.

I think the ruling makes sense now. If you look at where he was tackled (29 yard line) the ball was spotted on the 30. So why the 30?
Because the penalty occurred when the returner was at the 20 yard line... meaning the Ticats had the option of taking the penalty and 10 yards from there... or declining and taking the yardage.
If we had returned the ball to the opposing 40 we wouldn't have been given 10 yards on top of that.

If you look at the PBP summary, it says the return was 22 yards, but 13 credited, which is explained by the rule which CFO quoted. Although why the Hamilton player is “docked? the 9 yards for an Edmonton infraction seems odd.

So, Crash, you are saying the ball placement was a case of take the gain or the penalty yardage, which I can understand, but it still seems “off? somehow, in that Edmonton was called, but not really penalized. Rules are rules, I guess.

BTW, I am just watching the PVR of the game now. Reilly was over the LOS on the TD pass to Williams. No doubt in my mind. And I watched it a few times, although I admit, through Ti-Cats tinted eyes.

Same as if a running back runs for 3 yards, and a 5 yard offside penalty is applied. You don't get 8 yards, you get 5. And the running back is credited with zero rushing yards.

Exactly. The game log states that he gained 22 yards, and the picture shows him tackled around the 29, so that means he caught the ball around the 7. The log also states that he was credited only 13 yards, and the rule states that a player is only credited with yards up to the point of the penalty, so the penalty must have occurred at the 20. A ten yard penalty from that point puts them on the 30, which is where we scrimmaged from.

Here’s the rule for interference occurring on the run-back. Although the wording of the rule mentions blocking below the waist only, the illegal block - hands to the face penalty is listed elsewhere under the section on interference (Rule 4, Section 3, Article 4).

[b]SECTION 3 – INTERFERENCE AFTER GAINING POSSESSION WITHOUT SCRIMMAGE[/b] On any play where a change of possession occurs (Kickoff, kick from scrimmage, interception, fumble recovery) neither team shall create interference below the waist. The team in possession may not block below the waist, and the team not in possession may not “break up? interference by contacting an opponent below the waist. This shall also apply to a ball dribbled and recovered by Team A. PENALTY: L10 PBH
PBH is short for Point Ball Held, i.e. where the returner had the ball when the infraction occurred.

I guess it's so the total yards, return plus penalty, add up properly. Statisticians really don't like double-counting. Sucks, though, as it brings down the player's average slightly. Could be important if it affects the player's bonus.

It looked to me like his back foot was still on the ground behind the line of scrimmage when he released the ball. And by the updated rule this year, that means it was a legal forward pass. The new rule takes some of the judgement out of the call, which I suppose is a good thing as it should lead to better consistency.

While not familiar with the “updated rule,” it doesn’t make sense that a lineman can have a hand a few inches across the L.O.S. and be offside, when a QB can have the ball and most of his body, except for his back foot, beyond the L.O.S. when throwing a pass and that’s O.K. ::slight_smile:

Doesn't make sense to me either, but it does make it easier for the officials to call.

• What constitutes a quarterback making a legal pass behind the line of scrimmage is now defined as the passer having at least one of his feet on or behind the line of scrimmage instead of requiring that the release point of the ball be behind the line of scrimmage.
[url=https://www.cfl.ca/2018/05/23/cfl-confirms-rule-changes-proposed-march/]CFL confirms rule changes proposed in March[/url]

I don’t know the updated rule either, and I am admittedly biased, but in rewinding and rewatching the throw, it looks to me like Reilly’s entire body was airborne, and beyond the line of scrimmage at the time of release. I’m maybe seeing what I want to see, but fail to get how the video guy “upheld? the call in the matter of a few seconds before the convert attempt.

I’m sticking with Duane Ford on this call, he was over the LOS.

Even with video, unless you have a perfect angle, it’s hard to see if the release point was over the line or not. A foot on the field is way easier to judge to position of, just like a hand on the field is: it reduces a 3-D problem to a 2-D problem.

good point, a TouchDown should actually have to “touch” down when crossing the plane. makes it too hard on officials otherwise.