Questions on the rules.

There are 2 situations that I am confused about. So if anyone who knows the rules, could explain it to me, I would appreciate it. Or, you could send me to a site where I could read it for myself.

  1. At the Bomber game, the Alouettes challenged that one of the Bombers catches was out of bounds. (I was at the game, so I never actually got a good look at the replay.) The ref went under, to take a look, then came back and called it an incomplete. So my question is: Even though the Alouettes specified what they wanted to be challenged, if the refs see something else in the replay, are they allowed to overturn it? ....I don't know if this question is clear, but I hope it is....

  2. In the Sask. Vs. Tor. game, the Riders got a penalty at the end of the half. The refs called the penalty and then stated that it would be tacked on at the beginning of the 3rd quarter. Is that allowed? The reason I ask, is because in all my years of watching football, I have never seen that.

  1. Don't know

  2. If the penalty is called after the play is dead, then yes, it is normally tacked on at the beginning of the third quarter.

Really? That's weird. I don't ever remember seeing that. I didn't think you could end the half, or a quarter, for that matter, on a penalty. Did the rule change?

The rule did not change, and it was a dead ball foul, thats why you see it applied to start the second half.

A new one here...in the Rider game the ref called Illegal Interference on a loose ball....thats a new one to me. Anyone care to take a stab at an explanation?

Kel

If the ball is loose, you can not prevent another player from having a chance to grab the ball. The Argo player's jersey was being pulled. Proper call.

Yah got me on that one...

1. At the Bomber game, the Alouettes challenged that one of the Bombers catches was out of bounds. (I was at the game, so I never actually got a good look at the replay.) The ref went under, to take a look, then came back and called it an incomplete. So my question is: Even though the Alouettes specified what they wanted to be challenged, if the refs see something else in the replay, are they allowed to overturn it? ....I don't know if this question is clear, but I hope it is....
The ref reviewing the play's main focus is to look at what the coach has specified. But if he sees something else on the same play he can still make a ruling on that. Correct call.

i have always known about the loose ball foul thing its the same call they use when a guy is about to jump on it and a guy kicks it away but what my question is, is that the riders player grabbed the ball now is it sasks ball with a 10 or 15 yrd penalty or does the ball go to T.O. but there was another infraction on the play so it didn't matter.

but how come when boreham got pushed there wasn't a loose ball interfernce too he could've gotten that if it weren't for the push so clearly the refs weren't callin plays both ways.

also i hate that rule no hitting a qb below the knees like c'mon if a guys in the air and was about to hit him in the waist area and the qb takes a half a step back than he gets hit in the knees that is absolutly ridiculous, the league is becoming so girly now like a hit to the head with a hand is roughing the passer like i can see a punch but like this is becoming a league with way too many rules to keep drives alive for teams . like this protecting the qb is just garbage a girl for cry in out loud could play qb in the cfl pretty soon they will have rules if you break the qbs nails u get a 10 yrd penalty.

That only applies to what they call a Major Foul. Unnesary roughness and the like.
It doesnt not apply to holding or offside.

I disagree. Not that I don't believe it wasn't a correct call (never saw a tv replay, only live in full speed), nor do I disagree because I am arguing the ref has the ability to look at the whole play. They may have the ability to look at everything, but I do not agree they should be able to. Only because this practice is inconsistent(big surprise :roll: ) with the process which has been outlined.

Why waste everyone's time and institute a formal challenge process which demands coaches specify and clarify what exactly they are challenging. If that is the process...the practice should logically follow that they review the challenge as submitted by the coach.

If they will look at everything anyways, except penalties, they should just speed things up then and just allow the coach to throw the flag and the ref just goes to reivew. Done deal. I just don't understand the logic behind the process in place now.

I remember during the preseason in 2006, The Als challenged whether or not they(the Als) completed a pass that was ruled no catch. The ref came back and rules it an interception for the opposing team
It was one of the first games using video review and I don't know if the rules actually allow the ref to do it, but it has happened before.

[url=http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=6445&start=0]http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?name=PNphpB ... 45&start=0[/url]

I think that a question to "Ask the Ref" is in order

I was wondering the same thing.

When Boreham was pushed the call was an illegal block, but since the blocked player was an onside man (the punter) and the ball was still on the ground it should have been loose ball interference, and the ball should have been awarded to the Riders.

I think that may have been Kent Austin's argument with the ref; when asked on TV at halftime what had him so upset he just said (very wisely) "I don't want to talk about it." No sense getting another fine over it.

  1. From CFL Replay Manual

GAME ADMINISTRATION

Instant replay can be used for timing, downs and distance only in conjunction with a reviewable play.

Situations involving the clock; penalty administration; spotting the ball other than for first down; etc. are not reviewable.

When reviewing a play, the Referee may change the ruling on any reviewable aspect of the play.

Penalties which are created as a direct result of the change in ruling may be applied even though a flag had not been thrown, and penalties that were called during the play may be cancelled as a direct result of the change in ruling.

A penalty which occurred after the ball was ruled dead by replay review will not be applied, unless it is a Major Foul.

When the Referee changes the ruling based on an aspect of the play other than what was challenged, the challenging team retains their challenge and is not charged a time out.

Boreham Play
Interference on a Loose Ball specifically applies to Fumbles. A player cannot interfere with a player who is attempting to recover the loose ball. Penalty is loss of ball at point of foul.

On a kicking play, the return team can interfere with a player of the kicking team once they cross the line of scrimmage and the blocking is above the waist. This includes blocks to the kicker or any other onside player.

The rule changed about 10-15 years ago. I can't remember exactly when, but the current rule makes more sense.

It has been this way for quite sometime (I would have guessed "forever")and you see it a few times each year--you just never noticed it before.
The primary rationale, I suspect, is with no time on the clock, the receiving team in this case could take a cheap shot and the result would be a penalty that costs them nothing.
By applying it to the next kick-off, the penalty actually means something.

From ask the ref
Question: On Friday night in Winnipeg, the Montreal club challenged a completed pass ruling on the basis that they felt the player was out of bounds, and therefore the pass should have been ruled incomplete.

Then the Referee declared the pass incomplete for a whole different reason.

Can the Referee overturn a call on the field other than what was challenged?

Answer: He absolutely can do that.

In this case as the referee was ascertaining that the player was in bounds, he discovered that the player had not survived contact with the ground and did not retain possession of the ball.

That results in the pass being ruled incomplete after review.

The reality is that the correct call was made. It WAS an incomplete pass

Interestingly enough, I completely disagree with Mr. Black.
I think the pass was complete, and minimum, there was not enough video evidence to overturn the onfield call which was that the pass was complete.
I haven't had an opportunity to check my own video on that one yet--just saw it at the local pub.
But it looked complete to me....

But regarding the broader issue, it does make you wonder why earlier this year refs were telling coaches they had to be specific when challenging plays, and even occasionally told coaches they could not challenge a play if they did not ask for the right thing to be challenged.
Perhaps that issue has been cleared up....?

Its that stupid rule they've been calling all year. Just like the blocking on punt fiasco, can we go back to the old complete / incomplete rules?