Roughing the Passer?

Most of us at the game thought that Ray through the ball away just before he got sacked near the end of the 3rd quarter. Two referees through their flags and everybody thought it was for intentional grounding because the ball didn't get to the line of scrimmage but it was for roughing the passer.

Can anybody who watched the game on TSN tell us what happened? To us at the game, it seemed like the hit and the throw were almost simultaneous.

TSN said the penalty was for hitting the QB low (i.e. below the knee). Apparently you can't do that when he's in the pocket.

The rule is if the Q.B. is in the pocket u cant hit him below the knees.....

The Ticat player was on the ground and grabbed Ray's ankle. Looked like a BS call and the fans went nuts.

The rule actually states that defenders must attempt to avoid forceably hitting the QB in the pocket, at or below the knees. Forceably. It says nothing about grabbing the QB by the ankle to stop him from escaping the pocket.

I like the rest of the crowd went bonkers, and it was a wrong call...what was he supposed to do, let Ray walk away untouched? thats bs, no penalty should ever be called i dont care if its tom brady in the cfl for tackling someone by the ankle with your hands, no chance at an inury there and that was the turning point. Question I have is why on earth did we squib it if we gave up 2 pts as it is

I agree with that part of it on what a player is supposed to do, thus I've seen James Quick Parker [30 years ago] come around and put on a tackle much in the same way getting to the QB on his sacks/take downs. However, I thought the second Hamilton player made who contact after the ball was released on the said tackle; perhaps that led to the penalty? - from the Refs perspective.

The rules people have stated is right, but I think they have to get back to getting to play football, not pussy ball. That play was not a major blow below the knee, as someone stated grabbing the ankle. Also, this horse collar crap should be thrown out. In my 50 years of watching football, I don't remember anyone being hurt when pulled down by their jersey. Facemask however is a good call. Let get back to proper football.

If you think horse-collar tackles don't create a high risk of injury, you can't have been paying much attention in recent years. Horse-collar tackles were responsible for leg fractures to Terrell Owens and Donovan McNabb in 2004. Perhaps you've heard of those guys. In the CFL, Ken-Yon Rambo missed most of the season in 2009 due to a horse collar tackle. A lower-profile B.C. receiver was injured on one in the mid-2000s.

You also could have tried typing "horse collar tackle injured" into google.

[url=http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/sports/story.html?id=7c38ef71-0365-40ed-ac76-3b894f31e68f]http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ ... 894f31e68f[/url] [url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2005-05-23-horse-collar-tackle-focus_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... ocus_x.htm[/url] [url=http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2005/horse_collar_tackle/horsetest.swf]http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... setest.swf[/url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse-collar_tackle

You are correct; the penalty was on Steele, the player who landed on Ray, not on McElveen, who grabbed Ray's ankle. Was the hit late? Not in my opinion, as Steele hit Ray just after the ball was released (dumped?) and was already in his tackling motion when the ball left Ray's hand. Steele did manage to avoid hitting Ray hard, landing partially beside him rather than directly on him; however, he did make (soft) contact with his helmet, which is probably the reason for the penalty. He probably wouldn't have made contact with the helmet had he not eased up on the hit, but probably still would have drawn the penalty.

Deliberate grounding? Technically no, as there was a receiver in the area - a few yards away maybe with absolutely no chance of catching the pass, but in the area.

Game changer? Maybe from a mental perspective, and may have made the DLs a bit more conservative in their pursuit of Ray. But the 15 yards didn't really affect the game itself, as they ended up punting a few plays later.

The penalty was on Steele? It was so loud in the stands after the flag was thrown that I couldn't hear who was called for the penalty. We all just figured it was on McElveen for ankle tackle for that BS "Tom Brady rule."

CatsFaninOttawa said...

Game changer? Maybe from a mental perspective, and may have made the DLs a bit more conservative in their pursuit of Ray. But the 15 yards didn't really affect the game itself, as they ended up punting a few plays later.
If the penalty had not been called, Toronto would have been punting into the wind from there own 30 yard line. One play later the 3rd quarter ended, they didn't get a first down and punted with the wind, pinning Hamilton down at there own 10 yard line. All this resulted in a (ill-advised) safety and a subsequent TD changing the score from 22-11 to 22-20.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't consider that a game changer.

I had forgotten about the change of quarters with the wind effect. And yes, the field position shift was more like 30 yards given the wind - 40, if they had called intentional grounding instead of RtP. But if anything was a game changer, it was the decision to take a safety instead of punting and to then squib kick the subsequent kickoff, giving them the ball close to where Bartel's punt would have put them.

The reason the quarter ended one play later was because a quarter can't end on a penalty. Time would have expired had the penalty not been called, they would have switched ends, and TO still would have punted with the wind. The only difference being the fifteen yards of the penalty...the punt still would have been with the wind.

What I Failed to understand was giving up the safety in order to get better field position, then squib the kick and give TO two points an the ball almost where they would have had we just punted from the endzone.

According to CFL Live Play, there was still a second on the clock after the play, so they would have been punting in the third quarter had the penalty not been called.

I didn't look at that, but I saw in stadium and on the replay at home that the clock was showing no time.

The TSN clock is unofficial, so ignore that. The stadium clock is the official time, but the timer may have missed stopping the clock at the whistle and put a second back on. It also could be a glitch in CFL Live Play's system that they can't have a play start with no time left, so enter it as 0:01 instead, although I'm sure I have seen 0:00 before.

The call was a joke, and it was a game changer. I just watched the clip again and you cant tell me they should be calling that.

[url=http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-games-on-demand/week-10-argonauts-vs-tiger-cats/#clip752652]http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-games-on-demand ... clip752652[/url]

It was the correct call. QB standing in the pocket, DE dives into his ankles. The QB is in a unique situation to everybody else in that he's often standing still with his feet planted firmly on the ground, I can see how this creates a much larger risk of injury than it would to a player in a full running motion. Just picture it in your head, standing firmly and having someone throw there body full force into your leg half way below your knee vs half way above your knee... it makes me cringe.

Was this hit that bad? ... no ... but like facemasks or horse collars you gotta call it just to prevent people from even trying it.

We blew it. Stop blaming the ref.

The call wasn't for a low hit by McElveen. It was on Steele either for a late hit or for hitting Ray with his helmet - not sure which.