Roughing the passing rule

Ok, just watching the Eskies-Stamps game and roughing the passing on Ray, which looked questionable.

What is the rule? I say the rule should read "once the qb's arm is in the air in a throwing motion to throw the ball, the defender must show a let-up to hit the qb otherwise it's a penalty"

Can someone tell me I'm right, wrong or this is how the rule is now to be interpreted as such? :?

I think its similar to the way they call Pass Interference....

If the player whines loudly enough, they throw a flag for sure. If not, they flip a coin... heads they flag it, tails they don't

Ah,ha. Ok but I should have added it's not about the time between the qb releasing the ball so much as it is his arm is in the air, regardless of time, once that arm is up to throw, you MUST show a let-up on a rusher or else, flag even if he just released the ball milliseconds before. Old days, that play no call. Not saying what is right or wrong, just what is the actual rule?

From the CFL Rule Book

Article 4 – Roughing he Passer Because the act of passing puts the passer in a particularly vulnerable position to injury,special rules against roughing the passer apply.Once the ball is released, defensive players must avoid all unnecessary contact with the passer.A player shall be penalized for any act of Unnecessary Roughness to the passer,including but not limited to: (a)Contacting the passer in an unnecessary manner,including stuffing him to the ground, violently throwing him to the ground, and landing on him with most of the defender ’s weight, (b)Any blow above the passer ’s shoulder, (c)All rushing defenders must attempt to avoid forcibly hitting a passer in the pocket,at or below the knees,either if their path to the passer was unrestricted,or if they re oming off a blocker, (d)Attacking the passer who,after releasing the ball,is either standing still or fading backwards and is obviously out of the play and remains out of the play, (e)When the quarterback slides feet first,all unnecessary contact must be avoided.The slide must be done in a timely manner to allow the defence to avoid such contact. (f)Contacting the passer if either the initial source of contact,or primary source of contact,is the defender ’s helmet.

according to this, especially in section c, it looks like no contact is allowed on the quarterback at all. It says nothing about when the ball is released, or arm position, or anything of the sort. It only says that defenders must avoid contacting the quarterback in the pocket.

It seems to me that the officials are letting the defenders get away with quite a bit, relative to what the rule says.

Personally, I say a QB is a football player, and should be able to be hit like he is a football player. But that's just me

Ok, hit em, I get it, basically it says to me you must to be safe, let-up at all times on the qb once he goes back to the pocket to pass and his arm is in any aspect at all of possibly throwing the ball.

But not called consistently, just like we saw right now, the Stamps guy gives the Eskies guy a two hand shove when the guy is on the ground, brutal non-call.

like I said, they flip a coin

The refs, player reps and coaches need to sit down and let the refs clarify what they consider late ! The 2nd one in yesterdays SK WPG game and the one on CGY in the 1st q of the EDM CGY game were not even close to roughing the passer !

Tend to agree kasps. But we'll need more in depth intrepretations as you say.

We need an off-season segment on TSN with replays and why such and such wasn't called and such and such was called. With Higgins.

The two in the SK WPG game are text book cases ! 1st one, penalty no doubt . The 2nd one was a joke of a call and hopefully the ref apologize's next time he does a Bomber game !

I disagree - the Winnipeg player needs to accept 100% of the blame. On the previous play he clearly took liberates with his hit on Durant. On the very next play - not next quarter - not next half .. the Very Next play he goes hard into Durant again. It is the Winnipeg player that needs to apologies to his own team mates for taking a stupid penalty ( both of them ). He had to have known that all eyes where on him the next play and to make darn sure there was no question to the legality of his hit.

I don't always agree with some of the calls this season but they got it right that time - had the hit occurred a few minutes after I would have agreed with you that on a close call - should have been a non call. But the next Play? Come on - every person including every Bomber would have known he was going to be watched the next play.

Watch the video, that was not roughing the passer ! Who cares what happened on the previous play ! Letting up would have gotten him yanked off the field ! So your supposed to let up if you think the ref is going to call a cheapy :roll:

...You're right kasps....the timing of the calls are irrelevant...It's either a penalty or not....AND the second -so-called roughing on Durant was very debatable....If the refs are going to carry out 'retribution' calls, then i think there should be an investigation :wink:

They had the ability to toss him and didn't which rules out any retaliation call. If you read my post I agreed for the second hit being questionable on the call - but this has gone on in Football and Hockey for over a 100 years. It is always the person who retaliates who gets caught and the next play after a player takes a major they are probably held to a higher standard. Don't agree with either but that is what happens to all teams and all players.

Maybe during the next rule change period when they ask the fans for suggestions you could suggest that penalties be subject to video review as well. That would take care of your complaint.

The players need to know what's going to be called and what's going to be allowed !If it's steps after the throw or a second or two ?

Uhhhhh, NO! Read SLOWLY the entirety of Section C. And cut down on the caffeine or other favourite beverage in that fine bar? :lol:

The second one was called correctly due to a violation of section F of the rule, which I caught but even the announcers botched. Willis from what I recall led with his helmet on Durant.

Good job by the refs on those two calls, but I am confident they don't want to hear any of that in Winnipeg. :lol:

Just watched a replay of the second call and you're right. Willis put his head down and led with his helmet. It was the proper call. For anyone who doubts it, here's the proof:

With that I do agree they should re look at it and a player suspension would be in order.

sorry forgot to add

With the same player being called in 2 consecutive plays for a major penalty - both illegal hits on the QB - He should have been tossed out of the game at that point.

Again I say it is not the ref who should be apologizing to anyone in this case -

Get real! If Labinjo wasn't suspended for doing knee drops in that game against Edmonton then there is no way there would be a suspension for those two hits. There was no intent to injure Durant nor was Durant injured on either play. The penalties were sufficient punishment.