Simultaneous possession

CFL Talk
#1

Here is the clip and stills...I believe he made the proper call. However as for the rule

(e) If the kicked ball is simultaneously recovered by players of both teams or is simultaneously touched by players of both teams before going Out of Bounds, the kickoff shall be repeated.
[url=http://s30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/?action=view&current=posession.flv] http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c335/ro1313/th_posession.jpg [/url]

#2

Not that this makes any difference in the outcome, but does Stegall’s one hand touching the top of the ball constitue possesion? IMO, it was Sask possesion. In bounds or out, that’s another question.

#3

It looked like to me that Stegall knocked the ball out of Kornegay's hands... therefore, the Bombers get possesion.

#4

Yes in the case of a ball going out of bounds you only have to touch it last to have posesion
To me Stegal held the ball against the helmet and that's what makes it simultaneous

#5

I do believe that if that was the case it would be SSK's ball.

Doesnt anyone have anything to say about the rule?

#6

If you run it in real time, the ball gets knocked out of Kornegay's hands by Stegall, and it bounces off the Rider helmet and out of bounds, to me that means its the Bombers who get possession.

#7

Well no if it bounced off the rider helmet, the riders touched it last and it should be thier ball

#8

I looked at it again, and I dont even think it bounced of Kornegay's helmet. Stegall just knocked it out of bounds, how they ruled simultaneous posession on that play is beyond me.

#9

Sure it bounced off his helmet...Look at the second pic. It is touching the helmet and Stegals hand at the same time

#10

I was wondering if it did hit the helmet as well. Can't tell from that angle, if you are assuming it hits the helmet, then why not also assume it hits the Bomber's helmet too?

I think when someone bats the ball out of someone's hand, that player has last contact. (the batter of course!)

#11

So no different than a receiver having the ball punched out of bounds by a defender. Officials consistantly rule that last touch was by the receiver. Therefore, should have been Rider ball.

#12

Its very close, but I dont think so, if the ball had bounced it would have changed directions, but I dont think it does.

#13

It looks like it could have gone off his helmet, but you can't say it did for sure.

#14

Which brings up another good point. The ruling on the field was Roughrider ball. Did you see 'conclusive' evidence to overturn that call?

#15

Sorry, ro, but the call on the field was "simultaneous possession" and then they awarded the ball to Winnipeg, "because the ball was kicked out of bounds".
The rule you quote, which is the applicable rule here, clearly says it should be a re-kick.
Either that or the refs need to decide--did Winnipeg or Sask. gain possession.

So the "call" was incorrect.
The first huge problem on the call is the fact they ignored completely the rule you quote.
How can the ball have been "kicked out of bounds" if someone/anyone touched it?
Once they explain that glaring error, then maybe it is worth talking about whether or not it was simultaneous.

This is becoming a very, very bad pattern.
The refs screw up, but rather than get the call correct, or admitt a mistake, they make stuff up on the fly, and make the problem worse by so doing.

I want Black to come out tomorrow and concede his referee had no idea what the rule was and so he made a mistake.
Simple.

Of course it doesn't help that to overturn a call, conclusive evidence needs to be there, and no way do they have that.
If anything it appears the ball goes off a Rider helmet.
It may not have--but in the world of "conclusive" just the "might have" is enough.

This has nothing to do with the outcome of the game.
It was over.
Bombers win!
I am just appalled at the fact the refs don't know the rules!!
Making the wrong call on a split second timing, bang-bang play is one thing.
Not knowing the rules is another issue altogether.

And just to show it can impact a game, the call in the Smoe/Stamp game was a factor--a big factor--in deciding that game.

The refs are right 95% of the time.
But not knowing the rules is ridiculous!!

And I can't help but point out that BOTH plays I mention were not made better by the use of replay....

#16

I agree, there is no conclusive evidence to over turn the call.

#17

That is the point.
To overturn a call on the field, you must say for certain.
If it "may" have gone off the helmet, but the video can't say for certain---Rider ball.

#18

Thats the problem with this league. Every week thier is some call or multiple calls(edmonton no catch and the kick possesion) that the refs totally screw up and have no clue about what to do. Or they just plain make bad calls. Thats why CFL is a bush league.

#19

IMO ot was simultanious. If it was my ruling I wouild have ruled the same.
BUT
You keep missing part of what I posted.

The ref said "As by Rule....... it is concidered to be kicked out of bounds"
The rule states

(e) If the kicked ball is simultaneously recovered by players of both teams or is simultaneously touched by players of both teams before going Out of Bounds, [b]the kickoff shall be repeated[/b].
#20

I didn't miss your point ro. The rule you qouted states '...simulatneously touched by both teams before going out of bounds...', but they ruled the simultaneous recovery occured out of bounds. Therefore, this rule would not apply, and the illegal kick off would.