Some help please- re: CFL rules

Hey guys,

I was watching the Edmonton/Toronto game. There was a play where Ray threw a long pass. A flag was thrown. It was for pass interference against Toronto. BUT, there was another flag thrown as well. It was for illegal procedure against Edmonton [no end]. The penalties offset each other with a net difference of 5 yards in favor of Edmonton! Why?

Shouldn't an illegal procedure call nullify any kind of a play execution and wash out the play entirely? Maybe this rule needs to be reviewed?

No, Both penalties are balanced off at the line of scrimmage. Been that way for as long as I remember.

how about breaking the plane of the goal line with the football to register a touchdown - shouldn't the person streching out the ball have to maintain possession for say 4 or 5 seconds before a touchdown is called to do away with the ones that are stretched out but the guy drops the ball because he is so stretched out he doesn't really have possession of the ball or the ball gets knocked out of his hand right away because the ballcarrier doesn't have to protect the ball for 1 second after it is almost thrown over the goalline. some of those touchdowns seem cheapened by these calls where the ballcarrier doesn't maintain possession.

no? a touchdown is a touchdown. if youve ever played competitive football even at a highschool level youll know how intense and how fast everything is after the snap of the ball so why penalize someone for making a heads up play to score by installing a 4 or 5 second rule. what about td pass caught in the endzone do you want the receiver to have to run around for 5 seconds before its a td so the defender can try to molest the ball out of his hands. there is no way that this will ever happen. and as for the ip and PI lol ilegal procedure - no end, does not stop the play. this is most likely (so dont quote me) because a team can get an end on the line moments before the ball is snapped so there is no way of calling it early. so if they dont whistle the play down they have to let it proceed incase a sit. like this happens. so becuase the illegal pro. is 5 yards less than the PI toronto is penalized the remaining 5 yards and carry on with a 1st down. if there was no PI than the play would come back 10 and replay 1st and 20 now

That's what I'm saying Sportsmen. Maybe it should be changed. There are times when I can see the off-setting penalties rule applied. But in this case a team has gained yardage by using an illegal procedure. Edmonton actually netted a 5 yard gain. Had there not been an illegal procedure, the play might not even have been executed then Edmonton would have lost yardage- not gained yardage.

i'm just saying they should prove posession. the receiver has to have possesion and get one foot down. dosen't it seem weird that you can expose the ball break the plane and lose possesion simultaneously and bag the touchdown. they just seem cheap.

Your ignoring what didn't happen. If lets say, there was no pass interference. And for sake of argument that the Edmonton receiver caught the ball and ran it in for a touchdown. Then because of that illegal procedure that touchdown would be taken back and the Eskimo's would've been minus 5 yards, instead of up 7 points.

One penalty doesn't prevent another penalty on the same play. Toronto should also not be rewarded for the pass interference (non-call), which you are suggesting.

I do not know any team that purposefully tries to go offside. There are times that a time count violation might be useful. But offside? Never.

Good points Doyo. Your comments got me to think a little more about this.

By the way, the penalty Edmonton received wasn't for being off side if that is what you were thinking. They had "no end". I'm assuming that when a team has 'no end' that for some reason it works to their advantage which is why they are being penalized. And if it is to the offensive team's advantage it may affect the outcome of the pending play in their favor. Same as for holding. How often do we see a team pull off a great pass completion only because someone was holding which gave the QB enough time to throw the ball.

I agree with you, that Toronto should not be "rewarded" for the pass interference. I guess my point is that the pass interference call is moot since the play was going to be called back anyway. I think that is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. Edmonton was trying to execute a play "illegally". All Toronto needed to do was lie down and play dead. But of course since [in most cases] no one knows which side the initial infraction was against until it is actually called the players still play full tilt. Maybe what the officials should be doing is whistling the play dead before it ever gets started.

As an aside: I think about your idea that had Toronto not been called for pass interference they would actually be rewarded for committing a penalty. Good point. If we take this further, the same idea could be applied to roughing the passer during the same play. For example: Edmonton's QB passes the ball and gets creamed with a late hit. But because Edmonton is called for illegal procedure the guy who flattened Edmonton's QB is actually rewarded if he gets off scott free. That hardly seems reasonable. He gets away with a huge penalty against his team. [15 yards]

The more I think about this I realize that what I'm really wondering about is do all officials who throw flags have whistles and the authority to blow a play dead? If they do, why would they not blow a play down whenever there is illegal procedure? They do it in other situations. Thansk Doyo..... My wife just said I make an excellent point.:rockin:

Only illegal procedure as in movement by offensive lineman like flinching or moving before the snap, or offsides that involve a defensive player touching an offensive player, or an offside causing movement of offensive players are blown dead .

Thanks Oranegeandblack. Yes that is true. I think the play should also be whistled down in the event that there are too many players or like last week in the Toronto/Edmonton game when there was "no end". Either the offensive team is ready for the play or it is not. Had the play been whistled down Edmonton would have been put 5 yards further back instead of advancing 5 yards. This could be huge if it means the 5 yard advance means a 1st down.

While I understand the off- setting penalties rule I don't like it in this case. Edmonton should not have benefited because their penalty was only 5 yards while Toronto's was worth 10 yards. Edmonton made the initial mistake in the first place. If the play had been whistled dead it would have eliminated Toronto taking the penalty and Edmonton would have been 2nd and 15 instead of 2nd and only 5. I don't know. Maybe the reason the play is allowed to continue is in the event of an interception or fumble by the defence. It just sounds a little screwy to me.

Touchdown:

Evolved from the rugby scoring method where the ball carrier actually has to cleanly touch the ball down within the end zone.

In CFL, the play is dead as soon as the ball breaks the plane with possession of the ball carrier. How long after is irrelevant since there is no after - the play is dead immediately. Deeming some sort of sustained possession after crossing the plane would be a nightmare. Has to be kept the way it is or revert to original rugby rule.

firstly a major foul is not waved off... it the guy delivers a blow to the head it is a major foul and is accessed. On the illegal procedure the CFL does not blow the play dead... i would like to see them change the rule as well but the allow the play to continue as there maybe additional advantage such as fumble, interception or an incomplete pass which then the defense has the option to accept the penalty or take the play so depending on the down and situation you have something else to consider. just my input.... hope this gives you something more to think about...