Three players fined after Week 1 action

TORONTO — The Canadian Football League (CFL) announced three fines after Week 1 action on Wednesday.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

Jordan Williams fine, proving that the booth is incompetent.

No fine for Clarkie's tourist hit on Williams later in the game.

No fine for Simoni cutting an OFFENSIVE blocker.


Simoni, Still living rent free in Rider fans heads! :upside_down_face:

Typical CFL . So there's no flag on the Fajardo hit BUT the league fines Williams for a high hit on the same play . Ridiculous , how can you be fined for an infraction that was challenged and deemed and declared a legal hit by video review with no penalty on the play ? One would think that it was either a penalty on the play with subsequent fine to follow or no flag and no fine , end of discussion .

You simply can't have it both ways . It's like the CFL is saying " you can have your cake" BUT upon further review "we're going to take a bite of it anyways"


Agree, totally dumb. You can fine a guy who doesn't get flagged because on field officials miss things sometimes, but a REPLAY OFFICIAL missing it? No excuse.

How convenient of you to totally ignore how I called out Dan Clark's hit too. But do what you need to do to avoid apocalypse in your fantasy world where there is no such thing as an impartial Rider fan.

Ahh I missed this. It's been too long since we could complain about the replay booth

1 Like

Teams are only allowed to challenge "Roughing the Passer" & it was thought (wrongly IMHO) that Cody was now more of a runner in that situation so that could not be called. IF they had been able to challenge "Unnecessary Roughness" then the challenge would have been successful.

In an ideal world the Refs would have caught it to begin with.


Not the first time
Last season

Vernon Adams is hit helmet to flag
Als challenge roughing the QB Call flag
During the week the guy is fined for a helmet to helmet

Time to start fining the refs like maybe on ridiculous
un-sportsman conduct calls

But if on any replay the booth sees a major foul, even if it is not what is being challenged, they have the discretion to call it.

I'm thinking that Williams can probably challenge this fine and probably have it overturned on account of the booths on field decision . I mean it's kinda hard to be found guilty and punished of something that you were found to be innocent of....isn't it ?

I wasn't sure if they had the ability to add in a penalty or not. If so then they missed it - there was absolutely head-to-head contact.

Booth can only review the specific infraction alleged by the coach. Dickenson should have challenged Unnecessary Roughness, but that's not eligible for review. He took a chance on Roughing the Passer and lost, as Cody Fajardo was considered a runner at that point. The booth did their job according to the rules - the problem is the rules.

I've seen them do it a couple of times and the commentators confirm the rule that they are allowed to do so.

1 Like

See above. The booth can call any major foul that they see in a replay regardless of whether it was the original challenge or not.

1 Like

Incorrect. See Rule 10 - Replay - Section 2 - Coach Initiated Reviews - 2019 Official CFL Rulebook on CFLdb

It specifically says: "...only the penalty the coach challenges will be reviewed."

I doubt it......And as I point out, it has happened before

From your own link ...

[quote]A team will get their challenge back if a review changes a different ruling on the play which makes the team challenge not relevant.

Penalties which are created as a direct result of the change in a ruling may be applied even though a foul was not called during the play. Fouls that were called during the play may be nullified as a direct result of a change to the ruling.[/quote]

There's all kinds of grey area and wiggle room in those rules to call a headshot on a vulnerable player, and they've done it before. As such, the league looks really weak on this bungling.


"BC Lions linebacker Jordan Williams was fined for a high-hit on Saskatchewan Roughriders quarterback Cody Fajardo."

So how can there be a fine issued when the command centre reviewed during the game and said there was no penalty. I know the challenge was for roughing the passer and they determined that he was a runner and not a passer at that point, HOWEVER the command centre also has the ability and responsibility to call penalties that they observe during review that should have been called during the play. So how can the same people review it and say there is no penalty and turn around and issue a fine. It is a moot point as far as the outcome of that game is concerned but the officials had better pick up their game and consistency regardless of the teams playing, field position or challenges called.

This is all on the booth (again). 100%. They botched it.

1 Like