Three Questionable Calls / Non-Calls by Officials

Sounds like sour grapes but the officials did (did not) make 3 calls that were huge tonight. I didn't manage to get to the game because of a funeral so I watched it on TSN.

  1. Calling MacIntyre for Roughing the Passer in the end zone. He tackled him as he was throwing the ball! It wasn't late. I don't know if it was because it was because it was low but the TSN boys thought it was OK. It got Saskatchewan out of a huge hole.

  2. When Cobb fumbled the ball at the goal line and it was reviewed. They came back saying that it was recovered in the end zone and Saskatchewan got it at the 25 yard line. The ball was obviously fumbled but it never got into the end zone. I watched the replays and while the player who picked it up was in the end zone, the ball itself was outside the endzone. They should have got it at the one.

  3. On Rob Bagg's go ahead touchdown, he pushed off of Tisdale, an obvious offensive pass interference.

Way to "nit"pick

Dunigan said that penalty should not have been called, and that's coming from a former QB.

Even if it were late, it could hardly be called roughing the passer.

By the rules #1 is technically was called legit, I just don't agree with the rule. It wasn't called roughing, it was a low hit, and while Dunigan agreed it wasn't a penalty he also acknowledged by the rules it was a legit penalty.

I agree #2/#3 are too nit picky you can't spot every tug and push throughout the game.

Two out of three for sure. It's hard to tell from the various angles they showed where exactly the ball was when it was picked up after Cobb's fumble. I think it may have just barely made it to the goal line and therefore would be considered inside.

They also missed an obvious Ticats offside on the first goal line stand. Two Ticats players had their hands down across the line. Exactly wat the 'Riders were call for a could minutes earlier.

I'm wondering if maybe they let Bagg get away with the obvious pass interference because they also missed an obvious call on Fantuz a few plays earlier. It seems like the CFL officials as a whole could use a whole lot more consistency with this rule, it seems to change play to play on what is acceptable and what isn't and as a fan it can drive you nuts.

I know that they called Saskatchewan minutes earlier but in this case I think the line of scrimmage was just outside the one yard line. Hamilton had been inside the one and it was moved back out to the one. Saskatchewan hadn't been inside the one and been moved back so it was highly unlikely it was exactly on the one.

Makes sense. Thanks.

The Baggs non-call PI is balanced by the call made on Bauman. PI calls this year have been bizarre.

What I'm more concerned with is the spots in the fourth quarter.

As to #2, I'm still dumbfounded as to how the refs can award possession to the defence when possession did not change. The whistle blew, the ball was still rolling around on the turf, the Rider's player didn't even get near the ball until about 1.5 seconds [b]AFTER[b] the whistle. Absolutely the wrong call. Sure it may have been a quick whistle, but admit that and move on. Don't cover up by calling a phantom possession change. The result should have been Cats ball on the one. In my opinion, THAT is the play that cost the Cats the game.

I agree with this.

The ball was fumbled, the whistle blew and players stop upon hearing it. The fact that one guy from either team picks the ball up after it rolls to his feet 2 seconds after a whistle should not mean a change of possession.

That should only occur in incidents where a team challenges a fumble if there was no whistle prior to the conclusion of the play.

That ball was free at the time of the whistle and play should have stopped before ANYONE is able to pick it up.

I'm sure that this type of play happens quite a bit and is always called the same, but I think it's a rule that should be looked at.

CFL Rule Book 2010

Section 4 - DEAD BALL

The ball is dead:
-Whenever a field official blows the whistle.

Last week against BC we got a lucky call. This week we ended up on the other end of the deal.

Fact of life.

It is true that sometimes questionable calls are in your favour, and sometimes they are not. I remember that being said last week.

And if that RTP penalty was the right call, then that rule needs to be reviewed. And I'm not just saying that because of that one penalty against McIntyre last night. If it were a case of "good call, bad rule" then that should be considered an example of overprotection of QBs.

Article 4 – Roughing The 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 are coming 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.

I thought Durant was outside of the pocket as per part (c), but I guess that is open to interpretation.

The rulebook does not clearly define what "the pocket" is.

Also, I thought Durant did some intentional grounding, but apparently if the pass goes beyond the line of scrimmage, it is not intentional grounding, is this correct? I thought the Durant threw the ball away to avoid the safety.

Article 7 – Intentional Grounding
If a Team A passer deliberately, and in the official’s opinion for the purpose of avoiding
loss of yardage, throws the ball behind the line of scrimmage to the ground or Out
of Bounds or to an area in which there is not an eligible Team A receiver, the team
shall be penalized.
PENALTY: LD at point from which pass was thrown. If the pass was thrown from the
Goal Area, a safety touch score shall be awarded to Team B, subject to the right of
Team B to decline the score and accept the play as it terminated.
NOTE: Team A shall not be penalized if the passer throws the ball across the line of
scrimmage to an open area or Out of Bounds.

Tom Higgins has been very clear that the guidance to coaches and officials is that if there is an early whistle on a fumble, possession CAN change if the ball is recovered "directly and immediately".

Repeating my comment from another thread:

[url=http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60861&p=1024717#p1024717]viewtopic.php?f=5&t=60861&p=1024717#p1024717[/url]

What happened did seem to fall under "c" but was he really "forcibly hit" though?

And what about this line: "Once the ball is released, defensive players must avoid all unnecessary contact with the passer."

ALL unnecessary contact? Isn't that a little much?

Also, I thought Durant did some intentional grounding, but apparently if the pass goes beyond the line of scrimmage, it is not intentional grounding, is this correct? I thought the Durant threw the ball away to avoid the safety.

Article 7 – Intentional Grounding
If a Team A passer deliberately, and in the official’s opinion for the purpose of avoiding
loss of yardage, throws the ball behind the line of scrimmage to the ground or Out
of Bounds or to an area in which there is not an eligible Team A receiver, the team
shall be penalized.
PENALTY: LD at point from which pass was thrown. If the pass was thrown from the
Goal Area, a safety touch score shall be awarded to Team B, subject to the right of
Team B to decline the score and accept the play as it terminated.
NOTE: Team A shall not be penalized if the passer throws the ball across the line of
scrimmage to an open area or Out of Bounds.


I do understand that as long as it was thrown past the LOS, it is not intentional grounding.

Also from the CFL 2010 Rulebook

[b]REVIEWABLE PLAYS - GUIDING PRINCIPLES[/b] The instant replay system will cover a variety of plays in three main areas: ... 3. other detectable situations, such as a ball carrier ruled down by contact, and a fumble which occurred prior to down by contact ... [b]APPROVED RULINGS[/b] [b]Running Plays[/b] [b]A.R. Fumble before runner down by contact[/b] Team A ball carrier fumbles the ball with Team B recovering. Officials rule down by contact at A’s 30 yard line. Replay shows that the ball was loose before the runner was down. [u][b]RULING[/b][/u] Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.
Correct call. What I can't tell from the TV coverage is whether the ball actually made it to the goal line. Makes the difference between Saskatchewan ball on the one or the twenty-five.

Tough to call I guess. The defender is going full speed for Durant hoping to get the safety and it would be next to impossible for him to stop. Maybe the rule should be modified for situations when the QB is in his own endzone.

Not disputing this CatFanInOttawa, but it seems like the rule can be interpreted either way.

Didn't we have a situation a few years back where one of our players stripped the ball from an Edmonton player iirc, but they ruled the play dead because the whistle had blown and therefore the play was not reviewable? The ref could no longer see the ball and he blew the whistle, meanwhile the ticat player was just turning to run down field, ball in hand.