Tor@SSK Illegal interference

Here is the clip and 2 stills of the interference and no yards call

This still shows that he was pretty much tackled

The no-yards was questionable. It was very close but I have seen worst not called

Thanks Ro, pretty much how I originally thought of the play, the interference was pretty obvious, but I thought the no yards was questionable at best.

But don't you always see player get tackled and what have youi on fumbles? It happens all the time, does it not?

I seriously did not know that was a penalty..

Ive seen different variations of it go uncalled, but that was pretty blatant and in clear view of the ref. I can't fault the ref for calling that one, it's the no yards that drew the ire of the crowd though.

Horrible rule.

On that play, if Lucas had actually tackled the guy, normally there would be no penalty as once he tries to catch the ball, he is fair game to be hit.
The tiny tug on the jersey he made is as rarely called as the hold against Mauer that caused such an uproar last week.
It was a bad "judgement" and should not have ben called.
The no-yards call was at best, marginal.
Once again, it is about consistancy.
How many fumbles have we seen over the years, and when was the last time anyone saw this penalty called?
And for next to nothing.

I disagree.
Quite simply you cannot interfer with the player when the ball is loose.
You can interfeer with the reciever when the ball is in the air, its the same principle

The interference call was a good call. You cant interfere with an opponent going after a loose ball , and Lucas clearly does that on the play. The questionable call was the no yards. Dorsey is the one who fumbles the ball and no one is really within the 5yds.

And Ro, I like the way you say, "pretty much tackled the guy", when the video shows a tug that didn't even slow down Dorsey. Sure if it is illegal interference then call it. But I haven't seen it called for years.

Just like the Mauer holding, the refs are ridiculously inconsistent and conviently trigger-happy.

Please check out the quote of the year sticky, where Jock Clime and Dave Randorf have said close to that same thing.

The no yarder hurts the most, because even if Lucas doesn't interfere with Dorsey and the Riders recover the fumble, we wouldn't retain possession. It's was a sad play because instead of having the ball on the Argo's 25 yard line, they get the ball back at midfield. Even though I think the officals made 1 call correctly, they blew 1 also.

Football is supposed to be a rough game that involves a lot of contact and a lot of struggling with your opponent. There was an oldtimer that was being interviewed on CBC and he was saying that the amount of flags he sees in today's football is insane.

We all sit here and debate this call, meanwhile the very idea of it ridiculous. The Rule: You aren't allowed to impede somebody from getting the football during a loose/live ball. What is the point of this rule? It is a fumble! Let the players fight for the ball!

I am not biased towards SSK. I am biased towards the game of football.

Yes it is the same principle.
you cannot contact the receiver until he touches the ball or it goes over his head--then you can hit him regardless of whether he catches the ball or not, ie., has possession.
Same on a punt--once he touches the ball he is no longer protected by the 5-yard rule and you can go ahead and hit him or tackle him--regardless if he retained possession. so Lucas should have just tackled him.
But also, the tiny tug on the jersey does not seem to impede Dorsey at all, and that interference call is seldom made.
As I am saying all the time--consistancy.
If that was a penalty, I expect them to make the call ALL the time.
Not once in a blue moon...

There's a window of a few seconds where he could get away with a hit, same thing with a receiver who has a pass go through his hands, he's often hit.

Along those same guidelines though, if a receiver drops a pass and then gets an obvious late hit it's going to be flagged every time. Lucas had his opportunity to hit Dorsey and get away with it but he waited too long, and then grabbed him and got flagged.

But the problem is you cannot just tackle him if he is going after a loose ball. Whether or not it is a good rule, it is the rule

Look at the pic. He is lying on top of him, That was not caused by a tug on the jersey

Fight for the ball? Sure, but tackling the only near by receiver and sitting on him while your team mate grabs the ball is not fighting for it.(Im not saying it happened this way)

If you can interfere with a fumble, why not allow a defender to tackle a receiver before the ball gets there? Let them fight for it!

if the Sask play was illegal interference on an attempt to recover a loose ball then so was the Toronto play on Boreham on his attempt to recover his punt. It was called a block in the back but it was illegal interference as it stopped him from recovering his punt. Sask got screwed on that call.

Not as per the rules
(d) On a play from scrimmage in which the ball is kicked across the line of
scrimmage, a Team B player shall be permitted to interfere with any Team A
player who has crossed the line of scrimmage, provided that contact is made
only above the waist of the Team A player.

As for the lose ball
Article 1
A player shall not deliberately interfere with an opponent attempting to
recover a loose ball following a blocked kick, a dribbled ball, a fumble or a
wild snap from the centre.

Like we didn't already know that... sheesh... I have that written down all over my toilet paper...

So that I can just pull the rules right out of my a$$ when I feel like it too...:twisted:

okay... okay...

What is that supposed to mean?
As the rules only to be applied when it suits your team?

I will never understand how posters(in general)whine when a call in made and whine when a call is not made!