Touchback

When Dressler fumbled the ball out of the back of the endzone, I was positive that should have been ruled a touchback resulting in Hamilton ball at thier 25 yard line.

I agree had he fumbled the ball out of bounds on the sideline, it would remain Saskatchewan ball, but that was not the case.

Time for the CFL to change that rule...

No.

The rule is fine.

Why should the rule magically change because it went out the end zone?

Because we lost. Why else?

I disagree with the rule as I have argued in other threads, but I am glad the officials made the right call re possession in Dressler's case. I do think the rule should be reviewed by the league's Rules Committee in the offseason.

I think people should discern between those who are reacting because the Cats lost and those who are trying to have a thoughtful discussion on the way forward re possession rules in the CFL for the future. :wink:

Oski Wee Wee,

Ahhhh, it's all becoming clearer to me. :slight_smile:

An Argo-Cat fan

Im having a hard time trying to justify turning possession over in a case like this, had it gone sideways out-of-bounds it stays offense, but goes forward out the endzone you think it should change hands?

maybe we should just join the NFL. :roll:

Oh, it's easy enough to discern when they're as clear as you have been.

The ref should have explained the rule better then after the review. The refs come off looking bad and like they don't know the rules.

The rules really need to be relooked at after this season, especially on fumbles!

The end zone boundaries are dead ball lines, where the ball changes possession in the event of a safety touch by a player (e.g. punter) leaving the end zone or if a ball is kicked out of the end zone in the case of a free ball hoofed out after a bad snap on a punt either by a subsequent kickoff or scrimmaging by the non-offending team.

Are you suggesting that teams that give up safeties in this way shouldn't have to give up the ball? See, the dichotomy you posed cuts both ways!

I contend it shouldn't matter if it is the offense's scoring end zone or its defensive one. You cannot keep the ball from rolling into touch in either end, you don't get the ball back!

There IS a sanction for an offensive team causing a free ball to leave the end zone in one case, not the other (as yesterday). That is having an inconsistent standard in the rules in my opinion.

The point is whether the offense should be able to keep the ball if they cannot hold onto it and the ball rolls out past a dead ball line outside the field of play (i.e. the 110-yard field). In the field of play, a free ball that rolls into touch can be rescrimmaged at a fixed point in play. This luxury isn't the case inside the end zone.

It's a debate that will continue to rage.

Oski Wee Wee,

But this is where the rules makes sense, in that there was no change in possession. Yes, there was a fumble, but no change in possession. It was not recovered by anyone. No one can lay claim to a recovery.

The rule is the rule and we can't argue it. The problem is that we have a guy, runs 50 yards down the field to make a spectacular play, saving a touchdown and the ball runs out of real estate and the team that lost the ball gets another crack on the 1 yard line.

I think we watch to much NFL football and assume the rules are the same.

In the NFL, there is a claim to a recovery because of the touchback rule whenever an offensive team has a ball fumbled out of the offensive end zone. So it depends on what rule you have adopted, not the inherent logic of the rule because the rule can be terrible.

What the CFL rule implies is that it is okay for an offensive ball carrier to lose control of the ball and have the ball roll out of the offensive end zone (with no change in possession) AND HAVE THE BALL RESCRIMMAGED -- whereas if a defensive player fumbles in the defensive end zone after an abortive interception return and the ball goes out likewise without a change in possession, he forfeits a safety and the ball reverts to the non-offending team.

I get that the defensive player making the INT becomes an offensive player if he opts not to take a knee or otherwise go down to stop the play and instead proceeds to attempt to return the ball. That just makes one end zone more perilous in the sanctions it levies for a subsequent free ball than another.

I don't get that contradiction, sorry. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't hold onto a ball in either end, there ought to be negative consequences. Merci. LOL

Oski Wee Wee,

the ball goes out likewise without a change in possession[/b], he forfeits a safety and the ball reverts to the non-offending team.

I get that the defensive player making the INT becomes an offensive player if he opts not to take a knee or otherwise go down to stop the play and instead proceeds to attempt to return the ball. That just makes one end zone more perilous in the sanctions it levies for a subsequent free ball than another.

I don't get that contradiction, sorry. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You can't hold onto a ball in either end, there ought to be negative consequences. Merci. LOL

Oski Wee Wee,


I don't think anyone, fan, referee, coach, player or anyone at any level in the league could pose an argument to top your's Oski...
I would find it interesting for someone at the league level to try...

Is that because the referee on the play made the call of a Touchdown and blew his whistle. Did anyone let up upon the signal/whistle???

Had we not reacted to the signal or whistle, the recovery may (or truthfully may not have) taken place. Either way, I'm with Russ...that ball should be turned over to the opposing team.

As for the touchback...wrong league.

I'm pretty sure if you intercept the ball in the end zone and then fumble it out of bounds while still in the end zone it's a touchback (or whatever the CFL calls it, your ball on the 25), not a safety. It would be the same as trying to run an INT out of the end zone and being tackled before you got out.
If you brought it out of the end zone, then fumbled it back into the end zone and out of bounds, then it would be a safety, since now you've had possession in the field of play. Same as a QB getting sacked in or near his own end zone and fumbling it out of bounds.

I don't see a problem with that.

you’re talking about an own goal situation, different from the offensive goal. if you put it OB in your own goal then it you should lose possession.

I keep hearing the argument of the guy making such a spectacular play because he ran 60 yards to knock it out. It’s irrelevant. To what should be rewarded. What if this happened from a play that started inside the 10?

You say dead ball lines change possession. I’d argue that possession goes away from the team that is defending the goal. Neither can be refuted.

How should the DEFENSE get possession for not recovering the loose ball?

The point is whether the offense should be able to keep the ball if they cannot hold onto it and the ball rolls out past a dead ball line outside the field of play (i.e. the 110-yard field).
I'd say because the defense could not prevent the offense from advancing the ball so far that a fumble could cross into their own goal. That's why the offense should retain possession of a ball that they were in possession of, which the defense could NOT take over the possession. In last nights case, the defense could only get as far as knocking out of the players possession, but could was unable to take-over possession from the TEAM that had possession.

Your idea of the rule would be more contradicting. There is always one offensive goal, and a defensive goal. Your idea would have the the team playing defense gain possession at either end.

Keep in mind everything in the CFL changes when the ball is kicked.

I don't get it. Where's the problem?

The defence did not recover the fumble.

What?

The rules are fine and so were the refs. They made the right call and gave a concise explanation. They are not supposed to read the rule book to us.