TORONTO – The Canadian Football League has announced that two players have been fined following Week 18’s games.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.cfl.ca/2023/10/13/two-players-fined-following-week-18-games
TORONTO – The Canadian Football League has announced that two players have been fined following Week 18’s games.
The league came up short on rent money for the office?
Actually, more seriously, I’m guessing the long weekend had something to do with it.
What in the “H” is a “tourist hit?”
Per CFL.db
An unnecessary roughness major foul (Rule 7 — Fouls & Penalties – Section 2 — Major Fouls – Article 3 — Unnecessary Roughness Point (s)) for hitting an opponent who is out of the play, or should not have reasonably expected the contact before or after the ball is dead. The term “tourist hit” does not appear in the rulebook, instead it is a lexicalized concept that summarizes the idea of this rule.
I thank those who responded to my question - I now understand the term “tourist hit.” However, I find the topic to be a ridiculous one and totally unnecessary,. When the CFL wants to “lexicalize” the explanation for a penalty, then you have to know it is a nonsense call. The call of “unnecessary roughness” is a straight forward description of what the penalty is. To me, if this is an example of the sports writers for the CFL - then they need to give their heads a shake. I have watched the CFL for almost 75 years and played football from the time I was very young to the time I retired playing organize football at the age of 55yrs - and I watch the weekly games faithfully - NEVER have I heard the term “tourist hit” used until this article. Please bring some asspect of respect for the game you are reporting on. “Tourist hit” indeed!
A tourist hit is a useful term because it lets the reader know that it is a hit outside the game, like outside the country, hence the tourist hit is a completely unnecessary hit while unnecessary roughness happens ( even by accident sometimes) and occurs within the game. A tourist hit means you are not playing football you are committing a dangerous and headhunting act.
I didn’t know the exact definition until it was posted in this thread but had a general idea as to what a tourist hit meant.
Your last sentence describes it well but I think there might be a better name for it.
Why not call it a Marinawe? It would eliminate confusion. If an announcer said someone just got Marinawed or received a Marinawe penalty, even most casual fans would know the meaning of the term. The league could also throw in an automatic small fine against the offender to make it even more accurate.
I don’t have a problem with the term.
It takes 20 or 30 words and reduces it to two. It’s concise, and easy to grasp in concept by casual fans.
I’m actually surprised you hadn’t heard it before. I’ve heard the term used for at least a decade. Maybe more
There is a difference between the 2 and I have been hearing tourist hit for years
Think of it this way
Unnecessary roughness for example is when the ball carrier is out if bounds and gets hit or tackled.
Why this was different and called a tourist hit was because…
Ottawa was on offence and the RB was tackled and on the ground.
Sankey had stopped his pursuit and was literally standing there just watching, like a tourist, when Boyd hit him from behind and knocked him over. The play was well over and Sankey has no reason to expect to be hit or to prepare himself to be hit
To be honest I was surprised by the fine…I though in this particular case the 15 years was enough but maybe there is a zero tolerance policy on tourist hits
I like the term. It’s a perfect description.
We have seen a lot less fines for it this season than in previous seasons. I guess this time of year a little more “last chance to get back at him” creeps in…
I would like for these articles to include: whether or not the play was penalized on the field. I watch every game, but often don’t recall the incident to which they are referring.
In this case both were
but you have to admit, it would look bad for the refs and league to fine a player for something that did not draw a flag…but it has happened
Thanks. I don’t expect perfection from refs, and would not judge, but have seen instances when it seems like a ‘make-up’ call for something missed on the field. I get that the league would not be proud of those moments - especially now that betting is a larger part of the game - but would appreciate the transparency.
I officiate football at a much younger level and tourist hits can be some of the worst hits we see. The player that gets hit has no idea it’s coming and has more or less taken himself out of the play because he is not involved in anyway. It’s also known as tourist hunting. They will always be called as a penalty if seen.
I remember a few years back when VA was still with Montreal. He took a helmet shot to the head that took him out of the game. No flag. Mtl challenged for RTP…ruling stands…but during the week the league fined the player responsible…Figure that one out
I am less bothered by a ref missing something on the field, than I am when they call something that didn’t happen.
Yesterday in the NFL there was a late game BLOWN call that almost certainly cost the 49ers the game, and there was no mechanism in place to fix it without a challenge. It wasn’t challenged, and they lost. I would like to believe a CFL video official would have remedied that on the fly - without a challenge - if that were to happen in a CFL game. I am grateful for that, and can’t imagine a good reason for not adopting it in all leagues where it is available.