Video Reply on Fumbles... Can someone clarify?

Can someone clarify the rules for video replay on fumbles for me?

Last night Beveridge's play was not allowed to be reviewed, although, it was OBVIOUSLY a clean strip and the ref should have made the initial call to begin with (don't get my started on the refs)...


The Calgary v BC game they reviewed a fumble.

Why was one okay and not the other? I'm sure there actually is a reason, I just don't know it.

Check the main CFL board. There's a major thread there with the rule cited and discussion of the changes.

[url=] ... ic&t=26444[/url]

Maybe Taffee should look over the rule book, it seems like if he asked for them to review that the carrier was down by contact, they would of seen that the ball was stripped.

3. other detectable situations, such as a ball carrier ruled down by contact, and a fumble which occurred prior to down by contact

If anyone watched the Argo game, you can see that there are loopholes in challenging. Rich stubler challenged a play by winnipeg were a receiver laterolled the ball forward to another receiver. Stubler challenged whether he was down by contact if i remember correctly, and when the ref reviewed the play, he was able to see that it was a forward lateral and thus called the play back.

So even though he didn't ask for that to be reviewed, the ref was still able to call it back.

This proves that Taaffe should of challenged what i said in my post above. Hopefully he learns from this and doesn't ask the ref to review something that cant be reviewed. I'd also like him to review the CFL rulebook..

It seems like you can challenge anything, and if the ref sees something else, he can still make a call on that.

So based on #3. The strip (forced fumble) should have been reviewed?? I thought I remembered the ref. saying a fumble could not be reviewed. IMHO this is a fumble which occurred prior to down by contact.

Not that it would have made a difference, but it looks like we got screwed again.

If Taaffe asked the ref to review whether or not Armstead was down by contact, the ref would have seen that Beverage stripped the ball before Armstead was down, and based on the Argo game, the ref should have called the play back and we would have had the ball.

It is because Taaffe asked the ref to review whether or not it was a fumble, that is not reviewable.

I was at a game a few years ago in Toronto.

Hamilton fumbles as the player is going down. The call on the field was "down by contact". Not only did they review the play, they awarded Toronto the ball afterwards.


The CFL needs an overhaul in officiating. Feels like Jake Ireland and friends just make up crap.

This is not Wrestling!

But the result would have been the same. Hamilton was never awarded posession. Official cant suddenly award a fumble if it was never ruled as one FIRST and if Taaffe never asked for a fumble review.
If you're asking for a review of down by contact the only thing that would have changed is the placement of the ball.

That is similar to what happened in the Toronto vs Winnipeg game last night. Rich Stubler challenged whether or not the Winnipeg receiver was down by contact, which is a reviewable play. The ref then was able to see that it was a forward lateral and actually called back the play.

This is why I am saying Taaffe should have challenged whether or not Armstead was down by contact, giving the refs a chance to see the video replay of Beverage stripping the ball.

I hope Obie gives Taaffe a copy of the CFL rulebook.

Refs cant award a fumble if the play was never ruled as one. Challenging "down by contact" wouldnt change that.

example shows it clearly. taafe should have been able to challenge that the ball came loose and beveridge recovered it before the als player down by contact.
A.R. Fumble before runner down by contact

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.

RULING Reviewable play B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.

(c) Other Detectable Situations:

[b]1. Ball carrier ruled down by contact.

  1. Fumble prior to ruling down by contact[/b]

  2. Touching of a kick.

  3. Onside players on a kick.

  4. Where a turnover is the direct result of a major foul which was not penalized (e.g. clothesline which caused a fumble, face mask on a tackle when a fumble occurs) Note: The reviewable aspect of this play is that the alleged major foul was the primary cause of the turnover. If there was no change of possession, this play is not reviewable.



On running plays there are four basic situations which are reviewable:

  1. Determining whether a ball carrier is down / not down by contact. Replay may also confirm a fumble prior to down by contact.

A.R. Fumble before runner down by contact

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.

RULING Reviewable play B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.

Why the ref said it was not reviewable is because Taaffe challenged that is was a fumble in the field of play, this is not! reviewable. The other examples above are. It is how you ask the ref that determines whether or not they will review it.

I am not sure if I am agreeing with the previous posts or not . . . but if we are talking about Mitchell's fumble, there is absolutely no way that he was down by contact before he fumbled . . . and I don't think that this is what Taffe was challenging. I believe that Taffe thought that the Ticats recovered the fumble and perhaps were downed by contact at that point on the turf before the ball was taken away by the Alouettes. From my vantage point in the stands I could not see the ball after the players fell to the turf either live or on the replay, so I don't know if the 'Cats ever had possession after the fumble.

But my issue with this entire turn of events was that the referee ruled the play was not reviewable . . . so then why did he bother to review it??

If I am restating what was previously stated above, I apologize . . .

We're talking about Sandy Beveridge's strip on the punt return by Armstead late in the 4th.

I still dont understand not being able to review a fumble that's a moot point.

The refs are brutal this year just look at the review last night in the Argo game. Ball clearly touched the ground, reviewed ruled a catch. There is no way that should be considered a catch.

As for the forward lateral review. The ref shouldn't be able to reverse a play if it's not reviewable. Just because he saw after if it wasn't asked to be challenged it should be allowed to be changed after. IF that was the case, Sandy's strip should have counted.

simple solution...league changes the rules so this never happens again...

its not mid-season so there shouldnt be controversy over mid-season rule changes...and it didnt cost the ticats a lets change the rules NOW before this causes some major problems later in the season.

the league will probably just appoligize to us that it should have been reviewed and the ref misunderstood charlie. sorry charlie.

I think what you're referring to below was a fumble by Corey Holmes against Toronto in early 2006.

They had initially ruled him down by contact, then on review ruled a fumble recovered by Toronto.

What drove me nuts about this is that the whistle had clearly blown before the Argos recovered the ball. I thought that for safety reasons players are supposed to quit when they hear the whistle, but in this case the defense was rewarded for ignoring the whistle. Makes no sense to me.

The replay rules are so stupid and they don't get explained right.

You can challenge a fumble, you can't challenge who recovers it! So stupid!

My opinion that I've had for years is, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING! You only get 2 challenges a game, why not make them really count.

You think there was a pass interference call that was missed? Throw the yellow flag and challenge it.

I'm sorry but with the ability to challenge anything will make the game even better. It will probably take less time as the officials don't have to meet for 20 minutes to see if the play is reviewable or not.

Does anybody else like this idea? I think coaches don't challenge enough because even they don't know what is challengeable.

I have no problem with not being able to review everything, but not being able to review fumble recoveries is just ridiculous.
Not too mention the fact that refs should be ruling on the side of caution knowing we have replay. Let the play go and if need be bring it back on review.