Why didn't the clock stop?

On the last drive--Tasker went out of bounds.

Why didn't the clock stop??????????????????

Major F-up that might have cost us the game.

HOW CAN THAT HAPPEN?

I just came on to post the same thing... what happened??

How did nobody not notice that?

yes way

I don't understand. It was a huge play. Why did we notice, but no ref....no coach...no tv commentator....notice?
I don't get it.......
Austin should have been running on the field after the ref to stop that clock. He didn't notice. He's lost.

But, that was a blatant mistake by the refs that could have cost us the game.

I want a CFL explanation.

I also want to understand how Collaros, Austin, no official, "eye" in the sky did not notice this?

When Tasker goes out the ref does not give the winding signal.

???

At least 2 more plays…what gives CFL?

According to Drew Tasker was coming back towards the LOS Therefore the clock doesn't stop. It was ruled correctly.
Still not sure about that but it's an answer none the less.

i don’t buy it.
I have never heard this before in my life.

Out of bounds stops the clock.

No such rule on anything i can find.

Out of bounds stops the clock. Always has....until tonight.

Yes the clock should have stopped!

I just checked the 2017 CFL Rulebook, and there's nothing in there about this. The only references I can find are:

[b]Article 3 – Time Out[/b] Time shall start when the ball is touched following the kickoff at the start of a half, or after a scoring play, and shall continue until the ball is ruled dead and an official signals to the timekeeper that time shall stop for any of the following reasons:
  • When the ball goes Out of Bounds

and
[b]Article 4 – Time In[/b] After a time out for any reason, time shall start again on the signal of the Referee for any of the following reasons:
  • When it is snapped immediately following a time out caused by the ball being carried Out of Bounds during the last three minutes in any half

Nothing about moving back towards own goal line.

Explanation here

http://3downnation.com/2017/08/05/ticats-may-lost-didnt-get-hosed-officials/

Does anyone else feel like the officials botched the interpretation of this? His progress wasn't stopped in bounds...he caught it and ran out...

Tasker was touched by the Edmonton player just before going out of bounds. So technically, he was driven out of bounds, and because he was moving towards his own goal line after being "hit", the officials gave him forward progress rather than marking him out of bounds.

So yes, it sounds like the correct ruling was made, based on the existing rules. Perhaps a rule change is needed to give the offence the choice in cases like this?

Had it been Edmonton driving I am sure the clock would have stopped. A db move by an giddy official. We wiz robbed of the opportunity to win that game. Mr. Commish please straighten out the mess that is officiating. Overall I thought they had a pretty good night until pulling that stunt.
Brutal

I'm not sure when if ever that interpretation of the so called rule has ever been enforced. Had the coaching staff been more aware we could have have called a quicker time out probably squeezing out two more plays. I'm sure the official softly whispered...clocks running.

Conspiracy theory? Really?

It was the on-field officials who determined that Tasker was pushed towards his own goal line on his way out of bounds, based on the existing rules.

Let's look at the same result in a different situation. Third down gamble, and the first down marker is between where Tasker was first contacted and where he went out of bounds. Where should the ball be placed at the end of this play? Where he was first contacted, or where he went out of bounds? The first results in a first down. The latter results in a turnover.

As I said, I'm thinking the rules need to be changed to allow the offence to choose which result they prefer.

Small potatos compared to what I saw as pass interference on Jones. Would have had the ball on the 1 with a no time play.

Situation with Tasker and interpretation has been explained. Let’s move on.

Didn't look like DPI to me. But there was illegal contact on Tyms.

Oh well.

It was the on-field officials who determined that Tasker was pushed towards his own goal line on his way out of bounds, based on the existing rules.

Let's look at the same result in a different situation. Third down gamble, and the first down marker is between where Tasker was first contacted and where he went out of bounds. Where should the ball be placed at the end of this play? Where he was first contacted, or where he went out of bounds? The first results in a first down. The latter results in a turnover.

I always thought it was the point of furthest gain where the ball got spotted