Why is it scored like this?

Montreal got flagged for roughing the passer last night

The play by play here says

(09:08) M. REILLY Incomplete Pass intended for K. STAFFORD at M22, Penalty: Roughing the Passer called on Montreal (J. JOSEPH) (15 yds.) - No Play

Why no play? He threw a pass and it fell incomplete..RTP has nothing to do with it

Had the pass been completed the play counts and 15 yards are added and the play counts

10:27) V. ADAMS JR Completed Pass to E. LEWIS, caught at M38 (23 yds, 20 YAC), Tackle: A. GRYMES, Penalty: Roughing the Passer called on Edmonton (J. CERESNA) (15 yds.)

Why no play? Is the league padding someone stats?

It could be that the league doesn't want to penalize a QBs stats due to an incomplete on that may have been caused by the RTP. Not all RTP penalties are for late hits. I wonder if the "no play" applies to all RTPs, or just those the are before or a the ball is release.

The CFL has been consistent in awarding the benefits of a completed pass and wiping out an incomplete pass when a Rough the Passer penalty is involved.

Here a couple of head scratchers from last night

Play 7 - Video shows T.Glass field the ball on a bounce at the M15 and he is tackled at the M27 (12 yard return). The next LOS is the M32. It seems apparent that there was a 5-yard no yards penalty on the play (added to end of play).

PBP shows a 7 yard return (2 yards credited) with a 15-yard no yards penalty. This play was poorly scored on 2 accounts:

  1. Return was 12 yards not 7 yards
  2. Penalty was 5 yards not 15 yards
    If there was a 15-yard no yards penalty on the play then the entire return should have been wiped out. There is rarely a 15 yard penalty charged when the ball bounces.

Play 137 - Kickoff by B.Bede to -19 results in a 94 yard kickoff. The penalty for Illegal Participation should be a dead ball foul (added to end of play). Instead we get No Play & the penalty wipes out the entire kickoff. I suspect it was scored the way it is because of the Single which shows up in the play - auto generated for a deadball in the end zone.
Sometimes a template just doesn't work.

The only thing I can think of here (haven't watched the play) is that the officials decided that the Edmonton player didn't even try to vacate the five yard halo, that he was hovering over the ball waiting for Glass to pick it up. In this case, the 15 yard penalty can be awarded.

But that doesn't explain the "2 yards credited". I can't find this in the rule book at all. All it says is "L 15 from normal point of application". But "normal point of application" for 15 yard no yards penalties is from PBT (point ball touched).

I think you're right that the "no play" is more to indicate that the single is not scored, but instead the penalty is applied. The penalty for illegal participation where the player re-enters the field of play and then plays the ball is actually loss of ball. But inside the player's own goal area, that changes for some reason to the offending team getting the ball at their 10 yard line.

Illegal participation an inch outside the goal line, the other team gets the ball at the 1. Same thing an inch inside the goal line, you get the ball at the 10. Not quite sure what the logic is here.

I cant think of an example where RTP would affect the pass.

But if you look at the stats.....Bede lost 94 kick-off yards Stats show 2 for 157 when it should be 3 for 251

Im not sure what you are saying here Which team gets the ball at the one? The kicking team?

What I want to know is why did the ref run to Reilly to explain things before he went to mtl? Mtl had the decision to make

I don't think so....the player called did not run towards the returned....he ran parallel. He seemed to be trying to give the 5 yards

Agreed, Bede should get credit for the punt yards. I wasn't thinking of that part. You're right, it makes no sense.

As I said, I haven't watched the play yet. But the only way a 15 yard no yards penalty can be correctly called on a bounce is if the coverage player hovers. (Notice the word "correctly" here. The referee, and the eye in the sky, may have messed up the call.)

I'll try to watch the play when I get a chance.

Here's the rule.

[b][u]RULE 1 – CONDUCT OF THE GAME [/u] SECTION 9 – OUT OF BOUNDS Article 8 – Illegal Participation[/b] A player of either team, who goes Out of Bounds, except as a result of bodily contact, must remain out of that play.

If such player reaches back into or re-enters the field of play and touches or recovers a loose ball:


The abbreviations for penalty are:
  • LB Loss of Ball
  • PF Point of Foul

So if a player on Team A leaves the field and comes back on and then plays the ball, Team B gets the ball at that point. Of course, they're not going to award a touchdown if that happens in the goal area, although I could see some situations where they probably should. But in this case, Team A gets the ball at their own 10.

An inch either side of the goal line ends up with drastically different results. In one case, Team B gets the ball, first and goal from the 1. In the other, Team A gets the ball on their 10.

The thing is, I can't find this part in the rules anywhere.

Now I understand what you are saying but who is to say the refs applied the penalty properly…It would not be the first time they screwed up a rule

Maybe it should have been MTL ball on the 1

As I said, I can't find the rule covering that scenario in the rule book.

Wish they still had the "Ask the Official" forum that Higgins used to run.

I have been looking as well....

Here's the rule for penalties in own goal area.

[b][u]RULE 8 – APPLICATION OF PENALTIES[/u] SECTION 6 – FOUL IN GOAL Article 1 – Foul In Own Goal[/b] (a) If Team A commits a foul while in possession of the ball in its Goal Area, the penalty shall be applied from PLS or option.

(b) If Team B commits a foul in its Goal Area while in possession of the ball in its Goal Area, Team A may elect to:
(i) accept the one or two point score, if applicable, or,
(ii) decline the penalty and accept the play as it terminated or,
(iii) decline the score and require the penalty to be applied against Team B from its 10-yard line.

It appears that option (iii) was chosen. But the penalty is loss of ball. So now I'm thinking that it should have been Montreal's ball on the 10, not Edmonton's.

Interesting no matter how you look at it

I can think of two. Defender hits QB high & defender hits QB low while he's throwing.

Maybe but the incomplete should still count against the QB imo...I am going to have to check stats to see if this is common

You're right. This definitely wasn't a case of not giving room or hovering, so no reason for the 15 yard penalty. And the 15 yard penalty is always from the point the ball is touched, so no idea what the "2 yards credited" was for.

Looks like this ref was having an off night.