CFL
- Thread starter bob the dog
- Start date
I have seen the discussion on the play and re-watched it a couple times. The player was forced out of bounds by an Ottawa player. He immediately re-entered. This means he was a legal player. Only if he stayed out of bounds or went out on his own would he have been ineligible. The refs got it right and that is why Ottawa did not challenge and/or it was not overruled.
OK, NFL perspective here (I understand it may not be precisely the same}. If what Ski says is correct, the NFL could (should) call this a clean forced-out return.
I think the principle is the same for both leagues. I have seen the same called and not called for NFL for similar reasons.
Here's the play from GC 2024. Last play of the 3rd Quarter. Almost hard to believe Winnipeg did not get that call and it's come up a couple of times with players chasing loose balls.
The Argo player definitely gives MBT a shoulder that changes his line to the ball which appeared to be the previous criteria.
Punt
3rd & 19 at TOR 46
#29 J.Haggerty punt 0 yards to the TOR46 blocked by #49 M.Ayers recovered by WPG #37 B.Alexander at TOR27 #37 B.Alexander return 0 yards to the TOR27 (#45 J.Cassar) PENALTY WPG Illegal interference on a loose ball (#19 K.Wilson)
Looks like Toronto got a first down out of he play although Arbuckle gets intercepted a couple of plays later to swing the momentum back.
He isn't the passer if he doesn't have the ball.
Any position can do the pass behind the line of scrimmage and be the passer after throwing the ball. A sack would be a penalty if so.
Probably confusing myself with NFL games where the re-entering of the field might comes\ up more due to the width of their field but I can't remember a CFL player getting bumped out of bounds and returning to make a legal catch. You would think it would be the same for the D.
Also makes sense that the play was legal as their was no challenge. They do seem to change the rules quite a bit and mostly to suit themselves I might add.
Nothing to do with him being a QB but just a guy chasing the ball is the play they called in the GC. Water under the bridge already.
Did you buy that early Ford camper?
Appears Luke Wilson is the new CFL Anti Christ for comments made regarding the game which I think had some merit to it although that part is largely being ignored. One of his points was there is no urgency to the 2 minute drill because you never have to kill the clock and always get a reset before the next play is whistled in. I'll agree that the NFL does it better with the responsibility being with the team to stop the clock through an incompletion or going out of bounds. For BC to complete a play in the middle of the field with 8 seconds left and get a reset to line up for a field goal with under a second left was a joke. That said why Montreal dropped everyone back to the goal line was a strange call as well. Good for BC to get the points. Kind of a messy game all around imo.
I like the NFL timing rules better but there are many games where the final 2 minutes are you watching 3 plays of a QB kneeling down and the clock winding. Montreal should have covered the BC receivers to avoid that completion. I did not watch the game but I suspect they were playing the "prevent" defence which doesn't really work in the NFL and works even less in the CFL. All the prevent defence does is prevent winning. It's design is to prevent the head coach from being blamed for a miraculous TD reception of 90 yards to end the game. The long drive resulting in the game winning TD on a 15 yard pass is less embarrassing in the post-game press conference.
21-20 eh? We cancelled TV and WiFi so I haven't been watching. I sent the wife on holidays and cleared two floors of the house.