By Greg Frers,
CFL.ca
If you hear the wrong interpretation of a rule long enough, it eventually evolves into the rule.
I had the opportunity to participate in a league-wide educational process which, in my opinion, has been long overdue. The purpose behind this initiative was to clarify the wording of the most controversial calls to coaches and media in order to increase our awareness of how the game will be called. This will mark the third year the league office has initiated such a process, but marks the first time they have gathered both coaches and media into the same room at the same time.
Head of officiating George Black and senior advisor Jim Daley were front and centre in an attempt to establish a unified understanding of how the game is going to be called in 2007.
The three major issues that were identified and clarified for us were catch/no catch, illegal blocking and roughing the passer.
Poor officiating was once again a topic of concern through the 2006 season and I believe this interaction was a step in the right direction at improvement of our game. Will we ever get to a point where there is no longer any criticism of officials? No, but hopefully we can get to a point were the game remains front and centre and not the performance of the men in stripes.
From my time with Black and Daley, I definitely learned a few things.
Last year, Edmonton Eskimos receiver Ed Hervey jumped up in the air to catch a ball along the sideline with his back facing out of bounds. As Hervey came down with the ball he had firm control and his toe was clearly in-bounds. As his momentum continued the heel of his foot came down out of bounds. Was this a catch or non-catch?
According to the rule, if the last part of Hervey’s foot was his toe prior to going out of bounds, it would have been considered a catch. If, however, any part of his foot eventually lands out of bounds, regardless of the timing of this action, then the play is considered out of bounds. Therefore, based on the fact that his heal came down out of bounds on this play, the rule on the field should be considered no catch. Interesting stuff!
I also learned that there is a difference between a catch and possession. So when does a catch become possession? Rule 1, Section 3 of the rule book reads; possession means having the ball firmly held in hand or hands, arm or arms, leg or legs, or under the body. A ball is considered incomplete according to Rule 6, Section 4 Article 6 if; while in mid-air a receiver of either team who has firm control of the ball, but loses possession of the ball when that player’s feet or other part of the body hits the ground, with or without contact by an opponent.
I don’t know about you, but when I read this my head starts spinning. Obviously, you can appreciate why some clarity on the interpretation of this rule may be needed.
Bottom line, a catch becomes possession after the player survives contact with a player or the ground. So a player, who catches the ball in the air and clearly has control of the ball in the air, doesn’t have possession of the ball until he survives contact.
Expect officials in 2007 to aggressively call any “bang-bang” play incomplete. Keep in mind a bang-bang play is one that occurs so quickly that it is very difficult for officials to determine when a player catching the ball has possession.
Why will they do this? An incomplete pass is a reviewable call and the only ramification to this would be upon review to consider it a catch. This will remain the best aggressive call for the officials to make because it will impact the game the least. For example, if they consider it possession and a fumble then this scenario could drastically impact the flow of the game as the ball could be handed over to the defence. The last thing that we want is for the officials to dictate the flow of a game rather than the effectiveness of the players on the field.
Like it or not, the clarification was made and expect to see this executed in 2007. I for one appreciated the clarification and hopefully this will lead to more consistency on the field and consistency by the media in interpreting the calls.
Greg Frers played 10 seasons in the CFL with the Calgary Stampeders, Winnipeg Blue Bombers and B.C. Lions and has been a panelist on the CFL on CBC since 2003.
(The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of the Canadian Football League)
