Tom Higgins
CFL.ca
Our fans’ passion for our game never rests. That was clear over the course of two “bye weeks” in which the game schedule was reduced but the number of questions to Ask The Ref continued to grow.
Several Rider fans asked about a play in the fourth quarter of Thursday night’s game in Toronto, which saw Argonauts defensive back Byron Parker intercept a pass from Saskatchewan QB Darian Durant.
A flag was thrown against the Argos for unnecessary roughness on the play, but Toronto retained the ball, and several fans wanted to know why the flag didn’t negate the interception.
Here’s what happened: After Parker had made the interception, his teammate, defensive lineman Ricky Foley, made what appeared to be a high hit on an offensive linesman and was called for unnecessary roughness.
As the infraction happened after the interception, the pick stood and Toronto retained possession of the ball. However, a 15-yard penalty was assessed against the interception return.
What caused some confusion was the TSN announcers originally identified the call as “roughing the passer.” They were incorrect. Roughing the passer was not called on the play. If it had been roughing the passer, the Riders would have retained possession of the ball and they would have been awarded an automatic first down.
Now let’s get to some of your other questions:
Q from KP: I would like to know how the referee knows where to spot the ball. Is there a difference between spotting a regular play and a TD? It seems that just the ball has to pass the line for a TD, whereas in a regular play, a player can’t just put the ball across the line to get first down. Thank you.
Tom Higgins: Officials are trained to spot the ball wherever it was when the whistle was blown.
Therefore, the spot of the ball is not determined by where the player’s knee was or helmet was but where the ball was when the player reached his point of forward progress (that is to say, before he was pushed or pulled back by tacklers.)
To score a touchdown, the front tip of the ball just has to cross the front edge of the goal line. Officials are taught to imagine a perfectly vertical plane of glass on the goal line: the ball simply has to “break the plane. “
In other words, the entire ball doesn’t have to cross the goal line for it to be a touchdown. On the other hand, the entire ball has to get out of the end zone to avoid a safety touch, meaning that the entire ball has to get to the other side of the plane.
Q from Glyne: A few weeks back, I was baffled by a call… A flag was thrown for an illegal procedure (offside) on the offensive team, but the play continued. Another penalty was called for pass interference on the defensive team in the endzone on the same play, and the ball was advanced, I believe to the one yard line.
My question is: shouldn’t the offside penalty on the offence negate any further action on the play, and void the pass interference call, since if the ball had been caught it would not have counted anyway? It seems the offence benefitted from an illegal play.
TH: Glyne, I’m not sure which play you’re referring to, but I can speak to what happens when there is “dual foul” with offside and pass interference on the same play.
If the offence is called for offside, and the defence is called for pass interference, the offence is penalized five yards, and the defence is penalized ten yards. Therefore, the offence would gain a net of five yards.
In this scenario, pass interference is considered a ten-yard penalty, no matter how far downfield it occurred, and even if it occurred in the end zone.
If the defence was called for offside, and for pass interference, the offence would likely take the greater of the two penalties, which in most cases would be the pass interference penalty
If the same pass interference occurred in the end zone, the offence would get the ball on the one-yard line. By the way, if illegal procedure is called on a play, the play is whistled dead before the ball is snapped.
If offside is called, the play is only whistled dead if the offside player was more than a yard beyond the line of scrimmage. If he is less than a yard offside, the play continues.
Q from SB: A kicked ball hits the ground but it is not touched by the receiving team. The kicker runs up and attempts to recover the ball but does not touch it before the receiving team recovers it. The kicker is closely followed by an offside teammate who is also within the five-yard zone when the receiving team recovers the ball. Is there a no yards penalty against the offside player who is behind the kicker?
TH: Yes, there is. The non-kicker within the five-yard zone would be assessed a “no yards” penalty.
Follow up Q from SB: Similar play but this time the kicker does touch the ball first, though he doesn’t recover it. The receiving team recovers the ball, with an offside player (other than the punter) in the five yard zone. Since the kicker touched it first, does that negate a no yards penalty or does it still apply?
TH: There would not be a “no yards” penalty in that situation. Our rule books states that the no yards zone is “determined by a circle with a five-yard radius, with the centre point being the ball at the instant it is first touched” by the receiving team.
In your scenario, the punter touches the ball first, so, there is no penalty.
Q from Bruce: Sometimes after a fumble, there is a big pile of players on top of the ball. It seems that the ball is awarded to the team holding the ball after the pile is un-piled, even though possession may have changed after the whistle. Can this be? How do the refs sort this out?
TH: The ball is to be awarded to the team that had possession when the whistle was blown to end the play. Sometimes, in this situation, you’ll see officials huddling to ensure that the right call is made, because only one or two of them may have the proper angle of vision on what was a mad scramble for the ball.
We don’t want possession to be awarded on the basis of who won a battle at the bottom of the pile after the whistle was blown. But the truth is that it is very possible that something like this can happen, especially if no official saw who had possession when the whistle was blown.
Q from Blake: How come coaches cannot challenge penalties that a viewer and commentator can clearly see in replay?
TH: Blake, coaches cannot challenge a call that wasn’t made or in other words, what they see as a missed call.
But there is one exception to that: coaches can challenge a play in which they believe a major foul (such as unnecessary roughness) was not called, and in turn caused a turnover.
Rules on video review, like all of our rules, are made by the CFL’s Rules Committee, which includes coaches and officials.
Things that can be reviewed using replay include whether a pass was complete or incomplete, or whether a fumble occurred before or after a ball carrier was down by contact. Things that cannot be reviewed include the recovery of a loose ball in the field of play or whether a field goal was good or not.
Q from Rob: Hi! I’ve noticed lately that there are a lot more “player-refs” – the kind that “helpfully” make calls for the referees, such as waving their arms as the “no catch” signal or pulling out a flag. In some cases, this appeared to work, as if they have “convinced” the referee to make a call in their favour…. To me, this kind of behaviour is unacceptable from players and should be rewarded with a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct flag. Is there a rule preventing players from complaining to refs or making signals as if they were a ref, and if not, why has one not been implemented?
TH: Hi, Rob. I thank you and I’m sure our officials’ thank you. But there is no specific rule that prohibits players from begging for a call by miming the throwing of a flag.
I agree, though, that this behaviour seems to be increasing and it is something the rules committee may want to address in the off season.
There is a rule that covers objectionable conduct, including “verbal abuse or (an) objectionable gesture directed at an opponent, official or spectator.” A player can even be disqualified for physical abuse of an official or spitting at an official, opponent or someone in the opposing team’s bench area.
Q from Lance: When is the league going to start enforcing the rules that apply to the benches? I for one am getting more than a little tired with seeing the coaches five yards out on the field or constantly in the ear of the sideline official.
TH: Thanks, Lance. You are now tied with Rob in the running to be The Officials’ Favourite Fan of the Week. Kidding aside, I appreciate the sentiment behind your question, as decorum of coaches and players, and officials for that matter, is important.
Our rule book states that “coaches shall not be permitted on the playing field at any time during the game, except with the permission of the Referee.”
In other words, we give our officials, and in particularly the Head Referee, a fair amount of discretion in this matter. If a coach is shouting instructions to a player in a noisy stadium between plays, or is trying to console an injured player on the field during a time out, encroaching on the field may be allowed.
If a coach is on the field during play, or is guilty of delay of game, he can be penalized. Some of our most accomplished coaches and officials are in conversation throughout much of the game. They know the difference between seeking an explanation from an official and abusing one, or disrupting the flow of the game.
Q from Ken: As a faithful Blue Bomber fan for decades, I must confess I was initially not a fan of Andre Proulx’s work, particularly when Montreal came to town. For whatever reason, this completely unbiased Blue Bomber fan (wink wink) used to think he favoured the Alouettes. When I watch Mr. Proulx now, it is very clear that he is one of the best referees to have ever officiated in the CFL. Congratulations to Mr. Proulx and the rest of your fine crew of CFL officials!
TH: Ken, you just edged out Rob and Lance for that Fan of the Week honour, at least in Andre’s estimation. I hope you haven’t changed your mind about him just because the Bombers have a winning record! We do appreciate positive feedback, as well as criticism, from fans.
The latter is more common, but it comes with the job. However, both keep our guys on their toes. I believe our officials do a very tough job very well, not perfectly, mind you. This is a human endeavour, which means it is an inevitably flawed one. But I can tell you no one cares more about our game than our officials.
I’ve been privileged to be both a player and coach with some very fine teams, and I’ve never been prouder of the people on my team than I am today. I often remind people that there is no game without officials. But our officials will also tell you there is no game, and no CFL, without you the fans. You’re the folks you make everything possible. So we thank you.
Send in your questions to asktheref@cfl.ca
