Wearing Out the Rulebook

Published on October 18, 2009 12:31 PM by dbo.

Yesterday’s ‘Riders — Stamps contest probably wore out a few rulebooks as well as hearts with some rare calls and back-and-forth play. Luckily we have the rulebook online for those that don’t carry around a dog-eared copy of the most recent CFL rulebook. Here are the supporting rules for the calls in question.

I get that people are upset and emotional after games, but posting on sites and forums across the Internet the clich├ęd reaction that the CFL will never compete with the NFL because of its poor officiating and other such statements is actually damaging to the image of the CFL. Many will still believe their team was screwed after reading these rules and that is fine. Disparaging the league of your team actually hurts both when many are trying to build on the recent growth of the CFL. Image is one thing the league is fighting and claims that the league and it’s officiating is secondary are damaging and stay out there forever. Stick to arguing the calls and interpret the wording of the rule with the play as it happened (remembering it is a judgment call and judgments differ), but keep the over-reactionary run-downs of the toughest job in football to private conversations.

Still frustrated by the tie? Sure, everyone would like a winner be declared, but those four series, with scoring that occurred very quickly, took about another 30 minutes to play. There are considerations for broadcasters and fans when trying to come to an outcome. Hopefully the CFL will consider some overtime rule adjustments in the future to address this and other concerns for overtime in the playoffs.


Comments are closed.


Wearing Out the Rulebook was published on October 18, 2009 12:31 PM by dbo.

609 words.

This article is categorized under Game and tagged with rulebook.

Related Stuff

One Response to “Wearing Out the Rulebook”

  1. Tom Higgins explains the first 3 rulings after having his inbox flooded by Saskatchewan fans I would guess. He does little to defend the lack of a facemasking call in his explanation but defends the other two sufficiently. I'm sure those reading the explanations will not be satisfied, however much within reason the calls were.

    By dbo on October 20, 2009 2:12 PM