Glenn Fumbled?

[Saskfan in Winnipeg]

That was a strange replay call in the Winnipeg-Hamilton game. To me, it looked like Glenn lost the ball before being considered down by contact.

Video Replay Rules:

A.R. Fumble before runner down by contact

Team A ball carrier fumbles the ball with Team B recovering. Officials rule down by
contact at A’s 30 yard line. Replay shows that the ball was loose before the runner
was down.

RULING Reviewable play. B’s ball at point of recovery with no advance.

Now, based on my experience with an explanation of a "down by contact" call last year, I'm guessing that the Challenge Log will eventually note that Jake Ireland felt that Glenn's forward progress had be stopped, thus ending the play before the fumble.

Yeah, I KNOW THAT'S SPLITTING HAIRS! Here's why I'm thinking that way. Last year, there was a game that Brian, Linda and Brent Schule watched where a receiver jumped up and caught the ball. He was contacted by an opponent and hit the ground. The ball came out and was recovered in mid-air by the defence.

Mr. Ireland ruled that the receiver was DOWN BY CONTACT! When I talked to Tom Higgins about the call, he told me that since the receiver's rump had hit the ground first after being contacted and he didn't lose the ball at that point, he was considered down.

I told him that was not in the spirit of the rules and was being too picky considering that, before replay, the call would have been a fumble or interception.

So, based on the above, I have a feeling that is going to be the explanation. I will see if Mr. Higgins will contact me regarding this call.

[Saskfan in Winnipeg]

Boy, that didn't take long.

My theory was wrong.

The ruling on the field was that Glenn did fumble, but the fumble recovery has to be "immediate" for the fumble to be ruled recovered by Team B.

Mr. Higgins has talked to both coaches as well as the CFL panel. The CFL panel felt the ruling was wrong. Higgins may be blogging this call so the message gets out sooner.

The CFL will be looking at this type of ruling to see if they can define some sort of time element regarding "immediate". For example, you can't have the ball bouncing around for five seconds and then some player decides to jump on it. In this case, one Bomber was standing around like the play ended while another slid in to grab the ball.

Regarding the call I discussed from last year, the replay rule has been modified so that the practical application is that the ball carrier must survive full contact with the ground. Mr. Higgins admitted that the call they made during the game last year was a mistake.

Mr. Higgins noted that Instant Replay is still in its infancy and they are working hard to avoid these kinds of issues.

[Hambone]

Mr. Ireland ruled that the receiver was DOWN BY CONTACT! When I talked to Tom Higgins about the call, he told me that since the receiver's rump had hit the ground first after being contacted and he didn't lose the ball at that point, he was considered down.

I told him that was not in the spirit of the rules and was being too picky considering that, before replay, the call would have been a fumble or interception.

You are probably correct that pre-replay a fumble or INT would've been ruled because they may not have been able to split that rule hair without the aid of the replay. However with replay usually being able to accurately show what happened split second by split second it has to be accepted that rulings like you depicted here will happen. I never went to medical school but know enough about anatomy to realize that the rump is considered one of those body parts other than the foot or hand that can constitute a player being down. Ireland would have no choice but to make that call.

[Saskfan in Winnipeg]

I guess, technically, they had to make the rump call at the time. Thankfully, they've acknowledged that making that call was a mistake and have now modified their practical rulings.

[Colin Unger]

What bothered me about the situation the most was that the panel was trying to downplay the blown call after the game was over because it didn't change the outcome of the game. First of all who know what can happen in the CFL when a game is within a couple scores late. But in all likilyhood yeah the bombers were going down in steeltown. The thing the ticks me about this is that Winnipeg is now 1 point behind Hamilton in point differential. We've split the season series so far with two games remaining. It's very likily that the series will be split two games a piece and if Winnipeg ends up losing the season series by 6 points or less the blown call would in effect cost the Bombers two games in the stadings versus a team they'll need to beat out to make the playoffs.

[Saskfan in Winnipeg]

Interesting that the CFL admits it now erred with the Glenn non-fumble because, in the slow motion review, the fumbled wasn't recovered "directly and immediately" while in real-time it was.

Higgins has admitted that they have to consider the real-time aspect of the plays as well, which should be a given. For me, this call was a no-brainer (like that call last year). Sometimes, real-time viewing can give you the additional insight to make the appropriate call.