Als' Venables fined for hit on Jennings

[DanoT]

I can't find anything on CFL.ca but a weekly fine report on Riderfans says that the CFL fined the Als' Venables for a helmet to helmet hit on Jennings on a QB sneak. I think this was very obvious on replay but somehow the refs, who should be watching the QB missed it and then after a Wally challenge the Command Centre ruled no penalty. Now the CFL is overruling the Command Centre after the fact. Shouldn't the CFL fine the Command Centre and give Wally an apology?

The Command Centre has a growing repertoire of inconsistency and incompetence.

[aklawitter]

mickey mouse.

[Sir Purrcival]

Honestly, I thought that when a player launches himself like a torpedo and the primary point of contact is the head, shouldn't that be a penalty period? QB or no? Simply put it is a very dangerous play, poor tackling technique and just as dangerous to the tackler as the tacklee. As I recall, Dave Dickenson went down for a considerable period of the 2007 season for a very similar kind of hit although at that time, the league seemed to think that the point of contact was other than the head.

[Rammer]

That play as IR was called correct IMO. When a QB launches himself over the pile, things are going to happen. That said, watching the roughing passer challenge by the
Esks last night be successful, places a different level of protecting the QB.

The fine is more to make the player aware of his approach to tackle, as it could lead to a penalty.

[DanoT]

That play as IR was called correct IMO. When a QB launches himself over the pile, things are going to happen. That said, watching the roughing passer challenge by the
Esks last night be successful, places a different level of protecting the QB.

The fine is more to make the player aware of his approach to tackle, as it could lead to a penalty.

I'm not an authority on this but I think it is the other way around. I think that when a tackler launches himself over the pile at the ball carrier he has to ensure that he does not lead with his helmet and initiate helmet to helmet contact or else there is a penalty.

The CFL who did the fines, the ref, and the Command Centre don't all seem to agree on what is a correct call and what is correct player action. Both the Command Centre and CFL looked at the same tape and then came up with different assessments, CC=no penalty, CFL=fines player. Does any Lionbacker know something that the CFL doesn't, i.e. "What the Hell is going on out there?

I am aware that on a QB sneak the QB is a ball carrier and does not get the same level of protection as when he is in the pocket. But I still think Venables should have got a penalty.

[zeppo]

I'm not an authority on this but I think it is the other way around. I think that when a tackler launches himself over the pile at the ball carrier he has to ensure that he does not lead with his helmet and initiate helmet to helmet contact or else there is a penalty.

The CFL who did the fines, the ref, and the Command Centre don't all seem to agree on what is a correct call and what is correct player action. Both the Command Centre and CFL looked at the same tape and then came up with different assessments, CC=no penalty, CFL=fines player. Does any Lionbacker know something that the CFL doesn't, i.e. "What the Hell is going on out there?

I am aware that on a QB sneak the QB is a ball carrier and does not get the same level of protection as when he is in the pocket. But I still think Venables should have got a penalty.

I think the head shot should have been penalized. If the the same type of collision had occurred in the open field, with both the ball carrier and defender lowering their heads prior to contact,
an "unnecessary roughness" penalty would likely have been called.
Further, In the 2016 CFL rulebook, there is an expanded description of "spearing" which states that a player can be penalized for UR "when the player leaves his feet and launches themselves
at an opponent and uses their helmet as the primary point of contact to deliver a blow to an opponent".
The problem with Wally's challenge was that he challenged "roughing the passer" because "unnecessary roughness" is not challengeable. The "command centre" correctly ruled that
there was no "roughing the passer" on the play because there was no "passer". Subsequently, the CFL looked at the play, acknowledged that an UR penalty was warrented, and fined
the tackler.
The on-field officials missed the call, Wally wasted a challenge, and the "command centre" responded in the only way possible under the circumstances.

At least that's the way I see it.

[Sir Purrcival]

Just to make this point however is that the CC is able to call other penalties on the play if they are observed in the course of a coaching challenge. So from that point of view, while it may not have been a roughing the passer call, the CC still could have called UR and seeing as they were looking right at it, you kind of have to ask what good are they if they miss something blatant enough to warrant a fine after the fact?

[WestCoastJoe]

I do not know the rule on the play in question.

I do think head shots should not be in football, ever.

Protect the QB. Yes.

But it is a goal line play, where FBs frequently leap head first over the LOS. And they are met by defenders also leading with their heads. When the QB is deliberately running or leaping to get into the endzone, is he not a runner?

So they fined the Al's player. OK. For the head shot. What if it was a fullback trying to score, and he was met with a head shot?

Is the league clear on its policy?

Perhaps they need a special rule for goal line leaps over the LOS. Dunno if they have a special rule. Probably not.

[maxlion]

Major fouls are challengable if they lead directly to a turnover. In this case, Jennings did actually fumble the ball, which the Als recovered, but it was ruled that he was down before fumbling. If I recall correctly, the Als did challenge the fumble. If they had been successful, the Lions could have challenged the major foul and likely gotten a first down. In any case, the officials on the filed blew it by not calling the foul correctly in the first place.

[DanoT]

I still think the competence level of the Command Centre is low although in the last few games them seem to be speeding up some of the reviews. If the CC is going to get it wrong or make a no call anyway, then no point spending gobs of time reviewing and mulling over a decision.

Instead of eliminating challenges as some people want, i say If something is obvious on review, great make a quick reversal, otherwise go with the on field call, but make it snappy!

[zeppo]

Just to make this point however is that the CC is able to call other penalties on the play if they are observed in the course of a coaching challenge. So from that point of view, while it may not have been a roughing the passer call, the CC still could have called UR and seeing as they were looking right at it, you kind of have to ask what good are they if they miss something blatant enough to warrant a fine after the fact?

Excellent point, and one that did not occur to me while watching the incident unfold.