I think I can explain the Blue Bombers' punts. The first was a designed play. After #20 passes, watch his movement: He's getting back onside. That *may* have been in anticipation of a return pass from #84. However, more likely he was expecting to have a chance at onside recovery of 84's punt. Montreal was caught by surprise, and the announcers mentioned another onside player, so it had a chance of success. The *second* punt by #84 looks like folly, but it's not as foolish as it seems. First of all, the fact that he got back there shows they expected to try another onside kick. It would still have been a high risk, low reward play except that if you look at 0:49, he sees official #51 throw a flag for Montreal #31's no-yards foul. Therefore he had nothing to lose by punting when he did. Probably it he doesn't draw that no-yards, he eats the ball or just tries to run it.
The play still doesn't make sense in the game situation. You accept a small chance of losing outright to have an even smaller chance of winning rather than just taking it to overtime. Even with Montreal surprised, the inside guy has to negotiate the field and both teams and recover the ball before anyone from Montreal can grab it and then get to the end zone. And Montreal is now in a position to attempt a return without any coverage scheme and have the opportunity to potentially punt it into your end zone to get a single. Montreal's return punt makes more sense because, with a bit of luck and/or a really good kick, you might get it into the end zone and force a single, which Winnipeg can't do in return. The second Winnipeg punt, sure, it is like the QB throwing a risky long bomb when the defense is offsides. The first one is a nice little Hail Mary if you are losing, but a bad idea in a tie game.
From my understanding, the first punt had a couple "onside" players who could have recovered and advanced the punt. They were behind the player who punted the ball. The CFL still has a lot of rugby influence in their rules.
You are right, but what's important to realize is that they also lined some people up behind the player who kicked it. Any of these players who are behind the kicker, as well as the kicker himself, are "onside," and they are allowed to recover their team's own punts. This means that if the kick didn't go far enough for a rouge/single, then one of the onside players could still recover and try to a) Run with the ball toward the end zone, trying to score a touchdown b) Kick the ball again toward the end zone, and hope for a rouge or another recovery. Here is an example of what Winnipeg was trying to do: ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html Here's a similar example, except that the referees made an incorrect call saying that the player who recovered was offside (not onside): ua-cam.com/video/GmRoEmBWmH4/v-deo.html
Some of the players obviously didn't know the rules. Kicking it from your own 2 yard line with no time left can only lead to disaster, with no benefit. Had it gone into the end zone and you can't get it out, then you would kick it out to prevent a single point, since it was tie.
I believe he was trying to kick it to his onside teammate who could recover the ball and advance to score. Ive seen it several times. High risk, high reward.
@@StarkTemplar yes, behind or parallel to the kicker. You can see the player who threw the ball initially get behind, or onside, of the kicker before he kicks it. There's a couple CFL videos on UA-cam of it working. This can be done at any time on the field.
@@lantron123 It could make sense as something of a Hail Mary kick if Winnipeg was behind (i.e. Montreal scoring is meaningless). But that kick is far more likely to result in Montreal scoring than Winnipeg. I almost wonder if he misjudged where he was on the field and thought he was in the end zone where the kick would be the right decision..
@@88porpoise @Shaun Young I think they were just taking a shot because there was no time left on the clock and to win the game and avoid overtime. You are correct that it could have backfired badly. But it couldve worked. Here's some examples of the onside kicks. This was known in American football as the "QB kick" until onside punts were outlawed in 1912 ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html
The most important thing to know here is that the score is tied. The second most important thing to know is that this is definitely the last play of the game before overtime. In the CFL if you punt the ball in the other team's end zone and the other team can't get it out, you get a single point. Because both teams need a single point to win, they are both trying to kick it into each others' end zones to win 24-23. But it doesn't matter who has the ball at the end of the play because the game will just go into overtime. This would be a risky move at any other point in the ball game because usually punting it back guarantees the other team's offence will come onto the field. You also hear the commentator say "Timothy Flanders is onside." This means that the kicker, or anyone behind the kicker, is allowed to recover their own team's punt and run with it, or more likely in this case punt it a second time to get it closer to the endzone. Hope this helps, you can see an example of an onside recovery here: ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html
Plays like this are super rare. Don't start thinking this is normal. I've been watching CFL for 50 years and I can only recall endings like this maybe 4 times. Fun when it happens. Even more fun when the ball gets punted into the end zone, because if the receiving team does not get it out, a single point is scored. If a player tries to run it out, he can be tackled just inside the goal line and give up the point. A single is scored only when the ball is kicked into the end zone and the receiving team does not get it out of the end zone. That is how a team can score when they miss a field goal. You don't automatically get a point. Most of the time the receiving team will kneel down and give up the single to get the ball further up field to start. If the game is close, they will definitely try to run the ball out. The single point is actually not very common anyways. I haven't checked the totals for 2023, but in most seasons there are only about 25 single points given.
It's tied. If either team punts in to the end zone, it's a single point for them and they win the game. That's why the commentator says "they could get a single here."
As was pointed out by the commentator, some of the kicks were unnecessary and actually risky. The rules allow it, but generally in a case like this you are kicking into or out of the end zone to get or to prevent a single point (a rouge) for the win. Once that was not happening, the kicking created a risk of someone running the ball back for a touchdown. With the size of the CFL field, that is a real risk with a talented kick returner. Note, there is no fair catches or touchbacks in the CFL.
I have never been more confused in my entire life. Man did a kick off then they proceeded to punt the ball 3 times in a single play. What in the fuck is this Canada?
In Canadian football, there is such a thing as an onside punt/place kick. Anyone behind the kicker, including the kicker may recover a kicked ball down field. The first kick was an onside kick attempt to catch Montreal off guard in hopes of advancing the ball to score. The second kick was a improvised attempt by the Montreal player to attempt to score a single point and thus win the game. The last kick, was kind of pointless, as no players other than the kicker were onside, but considering there was a flag on the play, it basically became a free play for Winnipeg, and thus there was no risk to kick the ball again, but again as no one other than the kicker was onside, there was almost zero chance of any reward for them, hence it really didn't matter at that point.
@@kikastraafter the second kick, the onside kicker really didn't have a chance correct. But with the chaos on the field, if a Montreal player mishandled it, all of a sudden it's a live ball again.
It's tied. If either team punts in to the end zone, it's a single point for them and they win the game. That's why the commentator says "they could get a single here."
CFL is the best.
Doesn't capture my focus over the NHL, but it's next up. Screw the NFL though.
you might be right. and i'm an american. i like american rules as well.
It’s stupid af. Nobody can even make sense of it. Why would Winnipeg dude punt it back? No way he’s getting it in end zone
🇺🇸 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
This American would love to see the onside punt in the NFL and NCAA.
Onside punts are fine in the NFL after a safety, or in a regular punting situation if the ball is drop kicked.
"WE'RE THE CFL: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON??!!"
Yess I'm confused as well😿 where's the rouge?
Rugby Lite.
I think I can explain the Blue Bombers' punts. The first was a designed play. After #20 passes, watch his movement: He's getting back onside. That *may* have been in anticipation of a return pass from #84. However, more likely he was expecting to have a chance at onside recovery of 84's punt. Montreal was caught by surprise, and the announcers mentioned another onside player, so it had a chance of success.
The *second* punt by #84 looks like folly, but it's not as foolish as it seems. First of all, the fact that he got back there shows they expected to try another onside kick. It would still have been a high risk, low reward play except that if you look at 0:49, he sees official #51 throw a flag for Montreal #31's no-yards foul. Therefore he had nothing to lose by punting when he did. Probably it he doesn't draw that no-yards, he eats the ball or just tries to run it.
I agree.
The play still doesn't make sense in the game situation.
You accept a small chance of losing outright to have an even smaller chance of winning rather than just taking it to overtime. Even with Montreal surprised, the inside guy has to negotiate the field and both teams and recover the ball before anyone from Montreal can grab it and then get to the end zone. And Montreal is now in a position to attempt a return without any coverage scheme and have the opportunity to potentially punt it into your end zone to get a single.
Montreal's return punt makes more sense because, with a bit of luck and/or a really good kick, you might get it into the end zone and force a single, which Winnipeg can't do in return.
The second Winnipeg punt, sure, it is like the QB throwing a risky long bomb when the defense is offsides. The first one is a nice little Hail Mary if you are losing, but a bad idea in a tie game.
CFL Football for ya
Love it!! Always entertaining to watch!
Great ending, #whowantsthefootball
i guess both teams are trying for a single to win the tied game. can someone explain to this american?
From my understanding, the first punt had a couple "onside" players who could have recovered and advanced the punt. They were behind the player who punted the ball. The CFL still has a lot of rugby influence in their rules.
You are right, but what's important to realize is that they also lined some people up behind the player who kicked it. Any of these players who are behind the kicker, as well as the kicker himself, are "onside," and they are allowed to recover their team's own punts. This means that if the kick didn't go far enough for a rouge/single, then one of the onside players could still recover and try to
a) Run with the ball toward the end zone, trying to score a touchdown
b) Kick the ball again toward the end zone, and hope for a rouge or another recovery.
Here is an example of what Winnipeg was trying to do:
ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html
Here's a similar example, except that the referees made an incorrect call saying that the player who recovered was offside (not onside):
ua-cam.com/video/GmRoEmBWmH4/v-deo.html
@@cflhighlights9370 thx. i feel better now. looks like a tough call for referee...keeping track of who's onside.
@@kevindickson2178 They always throw a flag for illegal recovery and then review it after.
CFL, gotta love it!
Now that's "foot"ball
Some of the players obviously didn't know the rules. Kicking it from your own 2 yard line with no time left can only lead to disaster, with no benefit. Had it gone into the end zone and you can't get it out, then you would kick it out to prevent a single point, since it was tie.
I believe he was trying to kick it to his onside teammate who could recover the ball and advance to score. Ive seen it several times. High risk, high reward.
@@lantron123 would the player have to be behind the person when they kicked the ball to be onside?
@@StarkTemplar yes, behind or parallel to the kicker. You can see the player who threw the ball initially get behind, or onside, of the kicker before he kicks it. There's a couple CFL videos on UA-cam of it working. This can be done at any time on the field.
@@lantron123 It could make sense as something of a Hail Mary kick if Winnipeg was behind (i.e. Montreal scoring is meaningless). But that kick is far more likely to result in Montreal scoring than Winnipeg.
I almost wonder if he misjudged where he was on the field and thought he was in the end zone where the kick would be the right decision..
@@88porpoise @Shaun Young I think they were just taking a shot because there was no time left on the clock and to win the game and avoid overtime. You are correct that it could have backfired badly. But it couldve worked. Here's some examples of the onside kicks. This was known in American football as the "QB kick" until onside punts were outlawed in 1912 ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html
resembles tennis
Ha!
Ok I'm new to the CFL, what are they doing? Why is the return team kicking it back? And why does it appear that nobody wants the ball? Lol
The most important thing to know here is that the score is tied.
The second most important thing to know is that this is definitely the last play of the game before overtime.
In the CFL if you punt the ball in the other team's end zone and the other team can't get it out, you get a single point.
Because both teams need a single point to win, they are both trying to kick it into each others' end zones to win 24-23. But it doesn't matter who has the ball at the end of the play because the game will just go into overtime. This would be a risky move at any other point in the ball game because usually punting it back guarantees the other team's offence will come onto the field.
You also hear the commentator say "Timothy Flanders is onside." This means that the kicker, or anyone behind the kicker, is allowed to recover their own team's punt and run with it, or more likely in this case punt it a second time to get it closer to the endzone.
Hope this helps, you can see an example of an onside recovery here: ua-cam.com/video/lxamINDRc_8/v-deo.html
Plays like this are super rare. Don't start thinking this is normal. I've been watching CFL for 50 years and I can only recall endings like this maybe 4 times. Fun when it happens. Even more fun when the ball gets punted into the end zone, because if the receiving team does not get it out, a single point is scored. If a player tries to run it out, he can be tackled just inside the goal line and give up the point. A single is scored only when the ball is kicked into the end zone and the receiving team does not get it out of the end zone. That is how a team can score when they miss a field goal. You don't automatically get a point. Most of the time the receiving team will kneel down and give up the single to get the ball further up field to start. If the game is close, they will definitely try to run the ball out. The single point is actually not very common anyways. I haven't checked the totals for 2023, but in most seasons there are only about 25 single points given.
man, seeing Durant with the Als looks fucking wrong.
Facts 🤣🤣
Looks a lot more like rugby than american football especially with the back pass and then a kick
What in the Canada did I just watch
It's tied. If either team punts in to the end zone, it's a single point for them and they win the game. That's why the commentator says "they could get a single here."
As was pointed out by the commentator, some of the kicks were unnecessary and actually risky. The rules allow it, but generally in a case like this you are kicking into or out of the end zone to get or to prevent a single point (a rouge) for the win. Once that was not happening, the kicking created a risk of someone running the ball back for a touchdown. With the size of the CFL field, that is a real risk with a talented kick returner. Note, there is no fair catches or touchbacks in the CFL.
A mutant form of football
@@Handlethis81637 I think that's what the NFL is 😂
This is still from the pure side from it's rugby days.
Wtf happened?! The game was tied. Going to OT. That was too risky
As long as the ball is live, a team can pick it up and kick it out of the back of the end zone and score 1 point.
What the hell is going on eh?
Both want to kick it in the end zone for a single point so they don’t have to go to overtime.
I have never been more confused in my entire life. Man did a kick off then they proceeded to punt the ball 3 times in a single play. What in the fuck is this Canada?
In Canadian football, there is such a thing as an onside punt/place kick. Anyone behind the kicker, including the kicker may recover a kicked ball down field. The first kick was an onside kick attempt to catch Montreal off guard in hopes of advancing the ball to score. The second kick was a improvised attempt by the Montreal player to attempt to score a single point and thus win the game. The last kick, was kind of pointless, as no players other than the kicker were onside, but considering there was a flag on the play, it basically became a free play for Winnipeg, and thus there was no risk to kick the ball again, but again as no one other than the kicker was onside, there was almost zero chance of any reward for them, hence it really didn't matter at that point.
@@kikastraafter the second kick, the onside kicker really didn't have a chance correct.
But with the chaos on the field, if a Montreal player mishandled it, all of a sudden it's a live ball again.
@@Actionronnie correct. Its highly unlikely that the kicker would have gotten to the ball, but once mishandled, any player could touch it.
Wtf
Ummmm what the fuck am I watching........
It's tied. If either team punts in to the end zone, it's a single point for them and they win the game. That's why the commentator says "they could get a single here."
They are trying for the Rouge it's a 1 point play in CFL just UA-cam CFL the rouge explained to much to type
The original, North American, Football
What a joke
Care to elaborate?
Why?
@@cflhighlights9370 NFL troll, ignore.
you sure are
origional rules of football are likely difficult for you to understand