He has no choice but to wait until the offseason for that. It's the sort of change that has to be thought through thoroughly, not as a fast knee-jerk reaction. As noble and simple as the concept of empowering the Command Centre to call a penalty on such a play seems what are the implications? When Ambrosie arbitrarily reduced the number of challenges to one the #1 motivating factor was to improve the flow of the game because fans were fed up with the constant interruptions and "fishing" expeditions being used.Gridiron Ernie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 11, 2018 11:08 pmAmbrosie has issued a statment on the head hit: unfortunately he indicates waiting till the off-season to look into the role the Command Centre might play in these instances. But, at least it's in his mind to go that way.
https://www.cfl.ca/2018/11/11/randy-amb ... ridge-hit/
Dropping the number of challenges was a simple move. It improved game flow while all but eliminating "fishing" expeditions unless the coach still has the challenge flag burning a hole in his pocket in the waning minutes of a game. Ambrosie got the results he desired.....or did he? In the wake of yesterday's game some fans, perhaps some who lauded Ambrosie's decision to reduce challenges, are opining that maybe a coach should get a second challenge if they are successful on the first one; in other words creeping more challenges back into the game little more than a year after reducing them.
To allow the Command Centre to review such hits typically would come from careful consideration by the Rules Committee. The RC has to also consider the negative aspects of which obviously the impact to game flow would be most prominent. Do they give the CC carte blanche to stop the game to review every play where it appears helmet-to-helmet contact happens? Shoulder targeting head? All ball carriers? QB only? Carte blanche could easily add another 15 minutes to 30 minutes or more to the length of a game if the CC has to stop it to look at anything that looks close to an infraction. The challenge for the Rules Committee would be to come up with protocols that would allow for Command Centre reviews while at the same time keep game flow impact at a minimum.
As for allowing the "eye in the sky" to halt proceedings to review something like yesterday's incident that is really attempting to address the symptom, not the cause. The threat of such a review would not have prevented that play. If not for Lavoie stepping in front of Vallesi's view at the precise time the contact was made the call and subsequent 15 yard penalty very likely would have been made. No doubt supplementary discipline will happen, likely the same as Willis received. That would happen regardless of a penalty being assessed during the game.
To truly help take such plays out of the game there needs to be more pieces to the process than simply letting the Command Centre review and assess 15 yard penalties. They need to consider what the NCAA does which is to allow ejection of the player if the review determines the defender did indeed initiate the type of contact deemed to have crossed the line. In NCAA football a player can be ejected if contact is initiated with the crown of the helmet which is defined as any part of the helmet behind the face mask. Basically anything other than the grill to helmet could result in ejection; top, side and even the back of the helmet count as crown. Maybe the CFL needs to allow for 2 coaches challenges with the distinction being that one can be for football plays only while the other can only be used to challenge a play involving player safety.
