Yahoo Sports 
Argos' GM Jim Barker fined for positioning, Ticats' owner Bob Young fined for criticism of officials
The CFL's announcement of fines had some bigger names than normal this week. The weekly fine roundup is usually about players, but this time around, the league announced Wednesday evening that Argos' general manager Jim Barker and Ticats' owner/caretaker Bob Young were the ones receiving fines. Oddly enough, both fines appear to have stemmed from the same incident in Toronto's 26-24 win over Hamilton Saturday, and those fines come in curious amounts. From the league's release:
Toronto Argonauts General Manager Jim Barker has been fined $2,500 for violating the league's sideline policy by positioning himself on the goal line directly behind an official, and attempting to communicate with that official, during play #130 of last Saturday's game between the Argos and Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Barker has also been informed that he will not be permitted on the sidelines during play for the remainder the Argos' 2014 regular season and post season.
Hamilton Tiger-Cat Owner Bob Young has been fined $10,000 for public comments criticizing CFL officiating.
Drew Edwards of The Hamilton Spectator wrote earlier Wednesday that Barker's appearance on the sideline had sparked criticism from the Ticats and drawn a league review:
Several commenters and Twitter followers have asked about the fourth quarter offside call against the Ticats which gave Toronto a second chance after Hamilton stopped them on third-and-short near the Ticat goal line.
Here's a screen cap of the moment the play begins. In the background, you can see Toronto general manager Jim Barker standing directly behind the official who makes the offside call against the Ticats.
I asked the league for clarification on two issues – whether it was the right call and about Barker's positioning – and received a response from CFL vice president of officiating Glen Johnson (via director of communications Jamie Dykstra.) Here are my questions and the answers from the league.
Q. Does the CFL believe the correct call was made in that situation?
A. Yes, the correct call was made. The player was offside.
Q. Argo GM Jim Barker was positioned directly positioned behind the official who made the call. What are the rules regarding where team officials can stand during play and what, if anything, should have been called? And will there be further follow up with the Argos from the league on this issue?
A. According to the rule book, the bench area is to be occupied only by substitute players in uniform and "other accredited persons". All such personnel are required to remain within the rectangular (bench) area. If the officials had spotted Mr. Barker near the goal line, the Argos could have faced an objectionable conduct penalty. They did not see him as they were focused on the play on the field. The league also has a sideline policy that requires team personnel to remain in the bench area. The league is investigating and Mr. Barker may face supplemental discipline.
So, Barker did wind up drawing that supplemental discipline, and being banned from the sidelines for the remainder of the year as well. Interestingly enough, though, it's Barker's actions that led to Young commenting on the situation on the Ticats' fan forums, drawing a fine for himself in the process. Here's what Young wrote (Edwards confirmed it was him):
So what you are arguing is that one team just has to keep the game close so that a blown call will help them win and that's ok, but the Ticats need to win by two touchdowns to "take the game out of the hands of the officials"?
Seems like you are suggesting the Ticats should be held to a higher standard than other CFL teams.
Unfortunately the other teams are working hard to get better too. So all teams need to win the occasional close game to be successful. The debate here is whether the CFL officiating is good enough to ensure that the outcome of the close games is fair. I would argue the CFL officiating is good and getting better, but still not good enough.
The biggest "controversy" is not so much the call itself, but is the Toronto GM coaching the sideline judge during the play. The result was the official called a very marginal penalty (we've been looking for a similar call on a marginal goal line hand infraction and cannot find one. Every other similar offside we can find has the player's hand offside by four or five inches or more. At the very least there should have been two penalties. The other for objectionable conduct to Toronto for their GM's blatant and successful attempt to influence an official on the field. And, yes, our rules and precedent allow for such a penalty.
As you might expect we (and the other teams) provide loud and pointed feedback to the League office whenever there is an officiating mistake. But the teams seldom publicly comment on these because over a season they tend to even out. The difference here is the Toronto GM's role. I'm looking forward to hearing how the League will ensure this -never- happens again.
In the end, the league probably got this right by fining both Barker and Young. It's unusual to see the general manager of a team on the sidelines (at least for teams who have a different head coach and general manager; teams like Hamilton and B.C. have one guy in both roles), but not unprecedented. It's bizarre to see that general manager directly engaging with officials from that close, though, and that far away from the team benches. It brings to mind controversial situations like what happened in the NCAA earlier this year, where USC athletic director (and college football playoff selection committee member) Pat Haden got in trouble for going to the sidelines and talking to the refs (something he was later fined $25,000 for, or 10 times what Barker got). Whether or not Barker's actions had any impact on the officials (they probably didn't), they at least led to a problematic perception, and the league was right to step in there. Fining him and banning him from the sidelines sends the correct message that his behaviour was unacceptable.
A fine for Young is also very defensible here. Young should be lauded for engaging with fans and getting his point of view out there, but he chose to do so in a way that was sure to be fined. First off, describing officiating as "not good enough" is always going to get you fined in this league. Beyond that, though, it's his comments about Barker that really deserve punishment. Young and the Tiger-Cats are well within their rights to have issues with Barker and his actions here, but those are the sort of inter-club gripes that the league would much rather handle behind closed doors. It's nice for fans and the public to see exactly what Young thinks, so if he's willing to do that and pay the fine, more power to him. It's completely reasonable for the CFL to fine Young for airing this dirty laundry in public, though.
What is curious is how the league fined Young four times what they fined Barker. (Interestingly enough, the amounts of these fines were made public, and player fines never are. That's because the CBA prevents disclosure of player fines, but the CBA's lack of applicability to Barker and Young makes for a much more interesting situation in this case, where we can see how severe the CFL judges each incident to be. Here, it seems like the CFL's priorities are askew. Both Young and Barker took problematic actions, and ones that deserved punishment, but Barker was out there literally violating rules and trying to gain an edge for his club; Young was only venting his complaints about the league publicly. Neither action does the CFL much good, and fines for each are justifiable, but it's curious to see the league determine that the perception issue arising from Young's comments is four times worse than the actual issue arising from Barker's actions.
