Potential rule changes for 2015

[Fumblitis]

I have to disagree. If a team moves the ball down to the opposition 20 and kicks the ball through the endzone, why should they be penalized by getting 0 points as opposed to the team who moves it only to the 35 and kicks the ball but doesn't get it out of the endzone and might still get 1 point? IMO this seems like penalizing the team who moved the ball further down the field. I would prefer to see this rule left alone.

I agree with you though on focusing on rule changes to promote more offence.

Ok should a team miss a 20 yard field goal in the first place? And also, if the miss is from the 35, shouldn't a team that hustles down to cover the missed field goal and gets the returner in the end zone, shouldn't a rouge be awarded on the kicking teams effort?

[ArgoRavi]

...... or a punt from the 55 ......

But many games have ended that way and thats what makes it Canadian ..... you have to plan for that as well in your game strategy . Don't take possibilities away .... it takes away from the excitement.

Your post brings to mind a great finish from back in 2000 when the Argos were fighting to stay in the playoff hunt in a must-win game at home against Winnipeg. With the game tied in the final seconds, Noel Prefontaine delivered a great punt that went into the Winnipeg endzone. The returner (Albert Johnson III perhaps?) tried to get the ball out of the endzone but was tracked down by special teams demon Brad Elberg and the Argos scored the winning point to remain in playoff contention for another week.

Ok should a team miss a 20 yard field goal in the first place? And also, if the miss is from the 35, shouldn't a team that hustles down to cover the missed field goal and gets the returner in the end zone, shouldn't a rouge be awarded on the kicking teams effort?

What about the effort to get to the opposing team's 20 as opposed to the 35. Why should a team be penalized for driving the ball further down the field? As it stands currently, the rules around the rouge make perfect sense from a field position perspective.

I have always looked at the single point in another way - you get a single if you kick the ball through the endzone or into the endzone and the ball is not returned but you get two bonus points if you kick the ball through the uprights.

[AngeloV]

I have to disagree. If a team moves the ball down to the opposition 20 and kicks the ball through the endzone, why should they be penalized by getting 0 points as opposed to the team who moves it only to the 35 and kicks the ball but doesn't get it out of the endzone and might still get 1 point? IMO this seems like penalizing the team who moved the ball further down the field. I would prefer to see this rule left alone.

I agree with you though on focusing on rule changes to promote more offence.

I disagree Ravi. That's like saying if a team moves the ball down to the opponents 1 yard line and fumbles through the end zone, they should be rewarded for moving the ball. The worst scenario, and I've seen it, is in a tie game, a team moves to the 20 yard line, line up for a FG and intentionally kick it way wide for a single, so that the ball doesn't hit the upright which would result in a dead ball and no point.

I stand by what I said that a single should reward good hustle in terms of kick coverage, rather than missing the attempt.

[Fumblitis]

Your post brings to mind a great finish from back in 2000 when the Argos were fighting to stay in the playoff hunt in a must-win game at home against Winnipeg. With the game tied in the final seconds, Noel Prefontaine delivered a great punt that went into the Winnipeg endzone. The returner (Albert Johnson III perhaps?) tried to get the ball out of the endzone but was tracked down by special teams demon Brad Elberg and the Argos scored the winning point to remain in playoff contention for another week.



What about the effort to get to the opposing team's 20 as opposed to the 35. Why should a team be penalized for driving the ball further down the field? As it stands currently, the rules around the rouge make perfect sense from a field position perspective.

I have always looked at the single point in another way - you get a single if you kick the ball through the endzone or into the endzone and the ball is not returned but you get two bonus points if you kick the ball through the uprights.

A place kicker is paid to make field goals, not score rouges. Your point about field position carries some validity regarding punters. They get paid to punt for: 1. Distance 2. Coffin Corners and 3 In the case of the the Seahawks where Ryan is instructed to kick as high as he can for the cover team to cover the return. Ravi, I'll buy your argument as far as rewarding the punter but not the place kicker. At least not in regard to field goals unless the kicking team corrals the returner in the end zone.

[doubleblue]

I disagree Ravi. That's like saying if a team moves the ball down to the opponents 1 yard line and fumbles through the end zone, they should be rewarded for moving the ball. The worst scenario, and I've seen it, is in a tie game, a team moves to the 20 yard line, line up for a FG and intentionally kick it way wide for a single, so that the ball doesn't hit the upright which would result in a dead ball and no point.

I stand by what I said that a single should reward good hustle in terms of kick coverage, rather than missing the attempt.

I wouldn't want to see any rules changed. The CFL is what it is love it or not. I can remember a few times in years past where a punter was injured and a place kicker was used in a punting situation because he could get more distance (fifty yards) kicking from a hold position rather than punting. With a rule change that would nulify a single if the palce kicker happened to get a good wind and roll. The founding fathers probably did a ot of "what ifs" in making the rules, and I don't think people today are any smarter.

[AngeloV]

With a rule change that would nulify a single if the palce kicker happened to get a good wind and roll.

Actually, in my scenario, it wouldn't because the ball hit in the field of play. I only want no single if the ball flies through the endzone without touching in the field of play.

[paulwoods13]

The founding fathers probably did a ot of "what ifs" in making the rules, and I don't think people today are any smarter.

The founding fathers invented a sport that was based primarily on punting for singles, actually. The modern game is so different from the game 70 or more years ago as to be almost incomparable. Would anyone watch nowadays if teams played for field positions and rouges? Not likely, but that was the essence of the game up to about the mid-1950s.

[doubleblue]

The founding fathers invented a sport that was based primarily on punting for singles, actually. The modern game is so different from the game 70 or more years ago as to be almost incomparable. Would anyone watch nowadays if teams played for field positions and rouges? Not likely, but that was the essence of the game up to about the mid-1950s.

Actually the CFL game today is still a lot about field position mainly because of the three downs. I guess Nick Volpe would be a good man to ask, but IMO the biggest difference is the emphasis on passing more than running the ball. I admit the size of the players and their equipment is incomparable now but that is beside the point.

[paulwoods13]

Actually the CFL game today is still a lot about field position mainly because of the three downs. I guess Nick Volpe would be a good man to ask, but IMO the biggest difference is the emphasis on passing more than running the ball. I admit the size of the players and their equipment is incomparable now but that is beside the point.

What's not beside the point, IMO, is that when the rouge was invented it was considered a primary way to score. Now it represents a tiny fraction of total points scored. I love the rouge and would never want to lose it entirely, but I don't think tweaking rules to change when it's awarded (and make its application reliant on the receiving team either conceding or trying to advance the ball, rather than watching as the ball sails out of bounds unplayable) would be heretical. (I'm not saying you are saying that, to be clear.)

[Mookie Fan]

Your post brings to mind a great finish from back in 2000 when the Argos were fighting to stay in the playoff hunt in a must-win game at home against Winnipeg. With the game tied in the final seconds, Noel Prefontaine delivered a great punt that went into the Winnipeg endzone. The returner (Albert Johnson III perhaps?) tried to get the ball out of the endzone but was tracked down by special teams demon Brad Elberg and the Argos scored the winning point to remain in playoff contention for another week.

I remember that play. Two things that made that play so exciting were that 1 - Albert Johnson III was one of the fastest players in the league at the time, and 2 - he was literally only about one yard away from getting the ball out of the endzone when he was tackled. The crowd at that game was at most about 18,000, but they certainly were loud. That dispels the myth that crowds are only loud in the Rogers Centre (then Skydome) if they are large.

Personally I think most of the rules of the game are fine. I like them the way they are. One thing I would change is I would allow the officials to exercise more discretion around the issue of legal versus illegal tackles. If a player makes what was once seen as a perfect, clean tackle, and doesn't purposely lead with their head, I think they should never be flagged. Too often players simply make hard hits and are flagged, even if the opposing player (often a quarterback) invites the contact and isn't obviously injured on the play. We cannot expect a player to slow instantly and avoid contacting a QBs head if the QB exposes himself foolishly, ducks down and invites the contact. Quarterbacks have some responsibility to protect themselves too. Doug Flutie almost never took a hard hit. Less mobile QBs can rely on a quick release or can throw to ball away faster, or hit the turf to avoid most or all of the contact during a given play.

Aston's Whiteside's hit last year against Edmonton's Mike Reilly was a perfect sack and should not have been flagged. That call could have ended up costing Toronto the game, and if I recall correctly luckily it didn't. I even remember Marcus Ball a few years ago making a perfect hard form tackle that was clearly not a headshot and he was flagged. I realize there have been a lot of QB injuries, and we need to protect the QBs, but this is contact football.

Another change I would make is I would have teams scrimmage from mid-field during the overtime format, rather than from the 35 yard line as it is now. (If I recall correctly) I think teams should have to earn a good shot at a field goal, and not have one handed to them. This would also make OT more interesting I think.

The problem with the offence in the CFL last year had nothing to do with the rules. It had everything to do with bad play calling and lack of imagination by the coaches and offensive coordinators in the league last year. A lesser factor was the huge number of injuries to quarterbacks, receivers and other players on offence last year. Also, the expansion Ottawa Redblacks did water-down the talent on offence a bit, and offensive line play was pretty bad last year in my opinion.

[Wobbler]

The worst scenario, and I've seen it, is in a tie game, a team moves to the 20 yard line, line up for a FG and intentionally kick it way wide for a single, so that the ball doesn't hit the upright which would result in a dead ball and no point.

Wow - when did that happen, Angelo? I don't think I've ever seen such a thing, and it sounds like the sort of exotic scenario that shouldn't really be a factor in determining rule changes.

If I could pick a rule change I'd choose the obvious: National QBs should count as such for ratio purposes. I'm not especially concerned about Canadian content in the league, but QBs shouldn't be exempted from the ratio rule. Why are they? I've never seen an explanation for this.

Since that won't happen (for reasons I don't understand), here's my real wish: Let's grant officials the same leeway in determining player *intent* on roughing the passer calls that they have with contacting/roughing the kicker penalties. Inadvertent or minor fouls against the QB should still be penalized, but with a 5 yard rather than 15 yard penalty.

[AngeloV]

Inadvertent or minor fouls against the QB should still be penalized, but with a 5 yard rather than 15 yard penalty.

I like this one. Nothing worse than a two hand touch being called for a 15 yard RTP penalty.

[Fumblitis]

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/19...crease-scoring. I like the 30 seconds from when the ball is placed. We've been touting how much faster our game is but there's a lot of doddling by the refs when it comes to whistling in the 20 second play clock.

[paulwoods13]

I've been griping about the play clock for a few years. I have counted randomly in the stadium a few times and there are sometimes as many as 45 seconds (of play-clock time) between plays. The refs wait until the substitutions are made, and then start the 20-second clock running. In the old days the 20 began as soon as the ball and yardsticks were in place, and there was generally about 30 seconds between a whistle and the next snap. This change, if it happens, could add five to 10 snaps per game, which is an excellent thing.

[AngeloV]

I've been griping about the play clock for a few years. I have counted randomly in the stadium a few times and there are sometimes as many as 45 seconds (of play-clock time) between plays. The refs wait until the substitutions are made, and then start the 20-second clock running. In the old days the 20 began as soon as the ball and yardsticks were in place, and there was generally about 30 seconds between a whistle and the next snap. This change, if it happens, could add five to 10 snaps per game, which is an excellent thing.

I've been with you on this Paul. It would also be nice to see the clock stopped after a TD until the kickoff is fielded. It bothers me to no end to see time ticking off the clock on each convert attempt prior to the 3 minute warning.

[Fumblitis]

I've been with you on this Paul. It would also be nice to see the clock stopped after a TD until the kickoff is fielded. It bothers me to no end to see time ticking off the clock on each convert attempt prior to the 3 minute warning.

The only issue is if they move the convert back to the 25 like they're proposing. If that happens there will be misses with converts from 32 yards out and if there was a return the other way, it would be unreasonable to have the clock stopped for that play. Plus if the 2 point conversions become more prominent, the play might be extended which would make it reasonable to run the clock.

[ArgoRavi]

The pace of our game needs to get back to what it used to be. I love the 30 seconds between plays idea and really hope that it comes to pass. If I had to pick one rule change I would love to see, it is that one.

[Fumblitis]

Any thoughts on the punting team being behind the line of scrimmage till the ball is punted?

[Fumblitis]

The pace of our game needs to get back to what it used to be. I love the 30 seconds between plays idea and really hope that it comes to pass. If I had to pick one rule change I would love to see, it is that one.

Indeed!

[AngeloV]

Any thoughts on the punting team being behind the line of scrimmage till the ball is punted?

I don't know if I like that one. The no yards rule IMO is good enough. This type of rule may change the way punters have to punt, and you may see more line drive style punts away from the returner hoping for a big bounce or roll.