Potential rule changes for 2015

[ArgoRavi]

I think that this column by Bruce Arthur in the Star is a good launching point as to what rule changes, if any, should be made heading into next season to try to get the offences going again in this league: http://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2014/11/28/cfl_scoring_plunge_troubling_as_commissioner_cohon _exits_arthur.html

I am happy to see that people in the league are open to some rule changes. I agree with Kent Austin and Andy Fantuz that there is too much clutching and grabbing by defensive backs being allowed.

One thing that I would really like to see is the officials speed the game up. As Paul Woods has pointed out several times, we are seeing less plays now than we used to and the pace of the game seems to have slowed somewhat over the years. I am not saying that we need to have 20 seconds between plays - although that would be ideal - but it would be nice to see the officials reduce the amount of time that we currently see between plays by at least 5 to 10 seconds and really get the pace of the game back up. That would only help the offences IMO.

What rule changes, if any, would you like to see?

[doubleblue]

Less chinzy calls. That would speed the game up.

[paulwoods13]

Change the clock rules (as I have advocated ad nauseam) so that the 20-second clock starts as soon as ball and yardsticks are placed, not after offensive players are all in the huddle. And I like the idea of no touching by DBs (or receivers for that matter) anywhere on the field until the ball arrives.

[AngeloV]

And I like the idea of no touching by DBs (or receivers for that matter) anywhere on the field until the ball arrives.

If that is the case, get ready for plenty of 50-49 scores, and then the forthcoming abuse from the media about a glorified flag football league. I have no problem with contact on a receiver within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. The receivers already have a huge advantage with the waggle.

Personally,I agree with doubleblue. The borderline calls need to be eliminated. Holding down field 40 yards away from the play should never be called, but often is. The officials need to use common sense here and not call everything by the book.

[paulwoods13]

If that is the case, get ready for plenty of 50-49 scores, and then the forthcoming abuse from the media about a glorified flag football league. I have no problem with contact on a receiver within the first 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. The receivers already have a huge advantage with the waggle.

Personally,I agree with doubleblue. The borderline calls need to be eliminated. Holding down field 40 yards away from the play should never be called, but often is. The officials need to use common sense here and not call everything by the book.

The NFL is heading towards this (flag football, high scores, unstoppable offences). IMO all of football will look a hell of a lot different 10 years from now anyway, because of the concussion issue.

As for the borderline calls away from the play, the problem is that officials have no way to see anything other than their immediate area. A guy sees a player hold another, he throws the flag; he doesn't necessarily know that the ball is on the other side of the field. If the upstairs officials could wave off such calls, that would be a step in the right direction.

[zontar]

In the East Final during the review of PI on Breaux vs. Carter Prouxl asked the command centre if the the pass was catachable - clearly it was more out of bounds than Carter ever was - but penalty was called.
Either catch-ability doesnt factor in or Ireland is flat out incompetent. So the rule needs to be fixed or Ireland needs to be fired. Or both.

[ArgoRavi]

In the East Final during the review of PI on Breaux vs. Carter Prouxl asked the command centre if the the pass was catachable - clearly it was more out of bounds than Carter ever was - but penalty was called.
Either catch-ability doesnt factor in or Ireland is flat out incompetent. So the rule needs to be fixed or Ireland needs to be fired. Or both.

I must say that I saw that play differently. I thought that the ball was catchable if Breaux had not impeded Carter and that the correct call was ultimately made.

[ArgofanIan]

OK.... I would like to see the number of coaches challenges cut back to one ....per game .... at least for the regular season... and a 10 yard penalty... if the coach gets it incorrect.... if your at the game.... it sucks the life out of the game...most casual fans don't know whats happening.. to me with the 3 minute warning and the commercial breaks which I understand are needed....to me its being used as a time out and really breaks the flow of the game.... I promised I would only be positive on this site... but I really don't like the delays caused by the challenges....

[ArgoRavi]

David Naylor and Gary Lawless were talking about this issue a few minutes ago on TSN's pregame show. Expect there to be a rule that comes in where no contact will be allowed on receivers after the first five yards. Also, expect officials to let more of the holding on the offensive line go next season. Gary Lawless has mentioned this on more than one occasion in recent days but the league is also looking at having a QB camp in the spring where they would have the league's QBs tutored by the likes of Jeff Garcia, Doug Flutie and Warren Moon.

[doubleblue]

David Naylor and Gary Lawless were talking about this issue a few minutes ago on TSN's pregame show. Expect there to be a rule that comes in where no contact will be allowed on receivers after the first five yards. Also, expect officials to let more of the holding on the offensive line go next season. Gary Lawless has mentioned this on more than one occasion in recent days but the league is also looking at having a QB camp in the spring where they would have the league's QBs tutored by the likes of Jeff Garcia, Doug Flutie and Warren Moon.

Well it is hoped that Jake and Glenn will be told to have their guys use some discretion on the holding and "illegal blocks" calls, especially on the kick returns. How many times have I seen a tackler turn his back to draw a blocking from behind penalty on a kick return. Not difficult to tell a vicious hit from behind and little push.
The thing is will Jake and Glenn pay any attention to the orders. I sometimes think Jake puts quota's on the number of penalty's he wants called. lol

[Argocister]

Thanks for posting various comments from the pregame shows .... as I was unable to catch those.

I like the QB idea for the next couple of years ... only that 6 of 9 QBs this year were in their first or second year starting in the league. I really think that was a major factor in the low scoring games. Especially when the only QBs with experience were Ricky, Burris and Glenn. Ricky I rate an A but the others .... if not for the bunch of new QBs I'm not sure they would rate more than a C.

[ArgoRavi]

In his column about the new commissioner, the Star's Bruce Arthur alludes to four or five rule changes already being passed (possibly revealed next week) with some of them potentially being "eyebrow raising". Which rule changes do you think are coming? I suspect that one of them might have something to do with how much contact defenders will be allowed to have on receivers. Here is a link to Arthur's column: http://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2015/03/17/jeffrey-orridge-will-head-up-a-league-in-search-of-a-future-arthur.html

[ArgoZ]

I foresee a modification to the Rouge. At the very least, the missed FG Rouge.

[1argoholic]

The rules for a missed fieldgoal need to be left alone. I just want more better officiating across the board. Oh and PLEASE toss the flag on the Rider receivers more often when they get that huge jump on the snap. They are always offside.

[AngeloV]

I foresee a modification to the Rouge. At the very least, the missed FG Rouge.

The only change I would make is that the ball must be playable. If it sails through the endzone with no chance at a return, I say no point. That way you are rewarding your coverage team with a point, and not the kicker that missed the FG. Statistically, it should probably count as a team point, and not on the kicker's point total.

[paulwoods13]

Agreed. I've been pushing this for years. People complain about rewarding failure when a missed fg results in a single. I want it to be penalizing failure of the receiving team to bring the ball out of the end zone, either by choice or by getting tackled. If they don't have an opportunity to return the ball because it sails thru the end zone without landing inside the field of play, no point. However, I really doubt the league will change this rule at this time. They should be focusing on rule changes to encourage more offence.

[Fumblitis]

The rules for a missed fieldgoal need to be left alone. I just want more better officiating across the board. Oh and PLEASE toss the flag on the Rider receivers more often when they get that huge jump on the snap. They are always offside.Oh yeah and like no other team ever goes offside on the waggle. :s


Agreed. I've been pushing this for years. People complain about rewarding failure when a missed fg results in a single. I want it to be penalizing failure of the receiving team to bring the ball out of the end zone, either by choice or by getting tackled. If they don't have an opportunity to return the ball because it sails thru the end zone without landing inside the field of play, no point. However, I really doubt the league will change this rule at this time. They should be focusing on rule changes to encourage more offence. Totally like this post. I'd like to add that if the returner chooses to take a knee or willingly runs out of bounds (not forced) then the ball is placed on the 1. If he's tackled, the kicking team gets a point and the ball is placed on the 20.

[ArgoRavi]

Agreed. I've been pushing this for years. People complain about rewarding failure when a missed fg results in a single. I want it to be penalizing failure of the receiving team to bring the ball out of the end zone, either by choice or by getting tackled. If they don't have an opportunity to return the ball because it sails thru the end zone without landing inside the field of play, no point. However, I really doubt the league will change this rule at this time. They should be focusing on rule changes to encourage more offence.

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.

[paulwoods13]

I hear you, Ravi, but as I've said before, the current rule also allows a team to deliberately miss a short FG to get the single. It would be a travesty to have an important game end that way. Or on a punt from the 10-yard line.

[Argocister]

I hear you, Ravi, but as I've said before, the current rule also allows a team to deliberately miss a short FG to get the single. It would be a travesty to have an important game end that way. Or on a punt from the 10-yard line.

...... 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.

[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/cfl-toying-with-rule-changes-to-increase-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.

[ArgoRavi]

The Rules Committee has come out with their recommended rule changes and we can expect the Board of Governors to simply rubber-stamp these as they normally do: http://cfl.ca/article/shell-offensive-pass-interference-now-reviewable

I am quite happy with these changes. I would not like to see the three point convert used for anything but preseason games. The only thing that I am a bit disappointed in is that I would have preferred to see a blanket rule where there can only be 30 seconds between plays to speed up the pace of the Canadian game which has slowed considerably over the years but at least there has been some movement to try to step up the tempo of the game. I hope that the Argos take the lead in going with an up-tempo offence.

I would argue that these are the most significant rule changes in the CFL since about 1974 when blocking was allowed on punt returns. Converts are going to become much more interesting plays.

[paulwoods13]

The Rules Committee has come out with their recommended rule changes and we can expect the Board of Governors to simply rubber-stamp these as they normally do: http://cfl.ca/article/shell-offensive-pass-interference-now-reviewable

I am quite happy with these changes. I would not like to see the three point convert used for anything but preseason games. The only thing that I am a bit disappointed in is that I would have preferred to see a blanket rule where there can only be 30 seconds between plays to speed up the pace of the Canadian game which has slowed considerably over the years but at least there has been some movement to try to step up the tempo of the game. I hope that the Argos take the lead in going with an up-tempo offence.

I would argue that these are the most significant rule changes in the CFL since about 1974 when blocking was allowed on punt returns. Converts are going to become much more interesting plays.

I agree they wimped out on a bit the clock change. I hope our offence insists on fast start and we go to a hurry-up regularly.

I would actually like a three-point convert from the 10 but if they do that the two-point should go back to the five. Adds a lot more choice and unpredictability to the game.

[AngeloV]

I don't like the proposal to move the convert back by 20 yards. I like the fact that a team can line up for 1, and fake it and go for 2 if they find the defending team not paying attention. Can't see this ever happening from the 25 yard line.

I personally would have tweeked the rule to make all conversion attepmts come from either hash mark, rather than directly in front or the posts. A 12 yard kick is not a sure thing at that angle. Either that or take the kick out completely, keep the offence on the field and make a 1 point convertion from the 5 and a 2 point from the 10.

[paulwoods13]

I don't like the proposal to move the convert back by 20 yards. I like the fact that a team can line up for 1, and fake it and go for 2 if they find the defending team not paying attention. Can't see this ever happening from the 25 yard line.

I personally would have tweeked the rule to make all conversion attepmts come from either hash mark, rather than directly in front or the posts. A 12 yard kick is not a sure thing at that angle. Either that or take the kick out completely, keep the offence on the field and make a 1 point convertion from the 5 and a 2 point from the 10.

Second idea -- no kicked converts -- I could totally get behind. On the first point, I don't think I have ever seen a team deliberately run a two-point play out of kicking formation so I think it's a theoretical loss rather than a real one.

I think if the kicking team gets an illegal procedure penalty on a kicked convert attempt, there is a good chance they will take the kicker off and revert to a two-point try (from the eight instead of the three) rather than try a 37-yard kick.

[Fumblitis]

If you scroll down past the Rider stuff, Brendan Taman gives an interesting observation of behind the door scenes on the CFL rules committee.

http://www.rodpedersen.com/2015/03/the-latest-on-riders.html?m=1

[gilthethrill]

Second idea -- no kicked converts -- I could totally get behind. On the first point, I don't think I have ever seen a team deliberately run a two-point play out of kicking formation so I think it's a theoretical loss rather than a real one.

I think if the kicking team gets an illegal procedure penalty on a kicked convert attempt, there is a good chance they will take the kicker off and revert to a two-point try (from the eight instead of the three) rather than try a 37-yard kick.

As for the no kicked converts, I believe the WFL in the 1970's had a similar rule....teams went for what was called an "Action Point" after a TD. Not a bad concept really.

[doubleblue]

Naylor was saying the CFL is going to kick from the 25 yard line for a convert, or the three yard line for a two pointer. The NFL from the 15 yard line, which is the same (25 yards to the uprights) and the one and a half yard line for the two points.

I can live with that. The Argos will have a advantage with their home games at the Dome. Could get a little tricky in Regina and Winnipeg on windy days. I guess a penalty will still get added to the kickoff.

[ArgoRavi]

An interesting column from former CFL referee Don Barker which was provoked by the recent proposed rule changes: http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Barker+Hall+Fame+referee+changes/10948264/story.html

Barker makes a lot of sense up to the second last sentence.

[T-Bone]

Major rule changes approved by CFL Governors (http://www.cfl.ca/article/major-rule-changes-approved-by-cfl-governors)

[Fumblitis]

Overall I'm pretty happy with this. I wish they would have at least trialed the 3 point convert in the pre season.

[gilthethrill]

I am not at all pleased that coaches are no longer allowed to request a measurement.

[ArgoRavi]

I am not at all pleased that coaches are no longer allowed to request a measurement.

I am quite pleased with this. There was little more frustrating than watching a team scrimmage from their own 35 yard line and yet the coach would call for a measurement when it was clear to everyone in the stadium that the first down marker was at the 45 yard line. IMO, this removes one of the stalling tactics which has been slowing this game down.

[paulwoods13]

I agree, Ravi. I also think refs have been refusing some requests in recent seasons anyway. This just makes clear whose job it is to determine a measurement is needed.

[doubleblue]

Major rule changes approved by CFL Governors (http://www.cfl.ca/article/major-rule-changes-approved-by-cfl-governors)

To me the biggest impact may well be the 5 yard contact rule on passing plays. That could open up things for the receivers if the DB's can't bump and pull on sweaters anymore. Of course those things should already have been called for PI's, but were let go. More zone coverage there I guess.
Punt returns may benefit as well from the 5 guys on line being held up until the ball is kicked. But I believe a high percentage of big punt returns are called back for illegal blocks, so not much gained there. Otherwise everything else won't make a lot of difference once the Coaches and Players adjust IMO. Don't really see any reduction in flags though, maybe more. Penalty calls are probably the biggest time consumers. Head Referees seem to be more well known then most of the Players.
But at least the rules committee are trying. Now the Coaches will have to come up with ways to beat the system. The smart ones always do.

[Fumblitis]

I agree, Ravi. I also think refs have been refusing some requests in recent seasons anyway. This just makes clear whose job it is to determine a measurement is needed.Well, as much I like the idea of speeding up the game, I hope the refs are prepared to be a little more attentive to where it should be spotted or we're gonna have a lot of blown calls.

[paulwoods13]

Well, as much I like the idea of speeding up the game, I hope the refs are prepared to be a little more attentive to where it should be spotted or we're gonna have a lot of blown calls.

Spotting the football is far from a precise science and won't be until they place a transmitter in the ball. How do they know where to spot a ball after a fumble with eight guys piled up? In any case, coaches being unable to call for a measurement won't change that -- calling for a measurement didn't mean getting a different spot.