2010 Rule proposals..

Ok, so looks like Cohon seems to want o focus on the OT rules.. but I say, they're fine.

he says that they will not discuss the same rule changes 2 years in a row.. so forget about the ideas of changing the new rules that were added or changed last season. they wanna focus on NEW ones.

the only one I can honestly think of, is to make the 15yd Penalty on No Yards Mandatory, remove the 5yd penalty option on a bounce.

[quote]Fans invited to work O.T. on CFL’s O.T.
< Return to Article

January 28, 2010

Our League to Our Fans: LET’S WORK OVERTIME ON OUR OVERTIME
Canadian Football League Commissioner Cohon invites fans to give their input on possible rule changes with a particular focus on overtime

TORONTO – Canadian Football League (CFL) fans are being asked to propose rule changes this year with a particular emphasis on how to improve the game’s overtime format, says CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon.

“We had a tremendous response last year from fans when we asked for the very first time for their ideas on how to improve our rules,? Cohon said.

“So this year, we’re inviting their input on possible rules changes across the board, but we’re asking them to particularly focus on our overtime format.?

Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent’s 35-yard line, until it makes a score or loses possession.

If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

If the score is still tied after each team has had two attempts, the game is declared a tie, if it’s a regular season game. If the game is a playoff or championship game, the same procedure continues until a winner is finally declared.

Some of the questions fans may want to grapple may include:

• Is the series-of-downs format superior to the old system of extra overtime periods or halves?
• Should teams scrimmage from somewhere other than the 35 yard line?
• Should teams be required to drive for a touchdown instead of settling for a field goal, or should teams be required to attempt a two-point convert following a touchdown?
• Does the overtime format really need changes, or is it already as good as it can be?

“Some of our most exciting games last season, including one of our playoff games, were decided in overtime, and that prompted some discussion among fans about our format,? Cohon said in a message to fans posted on the league’s website, CFL.ca, and team sites that form the CFL Network.

“We have tremendous respect for the knowledge of our fans, and their dedication to the tradition and future of our league, so we’d like to turn that informal overtime discussion into specific ideas that our league can consider as it looks towards the 2010 season.?

Fans are asked to send their proposals, including their overtime ideas, by visiting CFL.ca/rules or by emailing – http://www.cfl.ca/article/fans-invited- … -cfl-s-o-t

I have already emailed them saying I prefer how it is done now. It’s exiting, usually ends up with a winner (this is not based on any statistical data, i could be wrong in this actually and would be interested if I was), and finishes in a relatively timely manner.

I say make em start from the 55 yard line. As it is not its boring because a team is in field goal range right from the start.
At least make them work to get within field goal range.

well possibly the one thing you could do is make teams have to go for a TD if they're inside the 10yd line...

perhaps make singles not count in OT if they miss.

You know, when they did this last year, it was kind of cool... but what gives? Is this going to become an annual thing? I can see that wearing thin real fast! We're gonna start changing the game for the sake of change.

Regarding OT, I say don't change it. I like it the way it is. The CFL has one of the better OT formats. The one suggestion included in the article is just stupid: "Should teams be required to drive for a touchdown instead of settling for a field goal, or should teams be required to attempt a two-point convert following a touchdown?" Why should a team be forced to do something?

Can't say I'm at all thrilled with this...

The only thing I would change is starting from mid-field. I like the CFL's format, much better then the NFL. Which in my humble opinion sucks. In the NFL it is sudden death..and the team that wins the coin toss..usually wins.

I'm OK with no FG's but Agree with most of the posters here, it's fine the way it is and I would hate teh CFL to become like the NHL where they "tweek" the rules every year.

Now one rule change I can get behind. More Canucks staring and less imports on the rosters.

Seems like most of us agree...the CFL's OT format is great, except starting on the 35 makes it too easy.

I was at the Grey Cup 2005 game in BC, the first Grey Cup to go to overtime. It was a fantastic game, and it was exciting that it went to overtime. But, it took 3 possessions by each team to determine a winner. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but that day, both the Montreal and Edmonton offenses were on such a roll that they were impossible to stop. Ray and Calvillo were gunning for the end zone right from 1st down. It was just too easy to score from the 35.

Put the ball on the 55 yard line. What is more Canadian than winning the Grey Cup in OT, starting from the 55?!!

Start at the 25 yard line, first team that scores a touchdown wins. Home team get's first possession. The hell with field goals and singles.

that does NOT work at all.. you're basically making it look like the NFL!.. yuck.

it anything, you push them back 10 yards and make them have to do a little work to get the points, no automatics.

The OT rules are fine the way they are IMO.

I'm content with the status quo but would be open to change. Overtime rules have changed before they can change again. The sport itself was born out of gradual change from rugby. The commissioner isn't asking for wholesale changes to the game, he's just asking for feedback on OT. The current format is less than a decade old. Is it really better than what we had before or is it the best possible?

In my ideal sports world, North Americans wouldn't be so disappointed with a tie. Ideally, the game is 60 minutes and up. If no team can pull ahead of the other, if each team makes the exact same number of great, entertaining plays then I think a tie is the perfect result.

But I accept we live in the world of scripted 'reality' television and the drama of a win and loss is demanded whether the competitors' performances warrant it or not. So hockey has sudden death, shootouts, baseball has extra innings and football a variety of ways for forcing a win and loss.

[b]There are some who critique the current CFL OT format for sacrificing fundamental parts of the game. Gone is game clock management, driving down the field, kick-offs, punts and kick returns. I'd imagine the current format was brought in to keep game times to a minimum for TV. Two, 5 minute halves amount to almost another quarter of game time.

If we can't settle with a tie after 60 minutes, I would push for the game to continue with the same rules as if it were the 2nd or 4th quarter. The game finishes if each team has had the same number of possessions and the score is unequal. So it would be identical to NFL overtime with the exception that the second team to possess the ball would always have a chance to match.

A recovered onside kick on the overtime period's opening kickoff would be considered the first possession.[/b]

This way you'd have all the facets of the game at play, you wouldn't resign yourself to sudden death and the game should be over in short order.

One drawback would be that the game could potentially go on another 15 minutes. That's definitely against the initiative of the league and its TV partners to keep games shorter.

Another drawback is that team with the second possession would have the tactical advantage knowing what outcome they need to achieve to win or keep the game going. So if the team that receives the opening kickoff in OT goes 2 and out, the other team can march back and kick the rouge for the win.

The same flaw applies to the present format but they invert the order in the second series of downs so if it goes to a second set of possessions from the 35, each team will have held the tactical advantage of knowing what they need to do to stay in the game or win it.

I also think they're fine but but wouldn't have a problem if they moved it back further as posters here mention.

Also, brainstorming each year is good, it doesn't mean that any rule will be changed for the sake of change but what brainstorming allows is for ideas to be heard and out of that there could be something the rules committee misses and want's to discuss. I don't think we have to worry about wholesale changes every year for the sake of making changes, not at all.

The 5 yard penalty when the ball bounces is ok, it's a tough one to call and they can't make it 15 in this case unless it's flagrant in which case is should be 15 even if it's bouncing ie. a guy smashes into the returner with no attempt at all to retreat from the 5 yard zone.

I don't like moving it to centre field. We're playing three downs. If we were playing four, I might agree. I wouldn't want it moved any further than the 45.

Regarding playing an extra quarter to the first lead with same number of possessions...

To alleviate the problem of the second team having the tactical advantage of knowing what they need to match or better the score, perhaps an alternative would be to make it such that any score would be followed by one drive to match or better regardless of who first possessed the ball in overtime. Again, in effect borrowing the NFL format without sudden death.

Playing the extra quarter until someone scores and the team scored upon fails to match or succeeds in bettering would make extremely interesting decisions regarding whether to concede the rouge.

Conceded safeties would also be out the window as the score of a safety would constitute the end of the game unless an attempt at onside recovery were permitted.

http://cfl.ca/article/fans-invited-to-work-o-t-on-cfl-s-o-t

So the league has opened up to suggestions concerning rules. While this year they're asking us to focus on OT, they're open to any and all suggestions.

Now its established that many of the veteran posters have discussed this to death or feel the game is frozen and shouldn't be touched. That's fine and make it known if that's what you think. The truth is that we won't see drastic changes. I know there are those, even if its a minority, who at least want to brainstorm. How have the rule changes of this past year done?

not sure why commish wants to focus on OT specifically. OT is a rare occurrence and the concept is generally fair if not fine, though I am sure many people would have preferences as to some of the details.

Of more important nature would be to include the possibility to develop ... CANADIAN QUARTERBACKS

My suggestions are in. Aside from my thoughts on OT, I touched on the rouge and kicks out of bounds. I'll keep offering my thoughts on those two items once a year until they're addressed or I'm dead. They're my cause in Canadian football.

1) Kicking out of bounds

Apply the same standard to kickoffs, and all kicks from scrimmage including place kicks, drop kicks, dribbled balls and punts concerning illegal kicks out of bounds. It is needlessly complicated and redundant to have all kickoffs out of bounds deemed illegal, punts from scrimmage out of bounds illegal if they pass out of bounds through the air between the 20 yard lines and all other kicks from scrimmage legally kicked wherever.

In the case of kickoffs, I don't see why the kicker should be penalized for the unlucky bounce of an oblong ball out of bounds from the field of play where a punter is not similarly penalized.

In the case of punts, I feel as if the 20 yard line rule is a contrivance to keep a particular strategic play of gridiron football while otherwise forcing returns.

I submit, that all kicks in the sport of Canadian football be it a kickoff, punt, place kick, drop kick or dribbled ball be required to not go out of bounds via the sidelines in the air without first striking the field of play or goal area. The kicked ball would still be able to bounce from the field of play or goal area out of bounds. The kicked ball would also be able to pass through the air and out of play over the sidelines in goal or dead ball line.

2) The Rouge

The perceived value of the rouge has changed over the years as improved kicking and the modern passing game has made movement up and down the field more fluid and scores of higher denominations easier to obtain.

As such, we will never again see a Grey Cup MVP christened for purposely scoring 8 rouges as Hugh Gall was in 1909. We will likely never see the rouge purposely scored to pad a lead heading into a half as was the case with Hamilton's Joe Zuger quick kicking the ball into the Saskatchewan end zone to wrap up the first half of the 1967 Grey Cup. Today's CFL punter, while having failed to execute a coffin corner punt instead scoring a rouge, does not pump his fist for having scored. He instead curses himself for costing his team up to 34 yards of field position. The same can be said for the kicker of a shanked short range field goal that sails wide and out of the end zone.

The only portion of the modern game where the rouge still holds the weight of yesteryear is when it is used in the dying moments of a game to decide the outcome when a given lead is equal to or less than one point.

For the most part rouge remains of strategic importance to the kick returner in his own end zone. Should he return it and potentially pin his team with poor field position, or considering the maturity of the game and score, concede the point for 35 yards of field position?

But even this strategic element is rendered moot should a ball kicked from the field of play sail over the returner and end zone. Considering the hardest way to score is arguably the forced safety, and this is only worth 2 points, I would hardly consider the modern kicker's ability to kick the ball over and out of any part of the 20 x 65 yard goal area an athletic feat worth 1 point or worse subsequently worth winning a game, clinching a playoff spot or crowning a champion.

[i][b]I submit, that the rouge be applied only when kicks are returnable. Returnability would be achieved if a kicked ball were to touch the field of play or goal area in bounds or were otherwise touched by a return team player. If the football is by way of kneeling, being down by contact or the kicked ball having bounced out of bounds in goal, not advanced out of the goal area by the return team the rouge would then be awarded.

If the kicked ball were to simply sail over the end zone and out over the side lines in goal or dead ball line, the rouge would not be awarded.

In light of the first suggestion this criteria would apply on all kicks in Canadian football including kickoffs, punts, drop kicks, place kicks and dribbled balls. [/b][/i]

In this way, I think you're doing a potential win, defeat, playoff position or championship justice by attaching value to every point scored.

i like OT how it is.. dont change it. how can u.. the only thing i can think of really that would make any sense and really its copying hockeys rules abit... each team gets 1 point for the tie, the team who wins the ot gets the extra point. i dont think thats fair tho and really, cfl should concentrate on more important issues such as incompetent refs. I also agree with the canadian qb idea, whats the problem with adding a 4th qb spot on your roster but only exclusively for a canadian qb.
couldnt hurt. Aslong as the CFL stays the CFL and keeps its rules that makes them unique and different than the NFL, its cool. Just dont go all NFL on us.