If you get two points for passing or running the ball in from the three and you get one point for kicking it from the 32.. Then why not give three points for running or passing it in from the 32?.. It would only be attempted when a tream was down by 9 points late in a game(maybe once a year if that) Also, it gives some extra excitement if a 1 point covert is attempted and the snap is botched?
actually, a 3 point convert (from the 10) was proposed and subsequently rejected by the BoG during the latest Rules Committee meetings…
[b]* A proposal to try a three-point convert from the 10-yard line in this year’s pre-season was rejected by the board of governors. Teams would have had to either pass or run the ball into the end zone to score the three points.[/b]
Am I missing something here? Is the game of football broken? What's with all these proposals?
sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the convert has been moved back to the 32 yardline... Also only 7 men are allowed dowfield on punts now, and you so much as breathe on a reciever now after 5 yards from the LOS, and you will see nylon.
This happened because the game of Canadian Football had it's worst season in possibly it's entire history last year.. You basicly had one team that ran a professional like team and then you had 8 teams of crap. Kudos to the Cats actually competing in the cup..It was easily the best game they played all season. They never even belonged anywhere near the playoffs.. They were awful, but so were the rest of the teams in the league, not called Calgary
Yes I agree one of the worst seasons I've seen in awhile. Likely due to new CBA cutting down practice time and all starting qbs being hurt. Hopefully everything improves from officiating to overall play on the field.
'Kudos to the Cats actually competing in the cup..It was easily the best game they played all season. They never even belonged anywhere near the playoffs.. They were awful, but so were the rest of the teams in the league, not called Calgary'
Did you watch the Cats from Labour day on, when our starting QB came back?
Didn't think so!
I seen them back into the playoffs..losing to Toronto twice!! they were terrible..
Not this again. The two best teams all season were Calgary and Edmonton. Kudos to Hamilton for making it to the big game twice in a row, but you have to admit noone in the east put up much of a fight.
I guess we'll have to prove that 3 times a charm.....book it!!
Lord I hope not. I don't know if this site can handle another one.
Adding a 3 point convert is like printing more money to save an economy.. its lipstick on a pig.
[i]"Tom, the games have been noncompetitive. How can we keep the games closer?"
"Jerry, let's add a 3 point convert. This way a team that played poorly enough to be a whole 9 points down on the last play can miraculously tie the game"[/i]
Its akin to making the points scored on the last play of the game worth twice what they'd be worth at other parts of the game.
Focus on letting athletes be athletic, finding ways to attract quality young talent to the CFL and spreading said athletes across the league. The contact beyond 5 yards on passing plays is a good idea. Do things with the rules to open up and simplify the game for mass appeal.
Changing where plays are scrimmaged or adding multiple scrimmage line options on the convert complicates the game. I appreciate the desire to make the convert an interesting and more difficult play but the way they've gone about it has furthered the complications of the game that hinder its ability to be taken to by new fans.
No to 3 point converts.
[quote="Mr.Bungle"Also only 7 men are allowed dowfield on punts now
Make that six players allowed downfield before the ball is kicked. You forgot the punter himself, who by definition wouldn't be able to run downfield before the ball is kicked. Except....
OK, what happens if the punter starts to run with the ball, crosses the line of scrimmage, and then punts the ball. Would the five linemen be allowed to start downfield before the ball is kicked in that case? And if so, when would they be allowed to leave the line of scrimmage? As soon as the punter starts to run with the ball? Once the punter has crossed the line of scrimmage? Can they start downfield, then come back, and still be OK as long as they're back before the ball is kicked? Are they allowed to start downfield on a quick kick, i.e. does this rule only apply when in a punting formation?
Hopefully the league will have thought of all these (and more) scenarios and will have provided rulings on them all to the officials before the start of the season. I wouldn't want the officials to have to figure them out on the fly when they happen.
joedav wrote: I appreciate the desire to make the convert an interesting and more difficult play but the way they've gone about it has furthered the complications of the game that hinder its ability to be taken to by new fans.I personally don't see it that way. The essence of the game of gridiron hasn't changed with the new rules, it's simple whether it's Canadian or American football, get the ball over the goal line by running or passing and you score the biggy, 6 points. I think it's easier to understand than baseball to be honest. The young kids and new Canadians are a lot smarter than I am with their cell phones and lightning fast texting speeds and with access to knowledge at their fingertips that I didn't have growing up and more competition to get into post secondary and more difficult, etc. The new rules, tweeking rules as I see them, should be quite easy for anyone to understand who wants to watch a full contact game involving tackling and blocking that has as the essence of the game as I said above. The contact on passing plays resembles basketball more and that is a sport new Canadians are often familiar with as it's more of a worldly game than North American gridirion football. The one rule they should have added in that aspect is that the guy that scores the touchdown must jump up and dunk the ball over the goalposts after the td is scored to celebrate the td. Then it would be even easier for the basketball fanbase to get. :wink:
I respectfully disagree Earl. In my experience introducing the game to others, I’ve found the biggest hindrance to be “I don’t get it”…
Gridiron football has always been about an evolution in the rules of the game for entertainment value and to cope with changing strategies and athletic abilities. This I understand and accept. I like that I can choose to watch Canadian, American, Rugby or Association footballs if I want to see more of one thing or another. I just don’t think the game needs to get any more complicated.
The way I see gridiron football is basically rugby 4.0… The kickoff is essentially a rugby play with blocking upfield. Once the player is tackled we change to this down-and-distance system of scrimmage where the teams basically tug-o-war up and down the field until someone scores at which point we start over with another kickoff. This for me is the essence of the game and if the game were so simple, I’d reckon you’d have more of a youth following.
You’re right about people being more connected and having better access to information… but when it comes to entertainment, people get their kicks from simple, flashy things. I’m not saying the CFL should be simple and flashy… but perhaps easier to digest. This means simplicity and pace which is what most of the rule changes are geared towards.
To be clear: I want a CFL with the rouge, safety, field goals, touchdowns and converts… I don’t want complicated trimmings.
Michael Copeland on PTS yesterday couldn’t recall what the yardage was on an illegal contact on an eligible receiver penalty. Gridiron football must be one of the only sports where the COO of a professional league can’t recall the ruling on a rather common penalty.
My pet peeves have been on things like having separate rules relating to illegal kickoffs and punts with no rules on other kicks from scrimmage. Offering the 35 yard line exclusively after a rouge, a kickoff from the 25 following a safety, the option of kicking off or receiving a kickoff from the 35 or scrimmaging from the 35 after a field goal, the option of kicking off or receiving a kickoff following a TD but no direct scrimmage option. One set of clock rules governing 54 minutes of the game while another set of rules govern the final 3 minutes of each half.
Is this Formula 1? Do I need to be a lawyer to understand this game? We can completely keep the aesthetic of the game with far simpler rules. We can have a game of set plays, great athleticism, hard hits, running, passing, blocking, tackling, kicking and kick returning with far simpler, homogeneous rules and better pace.
I don’t think the new convert options serve this very well. We’ve basically gone from the origins of the convert as a free kick on goal to a play from scrimmage for a supplementary point via a field goal to a play from scrimmage where a subsequent TD gets your a supplementary 2 points to what it will be now: A play from scrimmage from the 25 yard line for 1 or 2 points or the option of a play from scrimmage from the 3 yard line where you are barred from kicking for 1 and must go for 2. What’s next really?
I prefer the league to focus on the pace of the game (entertainment value… opening things up for offense… reducing penalties and stoppages), safety and simplicity. In fairness, most of the other rule changes jive with this line of thinking.
I must have missed something.
Can't three point converts be scored at any time during the game under this proposal?
Where did it state that they can only be scored at the end of the game?
Joedav, some interesting points especially as you say with the tweeking too much of the convert rule which could add too much complexity for the fan that already doesn't "get" the CFL. I think it will be fine but I think a much easier approach than tinkering with the convert to add more offence would have been to keep things as they are and make a much more simpler change to the game which would be going to 4 downs. I like 3 downs myself but as I've mentioned and Don Barker mentioned, 4 downs is the way to go I think for adding offence in a simplified manner that any football fan, north or south of the border, can relate to. And which many high school leagues as we know in Canada have changed to. (for the record I prefer 3 downs over 4 but I'm in the minority of all North American football fans in that respect I'm sure, maybe in the minority for football fans in Canada, but that I don't know).
As I say the convert should be much more interesting now and changing to 4 downs would probably get a lot of CFL season ticket holders all peeved off who see 3 downs as the essence of the Canadian Football League and that might cost the league a lot of fans, albeit older fans. Without going to 4 downs and avoiding that discussion altogether, the CFL has no option other than to tinker with things though.
Anyways, I'm looking forward to the changes and I think we are going to see some more passing tds than ever before this year with the new passing rule which is good, it'll be more like the NFL actually like a New England offence, airing it out a lot.
You are right. My analogy is a bit of a stretch.
What I mean to say is offering ways of scoring bigger and bigger chunks of points by inventing more quirky "Top Gear" or "Survivor" Challenges on the convert isn't how the league should go about addressing games that aren't close.
I know that most of the people on here are old fuddy duddies... But I'm still suprised how uniformly rejected this was... Like I guess the honest question is? If a one point convert is being attempted from the 32(25 scrimmage) and the snap is bothched. Then obviously, the team would be awarded two pointas if they somehow miraculously got it in..(same as it is before ,except from the 5)
Now with 2 point converts being tryed from the 3. Is it really going to be worth the same amount to score from the 3 as it will be from the 25? This just not seem right?
Like a 3 point convert when attempted would be successful only about 10% of the time, however. becvause of all of the missed converts that will happen now(for either one or two points) we will have alot of strange mismatched scores now. This will actually make the rouge much more important. With close games being decided on missed converts and rouges now, would it not make sense to have an equalizer?
I pesonally think this whole thing is stupid.. They need to just do away with the convert all together and make a two point convert from the 5 as the only option... I just am trying to improve a really stupid rule change.... This rule change will see more teams purposely trying to score single points on punts because they need to make up single points from missing 32 yard converts... This just makes the CFL more of what it is already too much of, and that is a kicking league...
The 3 point convert is a ridiculous idea. If a team gets up 9, they have played the game better than their opponent and deserve the cushion of having the other team needing to score on two possessions to tie or take the lead.
not to argue for the 3 point, but you could use the same argument of If a team gets up 8, they have played the game better than their opponent and deserve the cushion of having the other team needing to score on two possessions to tie or take the lead.