...I say leave the PAC in the game, but make the scoring team kick the ball from the point where the ball was placed prior to when the TD was scored...some of those long-bomb-hail-marys and gigantic YAC plays wouldn't have the icing on the cake then...same with one-yard dives...
Anyone know why the hash marks were narrowed in the 70s? I’m sure there was a reason for better or worse as rules aren’t typically changed for change’s sake as some claim… We’d all be on the Canadian amateur rugby football fan forum otherwise.
Mandating 25 yard deep end zones would be tough given you can"t fit them into Rogers Centre or BC Place… Albeit field dimensions can be venue specific as is the case with the rounded endzones for the tracks in Molson Stadium and Commonwealth Stadium.
In the CFL, the hash marks were narrowed at the start of the 1959 season [1958- 15 yards from sideline; 1959- 20 yards from sideline]. Why? Kickers were starting to become proficieint at kicking field goals. By narrowing the hash marks, shorter field goals became easier to kick as the angle improved. Prior to this change, if the ball was on the hash mark, teams would either gamble on 3rd down or punt for a single [gotta love those 28 yard punt single; 3yd line + 25yd endzone].
Another benefit and the reason American football narrowed its hash marks in the 1970s was it made the running game more effective. Previously, end runs were done almost exclusively to the wide side of the field. Changing the hash marks made it easier to run to the narrow side of the field and made the defence guess more.
BC Place was built to accomodate the 25 yard endzone but the designer forgot to account for a buffer zone between the end line and the concrete wall. Doh!
The track at Molson Stadium had been rendered useless as a result of the recent reno. Unfortunately, the new stands mandate that the rounded endzone in Montreal will remain. I hope that the new IWS in Hamilton will eliminate the rounded endzone there.
For the benefit of those who don’t know Mullins, is there somewhere we can read this person’s perspective?
He’s on the main page here…one of the writers for cfl.ca
...don't agree with Jim on this one but his passion for Canadian football is unquestioned. He is practically the only sports media personality in the Vancouver market who isn't obsessed with talking hockey 365 days of the year. He is also almost the only media personality giving any kind of attention to CIS and amateur football in the Vancouver market. Jim Mullin is a great friend and ally of Canadian football on the west coast.
I'm all for good ideas, but lets not start the NHL yearly quest to find things wrong with the game.
Jesus, every year, all year, the NHL is blabbering about what's wrong with the game, instead of promoting the game.
Big big big mistake that keeps the NHL in the minor leagues of U.S sports viewership, and I completely understand why. The NHL makes itself look bush league.
Hopefully the CFL never starts wandering down that path.
Boy you have that right. He really is the only guy in the vancouver voice media who seems to give the CFL any time at all.
Too bad he has to work alongside that doofus Dan Russell.
Odd that Mullins is the sports director on that chanel but he gets ramrodded by Russell in any head to head stuff.
I asked Russell one time why he doesnt give SOME time to the CFL on his talk show and his answer was " I dont tune into the CFL until playoffs" He says " its only a 8 team league…who really cares?" Yet he’s on bended knee about the old 6 team NHL.
Looks like he’s never played a game in any sport in his life. Just a sloppy guy.
Mullins has a new article, this one on the ratio.
[url=http://www.cfl.ca/article/mullin-changing-the-game-the-ratio]http://www.cfl.ca/article/mullin-changi ... -the-ratio[/url]In the article, it says that ratio rules have been changed 32 times since 1936. That gives an average of about 1 change every 2.3 years, and that's only for one aspect of the game. Imagine how high the frequency would be if we counted rule changes for all aspects of the game, not just the ratio. It looks to me like constant re-examination and tweaking of rules is not an NHL-only thing. Apparently, the CFL's been wandering down that path for 75 some-odd years.
the conversion is good practice for field goals. Plus, I think Miles blocked what...6 converts in his career. another thing is that it can always be a fake...set up to look like a kick, then go for 2. I don't like the idea of removing it.
one thing that would be cool is if they got rid of the coin toss and did it XFL style...one of the few things done well there.
I don't consider deciding who gets to kick worth career ending injuries.. Its like shootouts in hockey, an tangent activity that departs almost entirely from the core sport to decide an outcome in lowbrow WWE fashion.
Was the same reasoning behind the subsequent narrowing of the hashmarks from 20 yards to the current 24 yards from the sidelines?
I hope that the new IWS in Hamilton will eliminate the rounded endzone there.IWS hasn't had truncated corners in its endzones since the current surface was installed in 2003. They've actually had room for full endzones since the league shortened the endzones to 20 yards but hadn't taken advantage of the space since the most recent surface was installed.
are you nuts?
Too bad Mullins didn't bother reading the new CBA before writing that article since it expanded the definition of a non-import to include "a player who is a Canadian citizen and was physically resident in Canada for an aggregate period of five (5) years prior to the age of 18 years."
http://www.cfl.ca/article/media-backgrounder-new-cba
It's not clear to me that he didn't read the new CBA. And even if he didn't, I don't see how that would invalidate his points.
But his premise starts off wrong when he says:
He doesn’t have to be a Canadian citizen. According to that description, he doesn’t need to play in the Canadian football system. It doesn’t make any difference if you have one or both parents carrying Canadian passports. You just need to have lingered around long enough to qualify.
I didn't much care for the article. I like the way the ratio qualification is now personally. But I want to see
the number of Canadian starters moved up. As well o want a designated Canadian qb position. Outside of the salary cap and as an added qb... So he's not sterling a roster spot. So it's one more player on the roster and outside the salary cap. No loss to the team except the wage of one more player
It looks like he's cutting and pasting from the CFL's own website. What he wrote is verbatim what's here
http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_ratioas of today at 11:15 am EST. So I guess he missed that fact. I still don't think it changes much. If the CFL had updated their definition, or if he had not trusted that the definition on their website would be accurate and looked it up somewhere else, he probably would have written something like "Whether or not one or both of your parents have a Canadian passport only makes a difference of two years" (although strictly speaking it's not the parents' passports that matters, but the player's).
Regardless of his error, it's still true that "You just need to have lingered around long enough to qualify", where "long enough" is 5 for a Canadian citizen by 18 years of age or 7 for a non-Canadian by 15 years of age. You still don't need to be a Canadian citizen. You just have more time and a smaller requirement if you are. Even with the rule change, most non-imports are still going to come out of the CIS system anyway, so it will have a fairly small effect on who qualifies as a non-import.
So the premise is wrong, but only a bit. And it's not a big enough error to change whether or not it's a suitable premise for what follows.
His first point may have some merit. If an american player comes and plays four or five years of CIS football, why can't he be considered a non-import? I think this is a reasonable suggestion..
Agreed.
Lets take Ben Cahoon for example,
Here is a guy that lived in southern Alberta in his youth , played his entire high school and college career in the States and played in the CFL as a non-import, winning most outstanding Canadian award in 2002 and 2003.
Also someone who has not resided in Canada for the 7 years prior to their 15th birthday and has played in the CIS for their college career is considered an import ???
maybe the CFL should consider reviewing the criteria for what constitutes a non-import other than where they lived in their youth ?
a possible solution is that a non-import player either plays his entire high school or college eligibility in a Canadian School ?