Are CFL rules too one-sided towards offense?

Hi Guys,
Again, I'm new to the league so go easy on
Anyway, although I only joined yesterday I've been lurking for a few months now and have seen almost all of the games on tv.

So here are my comments and questions: In a previous thread a poster stated that he likes the 3 receivers in forward motion rule because it puts more pressure on the db's. My question is, why would you want the db's to have more pressure on them? Shouldn't the receiver have to earn an advantage? Shouldn't their not be any preferential rules and everything should be earned not given as a freebie, which, in my opinion this rule does.

Secondly, the fact that the defense has to line up a yard off of the ball is awful. Basically every possession starts 1st and 9. Again, this rule gives the advantage to the offense, without having to earn anything.

Thirdly, the end zones are the size of New Brunswick. I'm not advocating a small one like the NFL but c'mon when the db has to stop for a water break while still back peddeling in the endzone, perhaps it's a bit to big?

So, although I think the CFL is more exciting than the NFL, (love the fast game clock) these three specific rules are so lopsided towards the offense I just don't get it. Someone said in another thread that it's ingrained in the canadian culture of free hand outs and not having to earn anything, sports socialism, if you will. I don't agree with that, but what is it then? Thanks

or it could be said that it is very sided to the defense.... only giving the offense three downs?!? how unfair is that. basically we guarentee that the first offensive play is an incompletion and they only have three left. football came from rugby hence the rugby sized field. the nfl players are just too lazy to run so they shrunk the field in all directions. the cfl is not an offshoot of the american game and in fact it could easily be argued that it is far purer (went through less changes over time) than the nfl has ever been. but in reality they are merely two different yet similar games. the cfl is just better. that is simply something we all need to accept and move on. :slight_smile:

There are always penalties lop sided in the offense's favour, even in the NFL. How many times have you seen a guy like Randy Moss give that nudge to create seperation?

These rules aren't changes to the game to make it more ofensive, they're just examples of some of the rules the Americans changed to make the game more defensive. Explanations of how these rules bring equality, not advantages to the offense follow.

The first rule you bring up, unlimited motion, is the exact same for the defense, who are free to start in their backpedals or get a running start at the quarterback.

The Second Rule, the one yard neutral zone, is true for every player but the centre. No other offensive player can be within one yard of the ball.

As for the third rule, we've already shrunk the end zones(they used to be 25 yards).

yea they were 25yds at one time.

But I think that in the CFL if you take away any of the uniqueness to the Game, like the unlimited motion, 1yd from the ball, no yards, live ball in endzone.. then it's no longer the CFL.

Hey Shyspy

It's more than just the instances you mentioned, all disputes go in favour of the offence. If we want to preserve 3 downs we need to give the O some advantage otherwise every game would be a punting contest and best punt-cover wins.

Personnaly, I'd like to see a change in the 1 yard rule inside the 1 yard line. Currently the ball is moved back to the 1 so create the yard seperation. I'd like to see the ball placed on the point of advance but the defence not required to line up farther back the the goal line. Nose-to-nose from the 1-inch.

With only 3 downs the offense needs every advantage they can get to make a first down.

Terms like 'preferential rules' are meaningless in a system of arbitrary rules where there is no objective baseline. One could argue that the fourth down in NFL football gives offenses an undue advantage. Or that allowing even one man in motion gives the offense an undue advantage. Where does it end? Maybe DBs should be allowed to contact receivers anywhere on the field, because, you know, those receivers should have to EARN those catches by fighting through clutching and grabbing. :wink:

The CFL rules are designed to produce a wide-open, pass-centered game. That's the way our game is structured. Personally, I love the unlimited men in motion rule, the large end zone, and the one-yard cushion at the line of scrimmage. The end result is a game that I highly enjoy, and that's all that really matters to me.

The offense gets its breaks, but as pointed out they really only have 2 plays to get 10 yards.

In nearly all sports, rules evolve to allow the offence to catch up to the defence. Left to itself, defence, over time, will win out over offence.

In football, start from the advent of the forward pass. Then, the pass interference rules - limiting contact to 5 yds., to (in the NFL) speakers in the QBs' helmets (in Canada, we have the unlimited motion).

Hockey has just undergone a fairly significant overhaul to benefit offence.

Baseball too - the invention of the balk, the banning of the spitball, the lowering of the mound, the DH...all things done to assist the offence.

I think the greatest distinction between the rules of American and Canadian football are the style of game they breed:

American football puts emphasis on execution.

Canadian football puts emphasis on creativity.

I'll elaborate when I'm more awake.

I take your points about the nature of the game and the rules. However, there was a time (in the 50s) when the CFL (or rather the CRU) considered adding an extra player on offense because scoring was so low. With time and creativity, offenses were able to use the rules to open up the game. It is the real strength of the Canadian code IMO. However, I think that there are many aspects of this game that are dominated by people (coaches) more familiar with the American game. The CFL rules on the kicking game (specifically on-side and advancing the ball through kicking) are under-utilized, I think. However, things do change over time. The game I saw as a kid and the way the game is played today are light years apart, I wonder what the game will be like when my kid reaches my age.

Great post. I agree that more could be done strategically with the rules we've retained from our rugby lineage. But because most of our coaches are American, that aspect kind of falls by the wayside.

3 downs. Enough said.

Personally I'd like to see American football adopt 3 downs and put more kicking and throwing into the game rather than the more boring "3 yards up the middle and we're happy with it" sort of thing that 4 downs allows for. But that's just me, a lot of people like 4 downs for the same reason I'm not a huge fan of it.

However I predict that one day the CFL will adopt 4 downs for a variety of reasons, unfortunately.

I don't think CFL will ever switch to 4 downs, it would be way too easy for the offence. They score just fine with 3 downs so why change it?

I agree, there is no reason for them to do it. I do believe that when it comes to scoring points, the CFL is higher with 3 downs than the NFL with