CFL could tweak rules again

[Grover]

More from the CFL Winter Meeting

[b]CFL fans should soon be able to start planning their summers.

Last year's schedule was revealed on Feb. 12, and CFL president and COO Michael Copeland is hoping fans will see it even earlier this year. There could be some hurdles that prevent that from happening, though.

“The schedule is an incredibly difficult one at the best of times,? Copeland said Thursday in Winnipeg, where the CFL's annual winter meetings are being conducted. “This year it's made more difficult with the 2015 Women's World Cup and the Pan Am Games in southern Ontario. We're working on it, we're hopeful in the next short while we'll be able to release a final version.

“We're going through some final changes with the teams, so we've sent the teams a final draft to review. They're reviewing it, and then coming out of that there inevitably will be some tweaks.?

The word is it's going to be another rough schedule for the Argos, who have to fight for time at Rogers Centre this year with both the Blue Jays and the Pan Am Games. Last season, primarily due to the Blue Jays schedule, the Argos went seven weeks without a home game.

“That's one of the things we're trying to make sure we make it as good as it can possibly be, but there's challenges there,? Copeland said. “The Argonauts have been really resilient in working through those challenges, but that's one of the things that we're still working on.?

A couple other item from this week's meetings:

• The search for a new commissioner continues, and there's a chance the final interview process could take place at the board of governors meeting in late February. The league would like to have someone in place before the season starts, but “it's more important for the search committee to find the right individual,? Copeland said.

• Like most professional sports leagues, the CFL is always trying to figure out ways to attract new fans. That's why Raptors “superfan? Nav Bhatia, who is a big reason why Toronto's NBA team has such a diverse fan base, was in Winnipeg on Thursday to give a presentation to the league and its nine teams.

“You always have to maintain your core fan base, and we have an extremely strong one,? Copeland said. “So we're committed to them, but reaching out to new fans and younger fans in new ways is important for any league. It's a priority for us.?[/b]

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/22/upcoming-cfl-schedule-will-be-tough-on-argonauts-again]http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/22/up ... auts-again[/url]

[Grover]

From Lowell Ullrich,(Lions Beat writer)

[b]"Calgary’s Grey Cup win over Hamilton at B.C. Place Stadium was decided by an illegal block on a punt return touchdown, an infraction that was called 58 more times last year than the previous season.

Buono has long proposed the CFL adopt the NFL rule, which doesn’t allow most of the kicking team to advance downfield until after the punter kicks the ball, as a means to give returners a chance.

The competition committee meets in March to determine which changes should be put forward to the board of governors for approval."[/b]

[Stubber]

@"Grover"

From Lowell Ullrich,(Lions Beat writer)

[b]"Calgary’s Grey Cup win over Hamilton at B.C. Place Stadium was decided by an illegal block on a punt return touchdown, an infraction that was called 58 more times last year than the previous season.

Buono has long proposed the CFL adopt the NFL rule, which doesn’t allow most of the kicking team to advance downfield until after the punter kicks the ball, as a means to give returners a chance.

The competition committee meets in March to determine which changes should be put forward to the board of governors for approval."[/b]

My initial thought to this change was to ask how many more TD runbacks Banks would have. Then it came to mind that, as it is now, the kicking team often has to wait around for the returner to catch the ball. With the new rule, would be tacklers should be able to time their arrival and stay in their lanes better. One positive would be a probable decrease in “no yards” penalties.

[GHT120]

@"Grover"

From Lowell Ullrich,(Lions Beat writer)

[b]"Calgary’s Grey Cup win over Hamilton at B.C. Place Stadium was decided by an illegal block on a punt return touchdown, an infraction that was called 58 more times last year than the previous season.

Buono has long proposed the CFL adopt the NFL rule, which doesn’t allow most of the kicking team to advance downfield until after the punter kicks the ball, as a means to give returners a chance.

The competition committee meets in March to determine which changes should be put forward to the board of governors for approval."[/b]

The "no release’ approach is interesting. While it might help with returns, what would it do to the possibility of a blocked punt? It would seem possible to at least minimally engage each return team player rushing the punter.

[coupe6652]

Other than the no yards rule where the Canadian officals job requirements say they must have tape measure eyes for the 4 yard and 11 1/2 inch penalty calls. Leave the damn game alone! If anything that needs to be changed it is the no yards rule and the true definition of blocking to avoid disaters like what happened in the Grey Cup. Punts and kick offs the most exciting plays in the game are routinely destroyed by officials in almost every single game. By the way I am not kidding about the 4 yards and 11 1/2 inches because of the untold no yards calls that stretch the imagination. The only thing I was worried about last year was the PI review but I thought it worked fairly well.

[Crash]

@"LB74"

@"Crash"

@"disciplineandpunish"

I still say: make the one-point convert an automatic except where the team wants to go for two points. So if you score a major, you decide whether to tack on the extra 1 point (no play, it’s just tacked on) or whether to go for 2 points.

Like NFL Blitz the [b]video game[b]…(for the record, i agree).

This is so many levels of wrong.

Why risk only getting only 6 points, when your guaranteed 7? So if a team elects for two they are punished by losing guaranteed point! and if they succeed, get only a single point advantage.

This is why that option only exists in video games

333/334 PAT were made last year. 99.7%. If thats not as much a guarantee i dont know what is.

[Crash]

@"longtimefan"

@"disciplineandpunish"

I still say: make the one-point convert an automatic except where the team wants to go for two points. So if you score a major, you decide whether to tack on the extra 1 point (no play, it’s just tacked on) or whether to go for 2 points.

Terrible idea. No points should ever be “automatic”. Teams should have to “earn” all the points they get. How about this, if you get the ball withing the 10 yard line but fail to score, we award the team say, 2 points for trying hard. Here’s a better one, if a team tries a field goal and misses, we give them one point for a good try. OOps we already have that one. Just one more, if a team fumbles ant the other team recovers, they get one point for causing the fumble and if they run it back more than say, 10 yards, they get another bonus point. Think I’ll email these off the the manipulators of our game and then decide if I want to watch CFL or Big Bang Theory.

Again, when pace of play and how long games are are always a topic for discussion, removing a play with a 99.7% success rate is nothing like your example above. Teams within the 10 yard line do not get at least 2 points 99.7% of the time. Respectfully thats a terrible comparison.

[BoLtZ]

Leave The game Alone scoring went down because Refs call too many penalties.

[jaberwock]

Instead of continually changing the rules, it would be better to focus on training the officials to properly interpret the rules that are in place.

[Hamiltonian]

Leave it alone.

[TommyBoy1]

How about one simple tweak---make the teams kick the convert from a hash mark instead of the middle of the field. The angle would make it a bit harder anyway.

[DisplacedCatsFan]

@"jaberwock"

Instead of continually changing the rules, it would be better to focus on training the officials to properly interpret the rules that are in place.

:thup: :rockin: :thup: :rockin: :thup:

That and stop LOOKING for infractions and making Mickey Mouse calls. Austin has been lobbying for a long time for a computer-generated “5-yd halo” that can be used for Coach’s Challenges. If TSN can electronically “paint” both a LOS and FD marker line on our screens, then they can do the same for a punt returner.

[CatsFaninOttawa]

@"DisplacedCatsFan"

Austin has been lobbying for a long time for a computer-generated “5-yd halo” that can be used for Coach’s Challenges. If TSN can electronically “paint” both a LOS and FD marker line on our screens, then they can do the same for a punt returner.

That would be good if they could manage it. I think the biggest challenge to this would be determining the exact location of the ball when it’s first touched. Can’t go with the returner’s feet, as the ball is in front of that. But by how far?

[Pongetti]

@"CatsFaninOttawa"

@"DisplacedCatsFan"

Austin has been lobbying for a long time for a computer-generated “5-yd halo” that can be used for Coach’s Challenges. If TSN can electronically “paint” both a LOS and FD marker line on our screens, then they can do the same for a punt returner.

That would be good if they could manage it. I think the biggest challenge to this would be determining the exact location of the ball when it’s first touched. Can’t go with the returner’s feet, as the ball is in front of that. But by how far?

Easily done with Hawkeye as in Soccer or Tennis. No idea how much this would cost the league though.

Once installed it could probably be used for other things too, like the spot of the ball.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, costs about 500,000 Euros per stadium. Not gonna happen in the CFL anytime soon.

[GHT120]

@"coupe6652"

Other than the no yards rule where the Canadian officals job requirements say they must have tape measure eyes for the 4 yard and 11 1/2 inch penalty calls. Leave the damn game alone! If anything that needs to be changed it is the no yards rule and the true definition of blocking to avoid disaters like what happened in the Grey Cup. Punts and kick offs the most exciting plays in the game are routinely destroyed by officials in almost every single game. By the way I am not kidding about the 4 yards and 11 1/2 inches because of the untold no yards calls that stretch the imagination. The only thing I was worried about last year was the PI review but I thought it worked fairly well.

The simplest thing for the no-yards rule might be to eliminate the “circle” concept and make it 5 yards from the scrimmage line (i.e., sideline to sideline) at which the returner touches the ball; opening up some room on the sides and making both the call and compliance with the rule somewhat easier.

[RevClark]

Love the game as is, but a thought; how about making the convert 3 points when run or passed in starting at the five and retain the one point if desired but from the (13) +7 making it twenty for a kicked convert? That would make almost every team go for the 3 points not the one and make it more exciting and even consider change and going for "3," if a penalty occurred during a one point convert? Any regular field goal would still be three points. That would make it possible to be down 9 points and still be within one score and a three point convert.

That said I am okay with the current system.

Rev.

[LB74]

@"GHT120"

The simplest thing for the no-yards rule might be to eliminate the “circle” concept and make it 5 yards from the scrimmage line (i.e., sideline to sideline) at which the returner touches the ball; opening up some room on the sides and making both the call and compliance with the rule somewhat easier.

This is essentially how offsides works in rugby, and really would just be a return to the root of the game, which I’m for, along with having to touch the ball to the ground inside the end zone on scoring run plays, to prove you actually made it, with full possession, passed the scoring line.

Coaches would hate me, but I’d like to see possession of the football on passing receptions given a single, universal definition of two hands, or tucked into the body, and one foot in bounds, so if a player has the ball and takes a step then gets hammered and drops it, it would be ruled a fumble, and not an incomplete pass.

I’ve always felt It’s one of those ways that the game is stacked in favour of the o and I’d like to see revised.

[DisplacedCatsFan]

@"Pongetti"

@"CatsFaninOttawa"

That would be good if they could manage it. I think the biggest challenge to this would be determining the exact location of the ball when it’s first touched. Can’t go with the returner’s feet, as the ball is in front of that. But by how far?

Easily done with Hawkeye as in Soccer or Tennis. No idea how much this would cost the league though.

Once installed it could probably be used for other things too, like the spot of the ball.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, costs about 500,000 Euros per stadium. Not gonna happen in the CFL anytime soon.

It would not be a “live action” alarm type thing for the Referee, but simply a tool to help determine if a player on the kinking team was within 5 yards of the returner if a Head Coach challenges either a No Yards penalty or a non-call.

For example: Sinkfield is attempting to field a punt, but loses it in the lights at the last second, and the ball bounces off of his chest,and is ruled a fumble. Fortunately, we recover the fumble, but Team staff alert Austin that there was an opposing player too close to Sinkfield. Austin challenges the non-call of No Yards, TSN centres their computer-generated 5-yard halo at the point of contact with Sinkfield’s chest, and there is irrefutable evidence that a blew team player was within five yards of the returner. The result is a 15-yard penalty instead of a loss due to a fumble. If it had been a turnover, it would be reviewed automatically, but there is no guarantee that No Yards would be called. Of course, a Head Coach can challenge that his player was OUTSIDE the zone as well.

[CatsFaninOttawa]

@"DisplacedCatsFan"

It would not be a “live action” alarm type thing for the Referee, but simply a tool to help determine if a player on the kinking team was within 5 yards of the returner if a Head Coach challenges either a No Yards penalty or a non-call.

For example: Sinkfield is attempting to field a punt, but loses it in the lights at the last second, and the ball bounces off of his chest,and is ruled a fumble. Fortunately, we recover the fumble, but Team staff alert Austin that there was an opposing player too close to Sinkfield. Austin challenges the non-call of No Yards, TSN centres their computer-generated 5-yard halo at the point of contact with Sinkfield’s chest, and there is irrefutable evidence that a blew team player was within five yards of the returner. The result is a 15-yard penalty instead of a loss due to a fumble. If it had been a turnover, it would be reviewed automatically, but there is no guarantee that No Yards would be called. Of course, a Head Coach can challenge that his player was OUTSIDE the zone as well.

That makes sense. But as I mentioned earlier, the trick is that “TSN centres their computer-generated 5-yard halo” part. Easy to do if the ball hits the player’s body or head - just centre on his feet. Also easy if the returner is picking it up off the ground - just centre on the ball. But where exactly is the ball in this picture?

Banks’ body is at an odd angle due to him running diagonally to the ball and stopping, and he is reaching forward for the ball. And the ball is three feet above the ground. Where exactly is the centre of the five yard halo? Somewhere in front of and to the right of Banks’ right foot?

[DisplacedCatsFan]

@CFIO - That's why there are multiple camera angles that can be combined (almost instantly, I might add) into a perfect 3D rendering. If they can do it for a baseball being pitched over 95MPH to show the flightpath over home plate immediately after the pitch, they can do it for a player fielding a punt. The technology is here, it should be inexpensive enough to implement, only the details need be ironed out.