CFL may change rules to combat snoozefests

As for the Halo. I’d rather they leave it at five yards but increase the penalty to 15 yards regardless of ball hitting the ground. If they increase the Halo to 10 yards it tells me they aren’t really interested in reducing penalties but artificially trying to manufacture these big returns. I know its exciting but IMO its “fixing” the game and I don’t like that.

Well using that train of thought, reducing the pitchers mound in baseball and eliminating the 2 line offside in hockey could also be deemed an artificial method etc. :?

I think the real issue here is one of two things;

1 The Sun had a slow news day
2 Kirk Penton (the writer) was about to miss a deadline, and drooled out this slop.

*Teams are forced to go for two in over-time
*Using field goals as an example, are worth 3 points, irregardless of how long the kick is
*getting rid of the convert seems almost obtuse, because converts can be stopped by the defense and returned for 2, or missed completely by the O.
*Kick returns need no adjustment - only clear, concise, unvarying definitions and interpretations of 5 yards, and what is an illegal block
*PI needs no adjustmenst either, other than as mentioned above, clear, concise, unvarying definitions and intepretations

  • "flow of the game" = innocuous verbiage to fill page space.

We have to give credit to the CFL.
Any league that is continuously reviewing and looking at ways to improve the product is obviously interested in its fan base.

Absoloutely ArgoT. :thup:

I'd be curious to know when was the last missed convert returned for a TD in the CFL ?

Maybe when Flutie did one of his drop kicks? :stuck_out_tongue: Just kidding, no idea. There's an idea, if you do a drop kick, you get 2 pts,! :wink:

still think they should move the goal posts back.

And virtually eliminate the possibility of missed field goal returns? Moving the goal posts back would mean missed field goal kicks would be more likely to fly out the back of the end zone rather than drop into the end zone, as the kicks would be coming from 20 yards closer in.

that's fine. We get most of our exciting kick returns from kickoffs and punting anyhow, and there would be increase in longer attempts that would fall short. Also, it kinda sucks that good missed fg returns are more to do with the personnel that the offense needs to have on field for the fg attempt.

I don't know. Some missed field goal returns have been pretty exciting. And the potential for one does add a layer of strategy to the game. - Do you try the really long field if you know a miss might mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSkK3hcw60o#t=41

There's a blast from the past - the guy Banks made us all forget about.

No way that is definitely No Funners material.

Now this would be interesting, with one tweek. If it is a long play the ball is moved to the 35 or something. I mean...an 80 yard attempt would be essentially an opportunity at a kick return or a hail marry 2 pointer. The other flip side is that you would want people, on big plays with time remaining, going down on the 1, and attempting a puch in from there...so there is a negative aspect from that angle...not sure how you get around that...perhaps a delay of game major.

Nobody who is seriously shooting for the NFL is going to play in the CIS over the NCAA. Perhaps some day, but there is not even a remote chance at this time unless the player is getting really bad advice...and going 4 downs is not going to change that. NFL teams do NOT advertise a player not being American.

That 1926 game probably bought about the biggest change in the game - "the Forward Pass" the Americans invented the forward pass and were playing football with the forward pass back to around 1906, while Canada was still trying to preserve the Rugby roots and we didn't adopt it until the 1930s !! The inclusion of the forward pass made the game what it is today.

Nobody who is seriously shooting for the NFL is going to play in the CIS over the NCAA
depop, I guess you didn't know of Jesse Lumsden whose goal was all along to play in the NFL. You don't think others who play in the CIS but want to go to university in Canada for other reasons don't have as their goal to make the NFL? 100 percent of CIS players, ok maybe 99.9 percent :wink: , would have as their goal the NFL. Again these are serious football players but everyone knows a very small percentage of NCAA players even make the NFL so smart players use their noggin to determine what is best for them and in many cases many want to remain in Canada for their studies. Doesn't mean they aren't serious about the NFL if the NFL shows an interest.

I would wager if the CIS went to all American rules, the works, that they would immediately benefit from having more talented Canadians remain in Canada for their university studies. How many, don't know, but I would wager there would be some that would stay. Not saying the CIS should switch rules and all of that, there are other factors to consider here of course, but just saying... And lets face it, American rules can be very exciting as we witnessed last week for example with the Seahawks/Packers game. If the CFL doesn't change rules on the punting game getting more kick returns and the offensive scoring remains low as it was this year, the Canadian game is in serious trouble as an entertainment product IMHO because more and more people find punting boring. I don't because I like the chess match with field position and that but most people find punts pure boring because little ever happens on a punt. Hmmm, maybe the TigerCats can clone Banks and have a Banks on every team, in that case leave the punting rules as they are. :wink:

While Canadian football was slow to legalize the forward pass, Frank Consentino wrote that he researched old Toronto newspaper archives (Star, Globe & Telegram) and found the first references to a Canadian football “line of scrimmage” (to put the ball in play rather than a rugby scrum) dated back to 1881. So Canadian rugby-football modified rugby rules very early on to improve the game and make it more exciting.

Just to clarify, I suggested CFL converts still be attempted from the 12-yard-line, but from the point on the field where the player crossed the goal line to score the TD. In rugby, converts can be attempted at an angle as wide as the extreme sidelines (if that is the where the ball carrier touched-down the ball in the endzone), making the 10-yd rugby convert more difficult. We could do the same thing in the CFL, attempting converts from the 15-yd line, for example, but from the angle from where the player crossed the goal line (with the hashmarks being the maximum angle).

If we really want to be Tweakers. Field goal is worth 1 point for every 10 yard it travels ? So a 16 yard field goal is worth 1 point and a 52 yarder is worth 5 points.

Punt returns and missed field goal returns are cheap… I would much rather see teams earn field position by actually being able to drive the field.making it easier for returners will just make the game more amature than it was already this past season… Having teams avoid kicking 45 yard field because they are so afraid of the return potencial , would just make it appear that CFL kickers were so terrible that they can not hit from 45 yards. The real fans would know the reason, but Stephen Brunt and Steve Simmons would have a field day.