CFL/XFL Poll (Pick 2) - What Rules Should Be Scrapped For ANY New CFL/XFL League?

As I am stuck on night shift from a call-off (legit and truly ill this time), all in the line of duty you know but easy overtime, in slow-time what to do? A new poll! So here goes everybody.

Which rules, whatever is decided, should be scrapped all the same?

Pick two.

Summary Please Read Before Voting

This poll is not for which rules, Canadian or American, you prefer from one side of the border or the other. That's endless banter and noise in many a thread for that matter. They are two different (and for some of us both great) games of gridiron.

This poll is for what rules of the great game of gridiron football that you would prefer to be scrapped entirely wherever the new venture, if one is to be created, lands teams on either side of the border.

Whatever rules are used for the home team, what rules in either game should be scrapped anyway for all games?

Pick 2 Rules That Should Be Scrapped No Matter What
  • The Fair Catch
  • Two Feet Inbounds Is A Catch
  • One Foot Inbounds Is A Catch
  • 5 Yards No Yards => Reduce Yards For No Yards
  • Single Scored On Missed Field Goal Directly Out of Bounds
  • 5 Yards Bump Zone For Pass Coverage => Move Back To 1 Yard Off Line of Scrimmage
  • Fumble Out of Bounds = Possession By Last Touched
  • Ineligible Receiver Downfield (so long as not blocking downfield after pass)
  • Illegal Block In The Back (ok so long as above the waist)
  • American Onside Kick => Make It Canadian
  • Mandatory QB Designation => Any Player Any Down Any Time Can Line Up As QB Without Restriction

0 voters

I think in any league, the ball carrier should have one foot completely over the line, in bounds, before it is TD.

Very interesting point here FYB - I understand the philosophy here that one should be required to have at least one foot on the ground entirely in the end zone much as with the current rule for a catch inbounds under Canadian or amateur American rules.

I see the current rule with breakage of the plane scores a touchdown, though the change made in the NFL in 2005 to eliminate breakage of the plane even outside of the pylon to count as touchdown (i.e. "the goal line extends around the world") still was a good change, as just fine.

But seeing it your way, if other rules such as some of those noted above were eliminated, I would go along with such a minor change as you propose.

All but a small few debates about if the plane were broken or not on a touchdown would be eliminated, but then catches or runs into the end zone would be reviewed on video all the same to see if that foot was on the ground.

But the ball still would have to break the plane would it not? Though rare, it is possible to have a foot on the ground in the end zone yet the ball not break the plane.

Correct me if I'm wrong but even when feet or body contact with the ground is used as the basis for in or out of bounds rulings, it's the longitudinal progress of the ball that's used in determining the subsequent line of scrimmage or score. Correct?

I'm happy for purposes of simplicity to change the basis for a touchdown from position of the ball to body contact of the ball carrier in goal but then for consistency's sake, we should probably use some reference part of the carrier's body for determining the line of scrimmage as well.

On a related note, I think that the 2 foot requirement for catch in bounds in the NFL is the outlier as far as consistency is concerned.

Again correct me if I'm wrong but a catch is deemed in bounds if any body part lands in bounds first with possession of the ball. So if the pass catcher lands on his backside or knee or thigh or shoulder before sliding out with no feet touching, it's a catch.. but if feet are the thing that come down first and you're playing in the NFL, that's not enough, we need another foot for some arbitrary reason.

1 Like

I think that "needs to have possession for a fumble to be a turnover" should be scrapped. It's easier to determine whether someone touched the ball than whether or not he had "possession". It also provides more deterrent to fumbling near the sidelines

You are correct. The position of the ball determines the rest anyway though this does not come up often for a receiver with physical position in the end zone.

The matter has come up and does come up far more often, as explained, for a runner.

And so though I understand and agree with the basis for this proposed new rule by FYB, I don't see the need to change it because we are checking now for the position of the ball anyway and still would have to do so via this rule.

But it does have one advantage as pointed out, and I would not be against this change if other more important changes to scrap certain rules were made so as to improve the game.

Correct - and that's why I put that up there as an option for a change but to try to make this poll as even as I can make it, I put up also the one-foot option for those who prefer the two-foot rule.

Any body part down in bounds, except for only one hand (never seen that acrobatic move happen anyway), counts as two feet in the NFL.

So just because a receiver or other player touches the ball it's a fumble?

If the catch is not made there is no possession and it's an incomplete pass (or interception if tipped and caught in the air by a defender). After a fumble there's a lot of scrambling around and knocking around of the ball on the ground, so there's no possession until recovery.

A ball-carrier by definition has possession, so it's a fumble.

I'm not following your thought here.

Looks like my votes were the most popular ones: fair catch gotta go; and the automatic single for a missed FG. The conceded point adds an element of strategy, so let’s keep that though.

1 Like

Thank you to all who have participated so far, and this poll will be up awhile longer for those still wanting to participate.

I think we already have one winner.

In the end I hope whether it's us or another group that the new venture takes these ideas into serious consideration for sake of improvement of both the game on the field as well as the entertainment value. Making any such improvements should cost zero too.

Any major changes otherwise can come years later, but some of these ideas including the current leader, are long overdue in any game of gridiron and ironically enough the elimination of the fair catch was in the rules of the original XFL.

1 Like

The missed FG is challenging.

Classified as a scrimmaged kick.

Can tweek it as if it goes out of bounds without touching the end zone then zero point give and ball scrimmaged at the 25 yard line.

Yes that's the proposition as stated, directly out of bounds, and it's apparently a very popular one.

I've been pro-rouge status quo for years and don't have an issue at all with the existing rule, but if other changes are made like some of the other propositions in this poll, I am not so attached to a status quo position for the rouge (also a popular recurring off-season debate thread!) such that I would stand in the way of such a minor change in the rule.

Well the poll will be up awhile, but an astounding 15 of 18 or 83% of voters have chosen elimination of the Fair Catch so far. That was my first pick as well.

Then leading for second place so far is reform of the infamous rouge essentially, so we shall see if that proposition holds out.

The remaining opinion is well divided on all the other propositions, but we can see already that there is a camp of fans for each of these ideas out there. The one foot and two foot for a catch propositions are in turn in opposition to each other. I'm amazed on this front of very diverse opinions too.

Keep rolling with the votes if you are just now seeing this poll or have not voted twice yet.

Sure, the 25 sounds good to me. Where to scrimmage the ball is the secondary concern though. What’s more important here is getting rid of unearned points. Fielded single points only, because the team has a choice to run it out or concede.

I meant on an already fumbled ball. Of course the player needs to have possession for a fumble to happen in the first place. I think that a defensive player should be allowed to knock the ball out of bounds and have possession go to his team, provided that the ball had been previously punched out or dropped.

If there is some sort of merger I think the CFL could go with a hybrid field size, we don't have to be the same as a US field. Keep the yard off the ball, 1 foot in bounds on a catch (this is the most natural way and it is the way humans run) give up the single point on a missed field goal, no fair catch, keep the motion or some form of it, I like the 12 players but could live with 11 and 4 downs if that's what it takes. Scoring is what sells games and these rules with 4 downs will produce more scoring - can't see it doing the opposite

You could also see long time consuming drives (running the football) if the QB can't throw worth anything.

I'd rather the league die than it go four downs or change any of the rules. Another league will start up again, this time for less money and probably more teams. Most importantly, you finally get rid of the old guard, which has been mismanaging the league for years.

I'd rather someone else have a crack at it.


who is fhe old guard?
Braley is gone
Wettenhals gone
Toronto new
Montreal new
3 community teams making money

So you want Bob Young gone?

I don't believe he's suggesting Bob Young to be gone.

But it would be nice to hear his input on which direction the CFL needs to go.

At least we would know one way or another what his intentions are.

1 Like