Hash marks should be moved back to where they were.

I would love to see the CFL move the hash marks back to where they used to be. Bringing the hash marks closer together changed the running game, kicking game and field positioning. The CFL americanized our game too much when they did this. Does any one else agree ?

What did the field look like before? Can you show me ORR! :?

The hash marks are now 24 yards from the sidelines, prior to 1972, ( I think) I believe they were 10-15 yards away from the sidelines. By bringing them in, they made it more of an american game on a big field. If Team "A" ran out of bounds on Team " B"'s west side of the feild, the ball was spotted at the extreme end of the hash marks like now, except, 15 yards from the sidelines, instead of 24, creating a very short side and a very long side. It forced a team to be aware of field positioning, especially if they were setting up for a field goal. If a team was too close and went out of bounds, it created extreme angles for field goal kicking. Does anyone else remember this ? :stuck_out_tongue:

:mrgreen:
I indeed remember this. And I've been trying to get people to look at this idea for a long time now. Moving the hash marks inside was proposed by Edmonton and they got their way because they run the league. They'd been planning it for some time as they put together a playbook with limited formations before the change was made.

At present there are limited formations based on the double slot-back. When the hashs were farther apart there were a lot more formations. The basic was a wide-receiver on the wide side and a flanker on the short. So these guys would switch sides depending on field location. In the backfield you had (usually) a halfback and double fullback formation with a tight end who could drop and be replaced by a fullback at the line or the flanker could move up.

George Reed made all of those yards on a wide-hash field where the running game was critical. With the hashs moved inside the passing game took over completely. When is the last time you saw a sweep? How about a wide lateral? Wide side flood even? Quick kicks were more common and guards really pulled and swept.

I don't care what anyone else says. The game was better and required more versatile athletes with the wide hashmarks. Sure the playbooks were bigger. That's why we had 4 exhibition games. US players always complained about the huge playbook. Now, anyone could learn a CFL playbook in 2 games.

And Dude,

I have an Ottawa Rough Rider hat in perfect condition.

And no, you can't buy it.

Thanks, preid40. I knew I wasn't imagining things !! Funny, how the Eskimos of the 60's and early 70's had crap teams during the time, and they suddenly went to 9 out of 10 Grey Cup games. I remember, as a kid, in the late 60's to early 70's, how the running game was very consistent and a prominent part of the strategy and then suddenly it was pass,pass, pass and a lot of terrible football. Do you think it was in direct result of the Eskimos getting their way. Hey I want the hat, man. Is it a cap or a helmet ?

I have a RR cord cap too! Can't have it: it was my Dad's.

:shock:
Hey Ottawa Rough Riders

Yes indeed I think those cups were the result of the change in field. It was not only the offences that changed but the defensive philosophy as well. While Edmonton went straight to the double slots the rest of the league was still employing tight ends.
I think the biggest factor in the Edmonton 5 cup run was the fact that they employed 2 complete teams. Those were the days of the big oil boom and they had more money to throw around than anyone else. So, contrary to the taxi-squad rule, they sucked talent from every other team by paying players more to sit on their taxi-squad than those players could make as starters elsewhere.

I've got a hat, not a helmet, and it's still not for sale.

hhmmm, Let's try it at the next exhibition game in Moncton and will see how the players use it.

That is fascinating !!! It's okay, I'm just joking about the hat. I have a red nylon hat with the horse and cowboy, a 1973 radio- mini helmet with the big R and a 1970 Ottawa Rough Rider rain pancho. I am looking for an old 60's helmet though.

Interesting stuff indeed.

OK, about the Hash Makers, why were they chaged in the frist place???

...and I remember some saying that the CFL was much slower 10 years ago, did the marks have anything to do with this???

[quote="preid40"] That's why we had 4 exhibition games.

More the merrier I say!

The game is fine how it is. We've seen some fantastic games in this young season, and I fail to see how they would be improved.

Hey Kanga

The reason for the change is open for discussion. At the time the league said they wanted to open up the field. What I do know is that the Eskimos made the most noise for the change and were the ones who had a trimmed down playbook ready as soon as the change was made. if that sounds like sour grapes so be it.
The change was made in the 70’s. Ten years ago the talent in the league was being shared among the US teams so, yeah, the game was a bit slower. Playbooks haven’t changed since the 70’s though because there’s nothing to change. Every team lines in a double slot on every play which means that the team with the fastest receivers usually wins. As I said in a post earlier, the number of formations that an offence could throw at a defence when the hashes were outside were greater. Wide hashes made the running game more important and there had to be a lot more coordination between the backs and the line.

EskJebus - I know that there have been some good games so far this season and I appreciate your point. I’ve also seen some amazing games with the wide hashes. While I love the game now I’d still like to see the hashes moved back out. Double slots are like vanilla icecream to me.

You have to wonder why more offenses don't implement a tight end formation now and again to surprise defenses with? Every player on defense knows what to do against a double slot formation, but throwing a tight end in there has potential to catch teams off guard.

I remember last year when Montreal played in BC, the Lions played half the game with a double tight end formation and caused all kinds of fits for the Als defense. BC racked up all kinds of yardage on the ground and handed the Als their first loss (I think, anyways).

Is it possible that unimaginitive offensive coordinators are the problem, not the position of the hash marks?

Hrm…what’s 1-rt2/2 x 65…

When making mockup fields, I’ve been copying rugby (100m x 70m), 20m end zones, and separating the hashes to 20m apart (2/7ths). This is wider than CFL (just over 1/4), wider than US College (exactly 1/4), and narrower than US Prep (exactly 1/3, but the posts are 23 ft 4 in).

I wouldn’t mind a small extension of the field’s hashes (I’d actually prefer to see 14 v 14 on a rugby sized field, time for some playtesting), but not much, maybe out to 21 yards apart (22 from the sides). The whole 65 yards thing is a bit of a throwoff, they should either go metric or go wider IMO, but hey, it’s their choice.

Another option is to just get rid of hashes alltogether. Kanga would like this, it’d represent rugby a whole lot more.

Hashmarks were introduced in the 1932 NFL Championship Game, an incredibly odd contest where the intense cold forced the game indoors for the first time ever. Needless to say, the facilities were not up to par for this switch, and the smaller dimensions not only forced the game to be an 80 yard contest, but also plays needed to start a substantial distance from the sidelines in order to not have the WALLS of the Chicago arena be a menace for the offense. The next year, the NFL instituted hashmarks at 10 yard spaces from the sidelines, which slowly moved to 15, 20, and the current 23.58333 yards (college switched from 53.333 feet, the high school dimension, to 20 yards in the last 10 years).

If hashes were to be completely removed, there would be a need for a width parameter in scoring touchdowns, probably “closest area of possession in the end zone before play is dead.” This way conversion kicks can be the way they are in rugby. Other considerations, such as a wider field, might be put into effect, and A PENALTY FOR GOING OUT OF BOUNDS. In a time management style game like football, this is very strange, but we could see it as a possibility if the CFL wants to widen up the field (and get us closer to the action that way - except at fields with tracks).

I know that the league was top dog in the 1960's with the hash marks the old way (that and the conpitision between the NFL and the then AFL wore both leagues down untill they meaged in 1970 and fromed a stong league), but it seems since the chage the league has been in decline.

I'm all for making the CFL a little more rugby style, but really, what difference does this make???

Is it possible that unimaginitive offensive coordinators are the problem, not the position of the hash marks?
[/quote]
I wouldn't be a bit surprised. Even with the hashes where they are now there's room for some imagination and guts.

I believe in this order:

  1. Whoever made the changes to the hash marks was smoking hash.
  2. You people discussing hash marks are Cheech and Chong fans from the 70's still spaced out all the time.

Riders Rule
Esks drool
Bombers must be smoking hash too!!