how is this for thinking outside the box

big change for goal posts.

revamped ala aussie rules football.

6 posts all together.

PK thru the middle two for 3 pts, next 2 for 2 pts and outside two for 1 point.

1 pt convert must go thru middle 2 so that it is not so automatic

kick thru the uprights on kick offs and score 5,4,3 pts. This would be more applicable in NFL but it could be applicable on penalties that are applied to kick offs in CFL

works for me :slight_smile:

Aussie only has 4 :wink:

and I'd rather not change the number of goal posts or their placements. So not really a change I'd like to see.

The only changes I want to see in terms of Kicking/punting and rules are:
-any single point scored from a punt/FG attempt must hit the field of play(or maybe just the white of the boundary) before going out of bounds or of course the point can still be conceded.
A single should be to punish teams for not returning or attempting to return the ball, not a reward for missing a 10-20 yard FG attempt and kicking it into the 5th row.
So just like if on a FG the kicker hits the uprights, if the kicker misses the FG and the ball doesn't touch the field of play no points.

Also:
-Go back to if a punt goes out of bounds in air between the 20's that the 10 yard penalty can only be applied on a re-kick and not where the ball went out of bounds.

yeah, I know aussie has only 4, but 6 would work better for us.

I might add in case it wasn’t clear, the outside posts would be where they posts are now.

Hmm . . . too big a change for the traditionalist in me. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing extra point kicks either removed completely from the game or have the player who scored the TD be the one attempting the kick.

Even if a kick doesn't land in the endzone, you can't reward the defending team for failing to defend their endzone, so a rouge has to be scored. The only compromise I'd consider is giving the failed defense a choice between surrendering the point and taking the 25 (30?) yards or not surrendering but scrimmaging from their goal line. We definitely shouldn't reward them with free yards for failing to defend. (Although we do just that for INTs in the endzone, which is something else I would like to see changed).

http://palgn.com.au/media/pics_inside/art_7515_id_4_mw_520.jpeg

So looking at this pic.....#1 your'e saying wide left or right it's an automatic 2 pts as long as it's not too wide either way
#2....you would now have more posts on the goal line to impede a player's path and a QB's pass,which would lead to possibly more injuries to a player running or getting tackled into one of these posts positioned on the goal line.
#3....So if you somehow manage to miss all four posts,which if you look at it,would be a pretty crappy kick,you get a point anyway
#4....Would basically eliminate a missed f.g. attempt run back,because no matter where you kick the ball,you are awarded at least a point
#5....Last time I looked,as far as I know,Aussie football doesn't have place kicking in it as we have in the CFL
#6....And for some reason,this works for you???? IMO never mind thinking outside the box.....you can box up this idea and throw it out with the trash!!!! Ridiculous Idea that should be left over in Aussie Land. :roll: :slight_smile:

No thanks.

what they should do is find a way to suspend goalposts in the air, so they don't impede goal line plays

Virtual goal posts using lasers and mist. 8)

in case you missed it in a follow up post, I stated that the outside posts would be as they are, with additional 4 posts added in between. All posts attached to existing post, no extra post to impede players. No effect on returning missed FG. I indicated the idea was like aussie rules, not that it would be exactly the same.

I am not sure how there would be no effect on returning missed field goals. With the wider (2 point) posts the number of missed field goals would be greatly reduced and if you score a point for going through at all play would end and thereby your idea would result in virtually no kicks being returned.

I am all for innovation though so keep pitching. How about instead of adding posts outside the existing post, put a single post up in the middle and you get an extra point for hitting it.

I've watched a few rugby games while visiting New Zealand. I enjoyed the games- biggest change is that in Rugby there are no forward passing. Instead the play offensive players when receiving the ball advance in a wide V system. The guy receiving the ball will usually begin running in the middle of the field, with other players each lined up in an inverted V manner and, as they move forward, the ball is thrown backwards as the defenders move toward the ball carrier. The players who are situated furthest from the ball carrier and, are generally the fastest runners on the team.
The players wear no padding and, nor helmets. Tackling is similar to ours. During the few games I have seen, there were no major injuries. field goals come from drop kicking.
NZ and Aussie kickers have made the transition to our football. The biggest and strongest players in that are those from Samoa who play American football and, at times, some of the larger players make it to the NFL usually playing on a line position.

I like the idea of moving at the back of the end zone. It detracts from end zone plays on television and its in the way.

clearly you did not comprehend were I stated additional posts would be in between the existing posts.

No way - whatever you change in the CFL, don't touch the kicking game except for the extra point as noted above!

Either get rid of the extra point altogether or go back to the rules of rugby union for it so as to make it harder to score the extra point if the touchdown is scored far away from the centre of the field.

"fricken laser-beams!"

This is the most ridiculous idea I’ve heard in a while. There’s a reason the game is called “football” and not “rugby”.

oooo, someones got comprehension problems. My idea has no more to do with Rugby than the game already has.

I bet if you lived in Noah’s time, you would have been the first to mock him.

If Noah suggested bringing the burning bush onboard the ark, I’d be the first to tell him it’s a ridiculous idea.