I'd like a kickoff for OT personally for that reason, brings the return game into it.
True Earl, but on the other hand; Mullin is just seeing what the CFL fans think with their feed back. As for Blue Blood; you do a good job on your research. :thup:
Are you kidding me? This current OT format has put out some of the most epic,exciting,jaw dropping,heart stopping games in CFL history!?!? :rockin:
Exp - 45-45 Tie between Saskatchewan vs Calgary 2009
The Miracle @ Mosaic in the Canada Day Kickoff in 2010
The BC vs Winnipeg game this season
Saskatchewan vs BC in 2010 West Semi..
just to name a few
You CANNOT tell me that this OT format is not exciting because if you do well then you must have on hell of an exciting life... :roll:
Agreed saskfan23; Glad you brought up some of the excitement of past games with the current O.T. format. Also the 2005 Grey Cup game is another as Edmonton defeated Montreal 38-35 at B.C. Place.
Take out the BC-Winnipeg altogether from the above list for the CF clash of clowns it was at the core!
On the other ones no doubt of course exciting, but they would have been even MORE exciting with real football in OT versus a high school scrimmage!
There was nothing wrong with tradition the way I see it despite even some choosing some traditions as more traditional than others. :roll:
Real football is and always be a complete game of offence, defence, and special teams and is not merely some scrimmage made mostly for TV sold as something else that it’s not.
/The Vicious OT Debate Continues :roll: :twisted:
The bolded is a fallacy. Who knows if it would have been more exciting.
Add to that list of exiting OT games is the one from 2000 also between Calgary and Sask that eneded in a 52-52 tie.
In fact 4 of my favourite games ever were OT games with the current format.
2000 Calgary at Sask 52-52 (4 overtime scrimmages)
2004 Grey Cup Mtl - Edm
2010 Mtl- Sask home opener 54-51
2010 Cal At Sask 43-37
I honestly don’t think you could have made those games more exiting. (well except for the Grey cup game in 04, the first half was a snooze fest, they made up for it though)
The bolded is a fallacy. Who knows if it would have been more exciting.
Add to that list of exiting OT games is the one from 2000 also between Calgary and Sask that eneded in a 52-52 tie.
In fact 4 of my favourite games ever were OT games with the current format.
2000 Calgary at Sask 52-52 (4 overtime scrimmages)
2004 Grey Cup Mtl - Edm
2010 Mtl- Sask home opener 54-51
2010 Cal At Sask 43-37
I honestly don’t think you could have made those games more exiting. (well except for the Grey cup game in 04, the first half was a snooze fest, they made up for it though)
[/quote]
Billy_Soup; I think you meant the 2005 Grey Cup Mtl - Edm as opposed to 2004
I wonder if I could get jim to push for moving the goalposts back :rockin:
no thanks …
you do that, may as well make every other rule NFL based…
shrink the field, lose the live endzones, make em 10yds, go 4 downs… etc etc.
you start messing with 1 you mess with them all.
who said anything about the NFL.
if you are so scared of anything being the same in both leagues, then we should change a lot of other things just to be different from the NFL.
Cant have field goals, because they do that in the NFL
Cant have punts, because they do that in the NFL
Cant throw passes because they do that in the NFL
Cant have 4 quarters or two halfs, because they do that in the NFL
Cant have separate players for defense and offense, because they do that in the NFL
Cant use pointy ended balls because they do that in the NFL
Cant do kicking converts because they do that in the NFL
Cant have goalposts at all, because they do that in the NFL
Cant allow blocking at all, because they do that in the NFL
Cant have video replay, because they do that in the NFL
Can’t have yac yards on receptions or interceptions, because they do that in the NFL
Cant…
Can't have annoying fans, they have those in the NFL.
My only concern is that someone in the rules commitee or BOG will take him seriouisly.
I really wish he would think some things through a bit better before brining them up. Like the example of the play clock, he forgets the really big, and i mean, collosal difference between 3 down, and 4 down football, and the use of the play clock, is in the final minutes of the half.
if you change how long a team has to exicute a play, then you will see a decrease in the number of combacks in the final minutes. I'm sure everyone here has seen games in the 4 down ball where a team is behind by less then a feild goal, with 2 minutes or more on the clock, but the team in the lead has possesion and a first down.
In most cases in this situation, that, more ore less is the end of the game, and that's not how we play ball up here. not that it's bad, or wrong, it's just not how we do it.
so, Mullins, sometimes good articles, othertimes, half thought ideas. but whatever, it's interesting enough to read and makes for good conversations, so I say thankee.
As for OT, I've long thought that 2, 3 minute halfs would be just awesome! and could be as exilerating as the final three minutes of any close game. But i don't think we'll see a change because well, what we have works for now and when it comes to overtime, it's about finding the fastest, and fairest way to resolve a hard fought and even game. The problem with 3 minute halfs though, and i hope everyone does realize this, is that in Canadian football, it's "stop time" meaning the clock stops automaticly when the ball is downed. not to mention you're addig a total, 6 minutes of stop time, so really, you're looking at half a quarter extra play, where the clock may not move that fast.
I will agree though, it seems like only 2 3rds of a game as a shoot out. but that's what it is, it's not extra time, it's a shoot out.
Perhaps, (and really, i'd like it ife there were no rule changes for a a year or two) instead of starting with the ball on the 35, they could begin each teams possession with a safety punt. so you'd get some special teams, and that would be important in determinint feild position. but without punt returns it still feels incomplete.
But hey, if mullins can just make stuff up why the heck can't I? 
hahhaah.
You are right. Serves me right for trying to use my memory 
those aren’t rules, those are basic Game fundamentals…
BIG DIFFERENCE.
i’m trying to tell you, if you move the goalposts back to the back of the endzone… you then totally eliminate missed field goal returns and then you also eliminate the potential for singles.
now you’re turning more into the NFL. which we do NOT want.
so then you may as well shrink down the endzones to 10 yds and make it a dead endzone.
do you not understand the effects of something as simple as changing the location of the goalposts?
Never mind the silliness from FYB, shouldn’t the debate be about what makes the game better, not what makes the game more like the NFL or less like the NFL? Personally, I like Canadian rules much more than the American ones. But if there’s some rule in American football that could make the Canadian game better if we adopted it, it deserves consideration.
We’ve adopted rules from them in the past. Although the details are different, the down-and-distance concept, the most fundamental aspect of all, was copied from Americans around 1905 by Thrift Burnside, after Walter Camp spent years tweaking the Rugby game in the US. The forward pass is an American innovation as well, and something Canadian football has allowed since the 30s. Aspects of our scoring system were copied from them. I’m sure there are other examples. And yet, the Canadian game survives as a distinct brand of football despite those adoptions.
Rule changes should be judged on their merit, not because of some imagined slippery slope to American rules.
I commend you PiCat, a very reasonable approach to take indeed.
Nice to see another fan that understands the history of The Game. (yes, the capitalization is intentional)
I’ve always thought there should be an international “Burnside & Camp Day” with BBQ’s roar, and plenty of friends pitching the pigskin around. somwhere around august.
anyway, did you know that for a while the QRFU played 5 yards to 3 down for a number of years? They were of course still playing 15 a side, so it was much harder to gain yards down field.
Also, the americans went with a smaller feild because… get this, harvard built a faculty building on a portion of thier original football field, and if the rest of the schools went with the proposed 110 yard field and 20 yard endzones, they’d be unable to compete! hahah! geniuses at harvard! so, the reduced size, prompet a move to 11 men, and originaly, they DID play 3 downs… but just couldn’t gain the yards, so they bumped it up to 4 downs for 10 yards as is famous today.
wow…
there’s a word for that last part…
pathetic!
so because of inability to get 10 yds on 3 downs they increase it.
that makes me feel much better about the Canadian rules 
oh, don’t show that to all those Anti-CFL people out there, you might start a War! :roll:
I agree with PiCat. Rule changes should be judged on merit, not national origin.
However, there are also fundamental differences between Canadian and American football that shouldn't be touched in either league i.e. location of goal posts, number of downs or field dimensions in most cases (the league is already flexible on the endzone with running tracks in Edmonton and Montreal and the 1980's shortening from 25 to 20 yards). Regardless, these aspects are ingrained in the respective games and fundamental to making them what they are.
Everything depends also how you choose to look at it. Regarding clock rules, its true the NFL and CFL run more or less the same number of plays per game. So having said that, it would seem we just cram more into the last 3 minutes because we change our clock rules under 3 minutes where the NFL has a consistent set of timing rules for the whole game.
Does that really make our clock rules all the more superior? I mean if there are 10-15 plays that we can cram into 3:00 to decide a game whereas the same 10-15 plays might make-up the last 5:00 or 6:00 in the NFL... its still only 10-15 plays to decide the game. How is one more exciting than the other? Because we coerce our clock into stopping and reading a lower value for a longer period of real time?
At least in the NFL the time spent between plays is a consistent 40 seconds and not on the arbitrary decision of the ref to blow-in the 20 second playclock in while the game clock runs away. For most of the game, we also let the game clock run with the play clock on converts, after incomplete passes and runs out of bounds to make up for all the stoppages under 3 minutes.
So we really shouldn't be complaining that they walk off the field with 39 seconds left in the NFL. We probably end up wasting more than 39 seconds in the CFL running the clock on converts.
They could adopt a Canadian rule in the NFL that dictates the clock must read 0:00 with a live ball so they play right to 0:00 or have to take an extra knee or earn another first down to close a game out.
some of you seriously don't understand the timing in the CFL....
clock doesn't stop in the CFL except for the last 3 minutes of the game.
only time that time stops is after a convert.. when a TD is scored, after a field goal, or on an injury.
stop time is only in the final 3 of each half.
the 20 second clock starts officially when the ball is placed down on the ground and all the referee's are in place and the sticks are in position.
as soon as those 3 things are ready, he'll blow in the 20 second clock.
assuming that it's not another big first down.. as soon as that ball goes down on the field, 20 seconds begin.
why don't you guys do a little research?
I refereed 5 years, coached another 5. played 8. I know how everything works as far as timing rules for Referees in the CFL.