Length of field availability

Interesting, I was just reading this in the rules section of the site. My take on this is that a regulation field size is not a must for a game to be played. I suppose it's a minor article but nevertheless found it interesting:

"If the regulation length of a field is not available because of a fence, a running track or any other object, a clear line of demarcation shall be established at least one foot toward the playing surface from such fence, track or object."

http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=page&id=7

Yes that would go to explain the truncated corners in Edmonton, Montreal and formerly Hamilton on its older playing surface.

Also during the US expansion years (ulgh) stadia without the available space also had truncated endzones. Baltimore's were 15 yards I beleive and I think it was either the Birmingham Baracuddas or Memphis Mad Dogs that had endzones that were house shaped being 7 yards deep at the sidelines and 12 yards deep in the middle.

But really now there should be consistency. This isn't baseball. a TD pass into the corner of the endzone in Toronto should be the same as a TD in Edmonton.

Agree joe there should be consistency as you say. But there doesn't have to be consistency which, to me, means that the league could expand to so and so if their field cannot meet the regulation field size. That's the way I intrepret this anyways.

How about making the end zones 15 yards? That way everyone could have uniform rectangle fields rather than some of the egg shaped ones we have now.

Sure but only if rouges only count on returnable kicks.

Edmonton has not had "truncated" or any other kind of corners for a number of years. A check on the Eskimo website will show you the rectangle field you feel is so important.

http://www.esks.com/default.asp?V_DOC_ID=1612

I might be horribly mistaken but...

Isn't that picture is a few years old?

I remember Commonwealth installed an artificial endzone with a full 65 x 20 yard surface over the track.

However, I'm pretty sure from watching on TV this year that for whichever reason, Commonwealth stadium reverted back to the natural-grass truncated endzones.

http://publish.edu.uwo.ca/marshall.mangan/Travelpics/Picpage11/Com_Stadium.jpg

Im pretty sure thats the Argos new uniforms given the blue pants. So this pic has to be 2005 or 2006 season.

It's funny; I've been to alot of games at Commonwealth Stadium, and have never paid close enough attention to the corners of the endzone, so I'm not sure which picture is more recent. I guess I'll have to have a look the next time the Eskimos are celebrating a touchdown!!

Besides, we all know the Eskimos grease up the endzone grass with vaseline, to give them an extra home field advantage. What difference does a little extra advantage make, by cutting off the corners? :lol: :lol:

The Argos pants were white before the 2005 season. So the pic I posted is definitely 2005 or 2006 season.

I think I remember commentators marvelling over the artificial grassy surface in Edmonton’s endzones in a time before they were common across the league. So again, I could be horribly mistaken, but I think cfleskfan’s photo is early 2000s.

I'd be curious as to why they would have needed to change the endzones in the first place. That track has been there since the beginning of time. Perhaps when they upgraded for the 2001 World Athletics Championships, they had to make the track wider, and therefore cut the corners off the endzones?

I believe the answer is that the endzones used to be 25 yards. 25 didn't fit into BC Place. Or so one website I found claims.
It's funny though, because I could have sworn the Edmonton endzones were still cut off. But they most definately were at one time.
I guess I never noticed the change.

As long as the endzones are reasonably close to regulation, I think a few variances add character to the stadiums and the game.
I'm all for bringing back the fence at Taylor Field....

The Eskimos endzones ARE still cut off(I notice small details like this, I'd be willing to bet my life on it), that square picture that someone posted is a few years old.

put "commonwealth stadium, edmonton" into google maps or google earth and you can see that the endzones are turnicated as of right now

oops.

No problem dating this picture ... it's from 2002:

[url=http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/7/7a/250px-Grey_Cup_2002_Snowbirds.jpg]http://content.answers.com/main/content ... wbirds.jpg[/url]

Not to say there weren't rounded corners in '03 and '04, but I'm betting there were.

I have no problem with "egg shaped" endzones ... it does lend a bit of character ... (and singles should only count on returnable kicks, no matter what size. 15 yards deep would be no big deal, and would make it harder on offences, but 20 is fine.)

Did Memorial Stadium really have shorter endzones? Using precise measuring (re: my finger), the close one in this pic seems to be 20 yards, at least ... and you can tell that they've avoided the rounded-off corners.

[url=http://www.oursportscentral.com/cflinamerica/memstad.jpg]http://www.oursportscentral.com/cflinam ... emstad.jpg[/url]

(looks good, hey? Awesome amount of fans. Maybe another reason why the CFL succeeded in Baltimore - the team actually tried to go along with the CFL.)

Looks like the evidence is mounting.
Commonwealth still has the truncated corners.
The google map is very clear.
No wonder I didn't recall them changing it....

As for Baltimore, it is a tad tough to tell from that photo, but I think they did manage regulation.
I suppose they could have been 18 or something, but at least close.
It was further south in Memphis, etc, that they were not even close.

Great shot of the Baltimore game though.
It is like pulling hens teeth in Canada to build a stadium, but in America, they knock 'em down and build a new one.

OK, my memory is bad. Guess the rounded corners are the reason for all the Eskimo success.

They did have the rounded corners last year?

I guess that blows that theory.

I've got a good idea, why don't we shorten the field 10 yards and have 15 yard rectangular end zones.

Actually, I want back into the video archives from last year and the end zones are indeed truncated. For the record though Google Earth is a great site the pictures are often several years old. My old house still shows despite being torn down 4 years ago.

Edmonton had truncated corners while Baltimore had full rectangular field.

Guess that seals the deal, Baltimore won the Grey Cup because they had rectangular end zones.

I always suspected it was so.

Those rounded corners hardly ever come into play. I'm sure Edm had the rounded corners last year. That picture of Commonwealth must of been photoshoped. I'm sure they aren't growing grass over the running track!