Notice to CFL, please do not follow NFL's ideas

the NFL apparently wants to make some changes to their rules for the sake of the Player's safety..

2 of the 3 I think are good but this one I dont' like.

NFL wants to move the kickoff's back to the 35yd line. and also move the touchback on the return (oxymoron) to the 25yd line.

can anyone tell me what this is implying?

they seem to be encouraging teams to have less returns, less hits. they want more touchbacks and less kick off returns. :roll:

PLEASE CFL for the SAKE of this game.. DO NOT FOLLOW!!

it's so dumb.

oh and they want to completely ban wedge blocking in the NFL now... :roll:

seem's the No Fun League.. wants to get Less Fun!

Almost as dumb as saying

when you should be using "fewer" instead of "less". . .

Sorry cflisthbest, just couldn't resist that :smiley: :smiley:

hehe ok point taken! :cowboy:

Bad Grammar is a 0.3 yard penalty, it will be applied to the next Saskatchewan kickoff.

They should just do away with the kickoff already in the NFL. Heck with free catches maybe they should just do away with punting also, have a QB just heave a ball down field for someone to free catch. The kick game is easily one of the most boring aspects of the NFL game. Now they just need to increase the playclock from 45 secs to a full minute, have fewer plays during the game so that there are fewer hits and so players can get off the field even sooner with the clock ticking down.

I agree, the kicking game in the NFL is sorely lacking as it is. If they fiddle around with it anymore, then they might as well just have the teams start at the 20 yard line.

or maybe they could do a rugby throw in :wink:

I realy don't think this is something we have to worry about clfisbest.

In 2009 they [CFL rules commitee] struck a 150 year old rule of allowing a team to scrimmage from the 35 after a field goal was scored against them, with the sole purpose being to increase the number of kick returns and returns for touch downs. There was a very low number of big returns and returns for majors in 2008 that spurred this thinking forward.

in 2010 they reinstated that rule for whatever reason. Perhaps they felt it was unnecisary, or coachs prized starting field position to highly (me thinks it's the latter). With guys like Owens, Thigpen, Taylor, and Maypray running back kicks; punts, kickoffs, and field goals are thankfully some of the most exciting, high risk plays in the Canadian game.

I'd wager that the powers that be know this full well too. :wink:

On the bright side, if the NFL adopts those rule changes then maybe fewer of our big return guys will get poached.

that's a good point BB..

Your whole post is a very good assessment. But just a point of clarification of the bolded fact therein: it used to be that there was no option - the team that made the field goal had to kick off after a field goal, just like after a TD. I don't recall at all when the option came for the other team to choose to receive a kick-off or to scrimmage from their own 35, but I think it was sometime in the 80s. Either way, your point is that the rules have been changed before to make kick returns a vital and exciting part of the game rather than to reduce both their importance and their excitement so we can have some faith that the league will maintain that direction.

As a football fan from the States I must say that I do like the added emphasis to the kicking game in the CFL. In the USA, the special teams are very unpopular and most people down here would be content to get rid of them entirely. In other words, you would have to go for it on 4th down and go for 2 after each TD.

I think people might like them more if it was more like the CFL.

On the other hand, the NFL had the forward pass way before the CFL. Aren't you glad that the CFL copied that? Now you guys hate the running game and consider it to be as boring as the NFL fans consider special teams to be.

Personally, I would never want the NFL to go to 3 downs as is frequently suggested on these boards because it kills the running game and leads to an inordinate amount of punting. However, I would love for the CFL special teams rules to be implemented to some degree into the NFL. That would be sweet.

buckeye, 3 downs doesn't kill the running game, but what it does is change the strategy of how the running is used. Often here, sometimes there as well, the pass is used to set up the run. The biggest fallacy among people who don't watch loads of CFL games every year is that the running game is not important. Nothing could be further from the truth if you understand the game here and know it. For my money, 3 downs beats 4 downs for how the game is played but that being said, in the NFL now you win by the pass and not the run as in years past where you could get by just with a running game and have a crap qb, not any more and even the NFL is using 4 and 5 receiver sets often. There's a reason Peyton Manning, Brady are the stars. The rb's aren't the big stars any more there IMHO. I do love the running game and how it's used differently in both leagues and styles. While I find 4 downs inferior to 3 downs ie. 4 downs allows mediocre teams to have the ball too long without forcing a change of possesion, that's my biggest beef with the American game, I still like watching the 4 down game. I just have to change my thinking, it's a slower game than the CFL and that's ok, it's just different for me. 3 downs allows for more concentration on special teams, yes, and I like this aspect of the game a lot.

Also, McGill introduced the run to American football and if it werent' for McGill, you guys might be calling soccer your no. 1 'football' sport. See:

[i]Standoffish from the start, Harvard declined to participate on the grounds that its Boston rules were so different from those of the other colleges that they could not be reconciled. Its letter explaining this to the captain of the Yale team is an unintended masterpiece of patronization. "You perhaps wonder on your side at our rules; but I assure you that we consider the game here to admit of much more science, according to our rules. We cannot but recognize in your game much brute force, weight and especially 'shin' element. Our game depends upon running, dodging and position playing.... We even went so far as to practice and try the Yale game. We gave it up at once as hopeless. . . . I would send you a copy of our rules but we do not have a spare copy."

Those students who did attend the conference formed the Intercollegiate Football Association, the sport's first governing body. The game they agreed upon still very much resembled soccer; no throwing or carrying the ball was permitted. Teams were to have twenty men to a side, although Yale argued for eleven on the theory that it might be easier to gain faculty approval for fewer men to travel to away games. These 1873 rules, which lasted only one season, were ultimately of little significance. Harvard eventually prevailed, but first Harvard's own game had to change.

The occasion was a pair of matches in May 1874 against a visiting team from McGill University of Montreal. The first of the two contests was played under Harvard rules, the second under the All-Canada Rugby Rule Code. Harvard won the opener, 3-0, in just twenty-two minutes, while wearing for the first time "magenta handkerchiefs bound round their heads." Although the second game ended in a scoreless tie (in part because McGill had neglected to bring a Canadian rugby ball, assuming erroneously that they could buy one in Boston), Harvard students who had recently derided the Canadian rule as "wholly unscientific and unsuitable to colleges," so preferred the new game that they decided to adopt it[/i]. (continues . . .)

Football : The Ivy League Origins of an American Obsession
Mark F. Bernstein. Univ. Pennsylannia Press.
344 pages | 6 1/8 x 9 1/4 | 28 illus.
Cloth 2001 | ISBN 978-0-8122-3627-9 | $47.50s

On the history of football in North America, I found this article to be pretty informative.

[url=] ... lowers.pdf[/url]

It chronicles the development of the American game from what was still essentially rugby with a few local tweaks to the beginnings of modern gridiron football.

From what I understand, I think what the NFL is trying to do is make the strategy of kickoffs more akin to that of punting in American football.

As it stands, there's more incentive for the kicking team in forcing a touchback on kickoffs as kicks landing in the field-of-play are often returned beyond the 20.

Currently with punts, there is less incentive to force touchbacks since punt returns are typically shorter or fair caught on high punts. So the strategy then becomes to punt as close to the endzone without entering the endzone to bury the return team.

I guess by bringing the kickoff out to the 35 and awarding the 25 for a touchback, the NFL is offering incentive to kick deep but not into the endzone. The ensuing return would be covered by a kick team with 5 fewer yards to accumulate crazy kamikaze momentum (thus injuries). If covered properly, the return team should end up scrimmaging somewhere between the 15 and 25 and likely less than the would-be 25 yard line touchback scrimmage point.

In the context of American football, its not a terrible idea. In fact it kind of jives with our dead-ball in the endzone 25 yard line scrimmage or our 35 yard line after-rouge scrimmage.

ya but they moved the ball to the 30 to keep it out of the endzone..

so why move it up? that's like saying We need more goals in the NHL, so we're going to make the nets smaller!

Not if by virtue of moving the kickoff spot up in tandem with awarding more field position for a touchback results in a change in kickoff strategy not unlike what's done with punts in the NFL.. That is... avoid kicking the ball into the endzone because doing so will likely result in less favourable field position for the kick team. Moving the kickoff up also means cover team players will be downfield sooner to cover a higher, shorter kickoff dropped around the 5 yard line. Covering this return will be favourable to booting it in the endzone and giving up 25 yards.

Like I said before... today, a kick returned from the goal line will likely be brought out past the 20 (the present touchback scrimmage line).. So a touchback is presently favourable to covering the return.

I guess we shall see.

I disagree on two points you have made Joe:

  1. Five extra yards over that distance for sake of the momentum of return players makes absolutely no difference.
  2. When a team is ahead in the game or near the end of the game, now they have even more incentive and ability to just play it safe and kick for touchback even with allowing the extra five yards.

Essentially the new rules would kill the return game on kickoffs, as is mostly what we have here left on special teams due to missed field goal returns being very rare and due to fair catches and touchbacks the norm on punts even when well-covered.

I'll certainly move on some from the now ended NFL Prime Era (1978-2010) should this and other gimmick changes pass, and I agree with the players that changing this rule in fact attacks the symptoms and does not attack the root of unsafe play.

For example, eliminating wedge blocking techniques was one step in the right direction. That one should have been eliminated long, long ago given the initial major reforms in unsafe American football around 1905 as included elimination of the "flying wedge."

Yeah you're right re: 5 yards = no difference on momentum Paulo.

I wonder what making the kickoff from half (really old school) with a 25 or 30 yard touchback scrimmage might do for returning and/or safety in the NFL?