O'Leary: Rule changes led to increased offence in '22

Twenty weeks into a season that brought some significant rule changes with it, Steve Daniel has increasingly liked what he’s seen, almost on a week-to-week basis.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.cfl.ca/2022/10/27/oleary-rule-changes-led-to-increased-offence-in-22/
1 Like

Very interesting!

i just read this as the cfl trying to find ways to pat itself on the back. how about fix the stupid PI officiating and challenges. and if you’re so into stats and analytics, maybe stop using PDFs to report the extended league stats so people can actually use the data.

1 Like

I'm not sure you can attribute all the increased scoring to the rule changes. While I'm sure it helped, we also had some record-breaking new talent start playing this year and also some abysmal defenses. I think scoring would have been up without any rule changes, although not likely by as much.

But for the most part, I did like the new rule changes. The only one I felt was rather pointless was the new rule to allow two QBs on the field at the same time. I think there were only a handful of plays that even attempted to make use of that and none of them really worked all that well. And honestly, I can't even really envision a play that would use two designated QBs in a way that is useful but also not completely obvious to the defense.

The Bombers had 2 on the Field with Dru Brown taking the snap and Collaros standing in a wide receiver spot. The defense HAD to watch Collaros to make sure he wasnt going to receive the ball and throw it down field. Because of having to watch him, Brady got open and Dru threw a TD pass to Brady.
ONE split second of guessing led to a TD. Id say it worked

1 Like

I'd like some inventive offensive coordinator use the rule of having two quarterbacks on the same play

1 Like

What would you like to see fixed with the challenges?

1 Like

It's going to take time. Personally, I don't see why there was a "only one QB on the field" rule in the first place.

BC Lions, 2005, when they had Casey Printers and Dave Dickensen. I thought Printers could have lined up in the running back position.

Hamilton Tiger-Cats, 80s. They had a strong running QB in Ken Hobart and a strong passer in Mike Kerrigan. Depending on which one was on the field, the defence had a decent idea of what kind of play it was going to be.

First off IMO - DPI has been pretty consistent this season - for a change. Really - that's all you can ask for, consistency. Alter the receivers path or body position through contact and you get PI.

As for the other part Mark Twain covered that.... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.".

The real question is - did the Elks alone help improve everyone's offensive stats? Three or four bad beatings sure help the opponents offensive stats no end...

I know this is for special teams not offense, but please reassess the 15 yard no yards punt contact vs no contact rule. Getting 15 yards for not touching a player is just really dumb. Those should be reserved for serious unnecessary roughness penalties.

Capital Dave started a thread about this in CFL talk.. Interesting 2022 Trends - #3 by Hit.em.hard

I responded there. But basically, the numbers make the season look good. Overall, the football was sloppy and the games were slow.

I bailed on a lot of games partway through, and couldn't even tell you when I stopped watching games altogether that didn't involve my team, because I don’t think I really noticed when I did it.

I'm in the biggest demographic, living in the middle of the most rabid fanbase, and many in my peer group have expressed similar sentiments. Numbers on tv seem to be bearing out this malaise league-wide.

So yeah, the numbers look good. But somehow, it just feels like spin.

1 Like

it’s 100% spin and just a bunch of league guys fist bumping themselves.

1 Like

consistently awful. let them at least hand fight. also i don’t believe that PI should be challengeable - we don’t need more stoppages and slowed down play. i think it should be reviewed by head office like fumbles, if it looks like the call on the field was disputable.

I didn't know there was a "1 QB" rule, don't see why that would even exist.

I would also like to see a change to the no-yards rule especially after the ball has bounced.

And that rule on the punt where the receiving player is out of bounds but touches a ball that is in bounds (not that it happens all that often) needs to change. The receiving player clearly caused the out of bounds situation, so they shouldn't gain the advantage.

1 Like

But a fumble is concrete, it happened. The fact that it happened is what signals the head office to look at it and make sure the runner was not down

What would trigger it for PI? Is the command center supposed to review every play

I could never understand that mentality!
So many fans have an attitude of....I don't care if the call is right or not....Just get the game over with

Some people dread the thought of winning a Grey Cup on a rouge...but are fine with wining or losing because of a horrible missed call!
Again...They don't care if the call is right, they want the game over as quickly as possible!!!!!

Why even watch?

That would mean going back to the old way?
Seems to me that the new rule has reduced no-yards flags dramatically

1 Like

So what do you suggest? Fair catch?

But they have. If you grab and impede or change a players direction it's PI. Handfighting except not allowing the receiver opportunity to make a play on the ball has been allowed.

What we really need - is improved replay. I know you have seen it work in Rugby and I feel with that system, plus a consensus from the off field and head ref we could be way more consistent than we are now AND it says here's what you did wrong when you get called.


yes i agree with this. but i still think there are too many ticky tacky PI flags thrown to begin with. tugs on jerseys and obvious interference yes call it. a bit of hand fighting both ways - let it go. the NFL calls it better than the CFL.

1 Like

No I didn't say go back to the old way. My preference (which would never fly) is that if the ball hits the ground, no flag at all. I'm pretty sure some players would get destroyed though, which is why it would never fly.