Potential Rule Changes for 2024

Talks during the winter meetings in Nashville

One item being discussed is teams who conceed a touchdown the option to start on their 40 in lieu of a kickoff similar to field goals.

Not a big fan of losing more returns but they’re looking at fewer high speed injuries from kick offs. Would potentially mean fewer holding flags too.

Looking at the old XFL type set up is being discussed too but less likely to happen from what I can gather.

Dribble kick doesn’t appear to be going anywhere though there’s been some suggestion to amend to where the receiver needs to reach the first down marker…but unlikely to change.

Anything with traction will go to the rules committee in March


I understand the desire for PLAYER SAFETY but have to wonder whether the injury stats on kickoffs versus other plays justify a change.

I think any tinkering with the “dribble kick” will just make it super complicated … defences having to defend it will open things up for “normal” offensive plays.

1 Like
  1. Make Dribble Kick Match All Lower Levels of Canadian Football

As one of our items of contention with its own thread, like many here, all they have to do with the dribble kick is change the rule to what it is in Canadian football at ALL lower levels of play and just treat it like any other play on a down from scrimmage.

You either get the required yardage for a first down on a play from scrimmage, or you don’t, no more magic first down just because you tapped the ball forward with your foot.

  1. Don’t Mess With Kick Returns Except For Options and Yard Lines

Otherwise don’t mess with the kick returns as discussed.

On a broader basis, instead of the team scored against ever having the option to elect whether to field the ball at the 40-yard line or to accept a kickoff from the opposing 30-yard line when afforded those options under current rules after a field goal except in the final 3 minutes of the game (or to kickoff themselves from their own 30-yard line, but of course that option is never chosen), I feel that the team that SCORES a field goal should be able to select those options for the opposition as a reward for scoring instead of the team scored against. This reward also allows the scoring team to decide on the matter of the time left in the game and/or upon the weather conditions.

Also I would quite simply make both the kicks or scrimmage from quite simply the 35-yard line after any field goal as well as all kicks after a touchdown is scored.

I don’t feel the same for the options after a touchdown, for allowing a touchdown is enough damage done by a failed defense or otherwise and quite simply the team scored against should just get the ball back via a kickoff, but instead of from the 30 from the 35.

1 Like

I’m not sure I understand this, who would conceed a touchdown ? Also, why are they meeting in Nashville? What’s wrong with Canada?


I’m going to guess that the weather is better in Nashville now, plus perhaps they want to listen to some local music and enjoy some fine BBQ or real southern cooking as well.


Surrender a touchdown might be a better phrase to use.

Naylor chimed to why the meetings are in Nashville


My view would be the team that got a TD scored on them would have the option to scrimmage at their 40 yard line as opposed to the other team to kickoff?

It’s 900 below absolute zero here now. Why not Nashville


If I don’t know any better it seems like this current regime is hell bent on turning football in a touch league buy taking the tackle out of the game.

And this is how they are supposed to appeal to the casual viewer.

Keep on continuing to cater to the lower common denominator and within a few years you may not even have any football to enjoy.

Ambrosie seems getting worst and that’s a sad thing as he might overtake Gary Bettman.

While we’re at it get rid of all equipment.

Rugby seems appealing to me now.


Sunny Saskatoon huh…warmer there than here…

Yup, we do have those rare very violent meetings of players on returns - but they are rare. I can think of only one that stands out from this year - and both guys walked away.
Matter of fact it seems more guys get hurt in less violent collisions than the big nasty looking ones.

Plus playing for field position is part of the game, Getting an automatic advantaged starting position …too much already.


WHy do you blame Ambrosie? At best he can only suggest changes…I am sure many suggestions don’t even come from him and they all have to be voted on

He’s the face of the CFL so he has to take the heat.

If you feel he’s doing a good job that’s fine too but I feel differently.


Take the heat for what he is responsible for…yes

I did not say that. I asked why you blame him for this?

Le botté “Antwi” était le premier sujet sur la liste des modifications potentielles aux règlements. Pourtant, il est possible de se défendre contre ce jeu. Les Bombers l’ont montré à la Coupe Grey, sur le 2ième et 18 à la fin du match.

Je vois mal comment on pourrait l’encadrer efficacement sans avoir à ajuster une foule d’autres règlements. Un principe fondamental du jeu est que si le ballon est botté de derrière la ligne de mêlée, l’équipe qui recouvre le ballon a un premier essai. Je me souviens cette fin de partie loufoque des Alouettes à Toronto où les équipes s’étaient échangées les bottés. C’était fou mais particulièrement amusant! Le botté “Antwi” tient aussi de cette folie et pourquoi pas?


I don’t agree at all with opinions that changing this rule will inspire all these alleged complications.

It’s already the rule in the entire rest of Canadian football, and only ONE thing needs to be changed.

As in other Canadian football already, however the ball is played from scrimmage, the yards and downs remain in place with no magic first down after merely having recovered any open field kick.


Not that complicated. Just say the ball needs to clear the 1st down marker to be a 1st down. Easy peasy.


Or on defense, when its 2nd and 25, don’t give the O 20 yards!


If the offense can’t earn the yards, they shouldn’t get the first down. Defense earned the ability to “play off” by pinning an inept offense back deep. Why give the O a free pass with some bush-league gimmick?


Inept? Really?
IF they are inept, what are you worried about?
If the d has earned the right to play back, the O has earned the right to try an onside punt

Its not a free pass It still has to be executed. The success rate is 50% Again…want to stop this free pass…move up
But why is everything that people dont like…bush league?


I don’t think everything I dislike is bush. But this play is.

It offends my sensibilities that rewards must be earned.