proposed rule changes?

I was on the sportsnet wed siteand they had a poll on the new proposed rule changes, one of the things they had on there was the new 5 yard zone protection on punts. Can anybody tell me what the new 5 yard zone protection on punts rule is please.

From ask the ref
Question
Has a rule change ever been considered, when for example, the five yard restraining rule would only be in effect when the ball is caught without it hitting the ground. If the receiver allows it to hit the ground, the five yard rule would not be in effect.

Answer

The five yard no yards penalty was created originally to minimize the penalty against a kicking team player when the ball bounced back and trapped him in the five yard zone. The the rule was altered to apply to any ball that hit the ground regardless of the direction of the bounce. For 2006, if the ball hits the ground, and a player inside the five yard zone is attempting to withdraw from the zone, only a five yard penalty will apply. If he is not attempting to withdraw, then a 15 yard penalty would apply.

good rule, what were the others tmfm?

usually, if I hear a new rule proposal, I either down it right away or love it and have the posters on here convince me its bad or love it so much that only seeing it done will either enforce that or chage my mind.

just whet to the site and this is what they had (might be gone in a while)

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/index.jsp

Head coach can call team time-outs: cool
Restrictions on hands against face masks: ok, but can get stupid
Five-yard zone protection on punts: good

they should have had the punt penalty, oh well, didn't go throw. if at frist you don't succeed, try try try again (which seems to be my strategy regarding my rules, etc etc etc)

imo, they have finally gotten it right..........

too right PE!

stupid question, but that only applies to off side players right?

IMO, if the ball hits the ground, it should be a 5 yard penalty peroid to any off side player that breacks the zone, but I guess their is a difference to bracking the zone by accident and breacking the zone and still goind for the ball.

also, on that note, IMO, if the receveir gets the ball, and the off side player breack the zone cuz he is going too fast, where you mean it or not , you will get the 15 year penatly, cuz you were coming too fast to begen with. I don’t know if this chage involds this as well, but whatever, the kicking team has to pace themsevels if their off side

so bottomline: good rule

you mean you like it too kanga.............then its gotta be wrong...........:slight_smile:

nah, no this time, seems really good.

I had to process all that but overall, I think they have No Yards down, whatever issues with it will be fixed by this new chage, and this season is gonna be a blast!

Yes, Kanga, it's only for offside players. Onside players aren't required to give 5 yards, and may themselves recover the kick.

excellent, now wonder if this also applies to the situation where the receiver gets the ball instead of it hitting the ground? (if the receive gets it and is in motion, he is fair game, I know that much), we'll just have to wait and see.

it is offical now that there will be 4 downs and smaller endzones.

sooner, April fools is over, the CFL will NEVER DO THAT EVER!!! 3 DOWNS ROCK!!!

and although I proposed to chage them, I have come to the conclusion that the CFL end zones are fine the way they are (and the NFL's should be bigger). why, for a number of reasons I don't feel like going over again.

Has anyone heard if any of the rule changes were made? The link is only the proposals. Were any of the changes passed, or does everything remain the same?

I think they were made. and I have come to the conculsion that is chage will fix everything, and now thay have No Yards the best way they can do it, and itá alot better than the fair catch.

drop that from my list.

I don't like the rouge anymore.
It takes A LOT away from the 2 point conversion - an 8 point touchdown just isn't that important if you have the rouge.

The end zones should be rounded IMO, starting right on the goal line. Think of a line extending between the START of the curvature on a hockey rink, and you'll see what I'm seeing.