Lol Dave reported it first on Twitter then did a TSN segment with Farman. The fact that their track record as far as accuracy goes is poor so far is somewhat comforting
Sad coming from a CFL reporter.
CFL Reddit is horrified with the new study. Dave Naylor rubs his hands with glee.
Not sure if this has been posted but here are the key points of the Leger report as on the website:
- To grow its fan base, the CFL needs to learn how to effectively attract and engage those who reside outside of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
- Rule changes could provide an opportunity to attract new and younger fans.
- While rule changes may alienate those who describe themselves as die-hard fans (3%), the extent of that alienation and how to mitigate its negative effects would need to be investigated.
- Rule changes warrant exploration if growing the fan base is a priority.
I have a hunch if we follow the findings or recommendations of the Leger report, we will lose Canadian football all together and we can then use the report as sanitary paper.
Found an article that discredits the survey.
Interesting rebuttal of the survey. Some solid points they make in this piece. Again though I think any review of rules isn't just about entertainment of fans and the CFL. Discussions need to involve university/college, junior and high schools so that, as much as possible, the rules can be consistent in Canada from pro (CFL) right on down to high school leagues. Has to involve amateur governing bodies, at least for me. As much as is possible.
Honestly, I don't even know the role that a professional league has with respect to amateur governing bodies. Certainly the CIS is a major player since they have the most teams across the country playing gridiron football. Perhaps more major than the CFL to be honest in this aspect of rule changes. Would love to be a fly on the wall in CIS football yearly meetings, now that would be interesting.
It would be interesting to see who paid for the survey. The conclusions they draw from the data suggest some degree of confirmation bias. Those conclusions largely ignore the data that suggests adopting NFL rules would decrease the fanbase.
So in the NFL as a qb or thrower you can one foot in bounds to throw a td but the receiver needs two feet in bounds. Interesting, is this the same in the CFL except of course the receiver just needs one foot in bounds?
I think actually you just can’t have one foot out of bounds. Burrow had not yet stepped out of bounds when he released the ball so the throw was perfectly legal. QB’s from time to time throw with only one leg on the ground (the flamingo), even from the middle of the field. Same thing as this throw by Burrow- not out of bounds. In theory the QB could even have both feet in the air when he throws (the helicopter), as long as he hasn’t stepped out of bounds.
But like a receiver who has possession with one foot in bounds and the other foot goes out of bounds? Why is that not a catch then in the NFL? Looks like a mirror image sort of thing. I don't get it. If it's about possession, then qb has possession with one foot in bounds, other foot out of bounds, should be the same for the receiver, no? To me it's about possession and the feet and that should be the same for the qb or receiver. Obviously the NFL doesn't see it this way.
The receiver has the ball while the QB no longer does. You can’t be in possession of the ball out of bounds if you don’t have it. It looks like a mirror, but I would say the situations are opposites.
Nope, both have possession in bounds with one foot, I don't get it. Makes no sense to me why one is legal and other illegal. jon, not saying what you say doesn't make sense but you have to explain it to me much better for me to make sense of it, with your explanation as you've written.
It makes common sense to me, but obviously not to you. I’ve actually never heard of this before but the throw by Burrow has sparked the conversation (Allen almost had a similar throw just 10 minutes ago, plus the catch was spectacular). So I’m just trying to make this up as I go along. Perhaps someone else has a better explanation.
What can I add? The receiver in your example has possession of the ball. There are specific rules governing what constitutes possession for a receiver before going out of bounds when they receive the ball. Burrow, or any QB that just threw the ball, does not have possession. There are therefore no rules that govern the QB, or any player for that matter, when they go out of bounds without possession of the ball. Other than if they come back onto the field they must establish themselves before being the first player to touch the ball, but this is usually seen mostly on punt returns and is not relevant to this discussion. Also, it occurs to me that sometimes when a receiver catches a TD, and I don’t think it happened today, another receiver in the end zone has stepped out of bounds. That is just as irrelevant as the QB having only one foot in bounds. Neither have possession of the ball so the play is not affected. I guess what I am saying is that it all revolves around possession of the ball
Don’t know if that helps, but if not I suggest you ask Siri.
Yes, Siri might indeed know, that does make sense and I appreciate your valiant effort at a logical explanation.
I've wondered the same thing for decades. If you catch the ball and fall on your head or your butt, it's one point of contact, but if you land on your feet it's two points of contact?? Makes ZERO sense. So the answer to your question is: NFL just has a dumb rule.
Didn't think of the one point of contact as you say, this makes sense. It would be interesting if the qb upon running to sidelines to throw a pass when cocking the arm back to throw the ball is bobbled up in the air but the qb catches it with one foot in the air and then a second after as in the Cincy-Raiders game throws the ball with this single foot in bounds and lands out of bounds, would this be a legal throw as well?
Aerial, the situations are quite different. The QB had full possession in bounds, ie running towards the sidelines. He is not ruled out of bounds until a part of his body makes contact with the ground out of bounds. So even if he has one foot in bounds and the other over the out of bounds line but it has not yet contacted, he is still in bounds. If he throws the ball at this point and it is legally caught, it is a completed pass.
The reciever catching the ball with only one foot inbounds did not have possesion of the ball while fully in the field of play by NFL rules (2 feet in bounds), Therefore, an incomplete pass. BTW, I disagree with this interpretation and believe 1 foot in bounds should qualify as it does in the CFL.
Talking about possession, full possession must also be for the receiver getting two feet in bounds in the NFL, one in Canada, so such "full possession" should be equivalent to a qb running with the ball deemed to have "full possession". Different situations, yes, but if we are talking "full possession" I don't see the difference myself.
What I'm saying is that in the NFL if the receiver to have full possession before going out of bounds has to have two feet in bounds, so should a qb or any back throwing the ball, they shouldn't be allowed in the NFL to be deemed to have full possession with just one foot in bounds and then the next step out of bounds in one situation like the qb or any back throwing but then a different rule for a receiver, if we are talking full possession.
Bottom line in the NFL you can be deemed in bounds with full possession of the ball with one foot in bounds and the other foot landing out of bounds. Just not for a receiver in a particular situation. To me this is very inconsistent with the application of what is deemed full possession.
The difference is that the QB had two feet in bounds when he threw the ball. You see, he had ZERO feet out of bounds when he threw the ball. He had the ball in possession with both feet while running. He just happened to have one foot in the air when he threw. He's not out of bounds until he touches the ground out of bounds. That's even true with the receiver who needs 2 feet in to catch. He is not out of bounds until ONE of his feet touches out.
But ruling on the passer in question here is consistent with any ball carrier. You are not out of bounds until some part of you touches out of bounds. It's just like a running back diving for the pylon. He dives from in bounds, breaks the plane of the goal line while in the air OUTSIDE the pylon, then lands out of bounds. That is a touchdown. He broke the plane of the goal line before he was deemed out of bounds. It's the same with the passer with one (or even both) feet in the air. If the previous steps were all in bounds, then he gets the pass away BEFORE stepping out, the pass is legal.