What's NEEDS to change in the CFL.

Oh my sweet lord in heaven!!! What's wrong with our "ridiculously" candadian...I mean "radically" canadian football league! A player can randomly have the football bounce off his ass and his team gets possession? 3rd and inches is a gamble with the D-line a yard off the ball? A punt for a rouge through the endzone can win a grey cup? I just need to know who to contact to help make the appropriate adjustments to better the league. It's okay that the NFL might be on to a couple of good rules. It's okay that our southern counterparts might actually be right on a few issues. Let's focus on the betterment of the game and not get stuck on being so distinct that we lose fairness and entertainment value.

Completely bewildered and frustrated,

Shane

the non-TD, i thought the ball was loose and may have hit the ground during initial contact with the ground b4 acree turned and lost the ball.

as for the turnover, no camera angle CLEARLY showed weather it hit the bomber player or not, but maybe the ref had a clear view of it touching the blue player?

The game is perfect as it is.
If you dont like it, dont watch it!

Welcome to the Forum. :lol:

I agree, that shouldn't have been a turnover for Edmonton. Just a tad ridiculous. But I see nothing wrong with the rouge.

The rule states the last to touch the ball get posession. Whether or not Wpg touched it is another matter

I dont think it did.
Stay tuned for my world famous replay! :wink:

lookin forward to it!

Doesn't the NFL have the same rule, as well? I suppose it makes sense... But I really don't think it touched Winnipeg.

No, the NFL has shallow end zones, a narrow field, hash marks the same width as the goal posts, the goal posts at the back of the end zone and no rouge. Now which rule should we adopt?

In 95 years has a rouge ever won a Grey Cup?

The rouge is a great rule. I'm not gonna bother explaining why for the umpteenth time.

But better to award a point and give the receiving team good field position than the alternatives.

I’ll try and answer my own question.

According to CFL.ca, there have been seven Grey Cups (out of 94) that were decided by a single point. The last one was the 76th Cup in 1988 when the underdog Bombers defeated the Lions 22-21. There was one rouge in this game scored by B.C…

The 71st Grey Cup in 1983 saw the Argos come from behind to beat B.C 18-17 (in B.C.). Hank (The Shank) Illesic (who was playing in his 6th consecutive Grey Cup victory) scored two rouges in the third quarter (he missed three of four field goal attempts) but the Argos went on to win for the first time since 1954 when they scored nine points in the fourth quarter to complete the come back.

In the 63rd final in 1975 in Calgary, Edmonton defeated Montréal 9-8. There were no touch downs in this game and the only rouges (2) were scored by the Als’ Don Sweet.

The Arogos beat the Bombers 10-9 in 1947 at Varsity Stadium in the 35th Grey Cup when Joe Krol scored four rouges in the game, the last one on the final play FTW.

In 1944 (32nd GC) Navy beat Hamilton 7-6. Dutch Davey kicked the winning rouge.

In 1939 the Bombers defeated the Rough Riders 8-7 with a rouge.

In 1937 the Argos beat the Bombers 4-3 with a rouge on a 70-yard punt.

1933 Toronto beat Sarnia 4-3 with a rouge on a frozen field.

So the answer to my question is YES. There have been Grey Cups decided by a rouge. Five of them in fact, but NONE since 1947. I’m not counting Toronto’s 1983 win because half their points were scored in the fourth quarter and none of those points were because of a rouge. Either way, a winning rouge in a Grey Cup is extremely rare, especially since 1947. It has never happened in the CFL, which was formed in 1956 (as the CFC).

Shane do you know Kanga by any chance! Really whats wrong with the game? Other then helping our veteran refs to do their job and know the rules there is absolutely nothing wrong. Keep the p[lastic knives away Shane because your team lost does not mean you want to end it all.

There are also times when teams concede points when they're down by their own goal line and they don't want to give good field position to their opponent off of the punt, so the single point off of the rouge shouldn't be that big of a deal. I think it's pretty simple. Don't put your team in a position to concede points one way or the other.

I have long thought that that was a bad rule. Something as important as possession should require a little more than just making contact with the ball. Look at that play in the Winnipeg/Edmonton game where the touchdown pass was ruled incomplete. The rules for a simple completion are alot more strict than the rules for possession, and which is more important. The possession rule should be changed, as it does nothing to promote skilled play.

I agree that there seems to be a discrepancy in the two forms of "possession", but I think it's the completion rule that needs to be addressed.

It used to be that a player only needed to catch the ball and maintain control after initial contact with the ground. Now he has to actually show the ball to the ref? That means that until he is able to do so, defenders can pull and tug at his arms and pound the ball, hoping for it to come loose and be ruled incomplete, no matter how long he's had the ball firmly in his grasp.

I understand the reason for the rule, and believe that the Acree incompletion was a correct application of it. But it is also a clear argument for why the rule must be reconsidered.

I agree that the rule as to what makes a completion should change as well. It also should be changed in the NFL.
The whole point of sports is too promote skilled plays. Having the ball kicked out of bounds by a defensive player, or even worse just having it hit him before going out of bounds, is hardly a skilled play. Ball possession is much too important to be decided by something like that.