Yea or Nay: Narrowing the Hash Marks & Holding Penalty = 5 Yards & Shortening Field to 100 Yards

In his canned replies to fan questions, Randy Ambrosie mentioned these rule suggestions that will be under consideration next week when everybody meets to discuss how to improve the game. Would you be in favor, against, or maybe not even care for these changes?


with the amount of holding that goes on, I would be for making it a 15 yard penalty, or 20, or whatever it takes to make them almost stop doing.

as for hash marks, why not just have 1 down the centre

1 Like

Ok on one hand, narrowing the hashmarks may indeed improve offense for the reasons already stated.

On the other hand, the distance to the sideline on the boundary/weak side is nearly identical to the same on an NFL field. So we are talking the same space to work in with the defense a yard off the ball and recievers with a running start.

The hashmarks in both NFL and CFL have progressively narrowed over time to promote offense but in the CFL's case, they haven't moved since 1973.

I would find it sad to lose the quirk of assymetry in the stretegy and execution of the game. Angled field goals are an aspect we would lose as well.

Also, current rules stipulate that once inside the 10 or 15 yard line, the offense MUST scrimmage from the nearest hashmark to mitigate goal post interference with the formations. If we narrow the hash marks we will be pushing formations into the goal posts near the goal line.


Yes, angled field goals would be lost but they could narrow the width of the goalposts and also move them to the back of the endzone as has been discussed ad-nauseum here, to prevent pushing formations into them as you mention.

No to both suggestions!

1 Like

Next will be pay them in U.S. dollars.

1 Like

Holding to 5 yards gets a thumbs up from me. Never thought about the hash mark question, it might make sense. Have to give my little grey cells a workout out on that one. LOL!

I do like shortening the field to 100 yards. Either that or 15 yard end zones. But the former will help with scoring.

This should also solve the inconsistent end zone issues at BMO and the corners in Montreal.

1 Like
1 Like

if they shorten the field, or go to 4 downs, then that will be the final nail on the coffin for me as far as CFL goes.


Still not sure how making those changes actually improves Canadian Football.

I personally won't support the teams in the "newer" version of the CFL unless they are in the NFL.

I'd be fine with a shorter field. It would allow full dimensions to fit in McGill and BMO. But I don't think there's any real need to do it. It wouldn't much change the game.

A better and easier change would be to move kickoffs back to the 25 yardline (or maybe even the 20). That would give teams a shorter field to work with.


I think continuity with the field size helps with the optics. In BMO there has bee some plays where the shorter endzone in one end was q factor.

If they even want to put neutral site game out of Canada the field size will fit on most stadiums around the world. If they go a step further and revisit US Expansion one barrier is out of the way granted others remain

1 Like

Those are good points. One counterpoint is that most current stadiums have been designed with 110 yard fields in mind. A reduction would make endzone seats that much further away from the action.

1 Like

For end zones seats that will be true but they're the lead in price points plus there will be room to expand social areas. Also, depending on the new configuration an upgrade to the sidelines may be worth more now.

Curious to see how it comes together. Our seats are on the 30 north end. If mid field is going to be in the same spot then we're on the 25. Granted if I want to move more mid field getting availability won't be an issue;)

1 Like

Hashmarks narrowed = Yea

Holding Penalty 5 yds = Yea

100 yd field = Hard Nay

Just wondering out loud here BUT has anybody else considered the possible ulterior motive to making the field 100 yards long as being another way of appeasing US cities into possibly expanding and joining the league ?

It's no secret that there is not a lot of stadiums in the States that can accommodate a CFL sized regulation field .

Think about it folks , all this talk of a 4th down , 100 yard field , moving the hashmarks etc etc . I don't know about you but that sounds like an awful lot of Americanized rhetoric to change the game for an American expansion audience if you ask me . I'm honestly just wondering how long it's going to be before they start talks about installing the "fair catch " and eleven men instead of twelve among other things .


Almost immediately afterwards.

1 Like

I like the 100 meter idea. =109.5 yds. 10 meter first down just slightly more challenging.

NCAA and International track and field are all meters. NFL is behind on that one.

I can't see eleven men being on the table because the CFLPA wouldn't let that happen. It would mean losing jobs on offense, defense and special teams. I can see why the owners would like it though.

I agree with your USA conspiracy theory.