CFL needs your Input for New Rules....

[Lions4ever]

I sent a longish email. Four items:

1. Allow formations eg. wildcat, A-11, etc.
2. Concede safety - punt from your 20 (OR 25).
3. All video review upstairs. Discard the ref under a towel. Cameras directly on the goal lines!
4. No ties. Play OT to the death.

I have many more. Stopped there.

[David]

I sent a longish email. Four items:

1. Allow formations eg. wildcat, A-11, etc.
2. Concede safety - punt from your 20 (OR 25).
3. All video review upstairs. Discard the ref under a towel. Cameras directly on the goal lines!
4. No ties. Play OT to the death.

I have many more. Stopped there.

2. Concede safety - punt from your 20 (OR 25).

I would have enjoyed seeing Doug Berry line up Alexis Serna to punt from his 20 last season after conceding a safety.


DH 8)

[No Ordinary Joe]

I absolutely agree that the intentional safeties need to go. I am sick of watching them.

And absolutely something needs to be done with the challenge system. How a team can stall a game for 20 minutes the way the Eskimos did last year at BC Place was ridiculous.

[TheLionKing]

I would like to see the "no yards" rule reviewed. There should not be a penalty if a player inadvertently get within the 5 yards restraining area if they don't have a bearing on the play especially during windy conditions.

[No Ordinary Joe]

Well, I sent off my email. I hope others have done the same. I think this is a great idea that the league is using, let's hope some of our concerns are actually addressed.

[Big Time]

Moving the safety to the 25 will do absolutely nothing to eliminate the conceded safety. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You will not see even a 1% reduction in this play if that happens. If the point of the rule change is to eliminate or reduce this play from happening, then anything less than moving it to the 15 or even 10 yard line will have no effect whatsoever. THe conceded safety is an excitement killing play that has no place in the game. Either make a safety worth 3 points, or move the safety to the 15 yard line, but don't do something weak like move it back to the 25 yard line. IF that's all the league does, they might as well just keep the rule as it currently stands.

[David]

Moving the safety to the 25 will do absolutely nothing to eliminate the conceded safety. Zero. Zilch. Nada. You will not see even a 1% reduction in this play if that happens. If the point of the rule change is to eliminate or reduce this play from happening, then anything less than moving it to the 15 or even 10 yard line will have no effect whatsoever. THe conceded safety is an excitement killing play that has no place in the game. Either make a safety worth 3 points, or move the safety to the 15 yard line, but don't do something weak like move it back to the 25 yard line. IF that's all the league does, they might as well just keep the rule as it currently stands.

I respectfully disagree. If you move the ball back to the 20 and make a team PUNT the ball (like they do in the NFL) instead of kicking off, then I think we'll see a marked reduction as punts won't travel as far - especially against stiff winds which is why many teams concede the safety to begin with.

When teams start realizing that they're effectively giving up 5 points each time their punter dances around in the end zone, we may see an end to this silly play.

DH 8)

[PigSkin_53]

I would like to see a rule around throwing the replay flag for situations that are not reviewable. Too often coaches are throwing the flags for things they know cannot be reviewed so that they can have a little chat with the referee. That should be a 5 yard penalty on the first offense during a game, 10 yards on the second, 15 on the third and so on.

I assume your use of the " replay flag" means challenge flag in this aspect Sir Purrcival?

To address your issue if I understand it correctly, here is the proposed change I have submitted the league (that's for the head's up Phil), and would like them to adopt, or amended in one form or other...

If the coach of an objecting team has thrown a questionable challenge flag (or where it is not a flagrant or obvious error in call), and that review of that play meets in the failure to overturn the officials ruling of the play in question, a penalties shall be assessed to the dissenting team if it is deemed that the flag was thrown to served in place as an otherwise illegal time-out, or give the objecting team a chance to delay the momentum of the opposing team, and/or regenerate their own resources (facilitate last minute changes).

This ruling would be subject to the discretion the official(s) and be considered a judgment call predicated on the basis of abuse of continuity, or unnecessary delay of game.

[DYLAN]

The reason for the rouge is so that it leaves the recieving team with a desision to return a missed field goal or give up a point.

This is great because this is a very exciting play, however.......

nobody wants to see a game end where a team is down by one, they march down to the 20 yard line and miss a field goal or punt it through the endzone and win the game.

so a point should only be awarded if the ball lands inside the endzone or a player catches it and is tackled or takes a knee.

if anybody agrees with me they should send a message to the cfl aswell so that they can modify the rule

[Rammer]

The reason for the rouge is so that it leaves the recieving team with a desision to return a missed field goal or give up a point.

This is great because this is a very exciting play, however.......

nobody wants to see a game end where a team is down by one, they march down to the 20 yard line and miss a field goal or punt it through the endzone and win the game.

so a point should only be awarded if the ball lands inside the endzone or a player catches it and is tackled or takes a knee.

if anybody agrees with me they should send a message to the cfl aswell so that they can modify the rule

I think that you are missing a piece to the rouge IMO. The rouge is awarded more for field position than to see a receiving team make a decision to return it or not. If you don't want a single point to be scored upon you late in the game, don't allow them to get to the point in the field that a missed FG would be allowed to kicked through the endzone without being returned. Football is all about field position, and even with the possibility of a rouge on a FG through the endzone, a team still lines up to attempt the block, still an exciting play if accomplished.

Look at the 2004 WDF game against the Riders where McCallum missed a FG from the 18 yardline, while not game deciding, it did pose an interesting decision by the Lions on their turn in OT. Had O'Mahoney not hit the FG, it would have been an interesting finish on that final play of the game. Rouge is purrfect the way it is called currently IMO, no need to tweak it based on being able to return the ball out of the endzone or not.

[B.C.FAN]

I think that you are missing a piece to the rouge IMO. The rouge is awarded more for field position than to see a receiving team make a decision to return it or not. If you don't want a single point to be scored upon you late in the game, don't allow them to get to the point in the field that a missed FG would be allowed to kicked through the endzone without being returned. Football is all about field position, and even with the possibility of a rouge on a FG through the endzone, a team still lines up to attempt the block, still an exciting play if accomplished.

Look at the 2004 WDF game against the Riders where McCallum missed a FG from the 18 yardline, while not game deciding, it did pose an interesting decision by the Lions on their turn in OT. Had O'Mahoney not hit the FG, it would have been an interesting finish on that final play of the game. Rouge is purrfect the way it is called currently IMO, no need to tweak it based on being able to return the ball out of the endzone or not.

Well said. Wally made a huge gamble on that long O'Mahoney field goal. If he missed, the Riders would have run it out and McCallum's single would have been the winning point. Even a punt single through the end zone isn't automatic. Look at the game in Regina a few years ago when McCallum punted for a B.C. win, the Riders ran it out of the end zone and went on to win the game. The kicking game in Canadian football is always more exciting than in American football.

[Big Time]

What was funny for me at the 2004 Western Final was I was so nervous during OT that I actually forgot that McCallum got a rouge on his miss. So when Duncan hit the field goal to win it, I looked up at the score and saw that it was 27-25, I realized that if Duncan had missed, we would have lost the game. I had thought if he missed that the game would have just continued!

That game still stands out for me as the most exciting sporting event I have ever attended.

[uncle leo]

My rules proposals are to adopt the Canadian Amatuer Football rule on missed field goals. The retuner can take a knee and give the other team a rouge or he can run it out of the end zone, if he makes it out and is tackled inside the 20 the ball will be spotted at the twenty for their offence. The other proposal is to eliminate the Cross-over for the playoffs. 1st vs 4th and 2nd vs 3rd in one division and a two game total point in the other division. Keeping the Grey Cup East vs West, always.

[Spud387]

Round Two

TORONTO -- Once again, CFL commissioner Mark Cohon is asking for input from Canadian football fans.

Last year, Cohon invited fans to chime in on potential rule changes. Now, the CFL commissioner is petitioning fans for their input regarding the league's overtime format.

Presently, if a game is tied after regulation time each team gets to scrimmage from the opposition's 35-yard line until it scores or loses possession. Should the score remain tied, the procedure is repeated at the other end of the field.

If the score remains tied after both teams have had two possessions, the game goes down as a tie in the regular season. During the playoffs or a championship game, the procedure would continue until a winner is declared.

"Some of our most exciting games last season, including one of our playoff games, were decided in overtime, and that prompted some discussion among fans about our format," Cohon said in a statement. "We have tremendous respect for the knowledge of our fans, and their dedication to the tradition and future of our league, so we'd like to turn that informal overtime discussion into specific ideas that our league can consider as it looks towards the 2010 season."

Fans can send their ideas via email to rules@cfl.ca by Feb. 15. The proposals will be evaluated by the league's rules committee at the CFL Congress in Edmonton from March 3-5.