Proposed rule changes

[B.C.FAN]

The CFL rules committee is proposing several changes to league rules, including some potentially controversial moves to require two-point convert attempts in overtime and to give teams the option of scrimmaging on their own 35 yard line after giving up a field goal.

A twist on the CFL's overtime rules

March 05, 2010

A NEW TWIST ON THE CFL'S OVERTIME RULES
Rules committee recommends two-point converts after fans call for "tweaks" to overtime

ENOCH, Alta. -- The Canadian Football League may be about to inject even more suspense into its popular "shootout" overtime format.

The league's rules committee is recommending that teams that score a touchdown in overtime be required to go for a two-point convert by running or passing the ball into the end zone instead of kicking for a single point.

The proposal goes to the league's Board of Governors, which has the final say, later this Spring.

"The rules committee decided that the two point convert will make an exciting approach to overtime even more exciting, with a pass or run with the game potentially on the line replacing a kick that has become relatively routine," said Tom Higgins, the CFL's Director of Officiating.

"What's also exciting is the committee has again listened to our fans, and heeded their advice."

One year ago, CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon took the unprecedented step of asking fans for their proposed rules changes, something that led to a change in field position following a safety.

This year, Cohon issued the call to fans on behalf of the league again, but he asked them to pay particular attention to whether the league's overtime format could be improved.

Fans sent in more than 2,000 rules suggestions with three-quarters of them focused on overtime.

The vast majority said they preferred keeping the league's overtime format, which has teams take turns scrimmaging from their opponent's 35-yard-line, instead of changing to a different format, such as two five-minute halves or some other sort of "mini-game". But many suggested various tweaks to the format.

In the end, the rules committee agreed the format should not be changed and decided that the best "tweak" is requiring two-point converts in overtime.

Under the current rules, if the score is tied at the end of a game, each team gets an opportunity to scrimmage from its opponent's 35-yard-line, until it makes a score or loses possession.

If the score remains tied, the procedure is repeated at the opposite end of the stadium.

If the score is still tied after each team has had two attempts, the game is declared a tie, if it's a regular season game. If the game is a playoff or championship game, the same procedure continues until a winner is finally decided.

The rules committee met here, just outside Edmonton, as part of CFL Congress, an annual meeting of league and team personnel that wraps up tomorrow with the Coach of the Year luncheon.

It is recommending another change which would allow a team that gives up a field goal (during regulation time) the option of scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off.

The committee decided to suggest changing the current rule, which requires a kick-off after a made field goal.

The rules committee is also recommending no penalty for pass interference be applied if a forward pass is deemed uncatchable.

It is also proposing that, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, the resulting penalty be reduced from fifteen to five yards.

"I want to thank our fans for their passion and ideas, and our rules committee for taking their input into consideration,'' Cohon said.

"While our Board has the final say, it speaks to the bond between our league and our supporters that our fans have an important say."

[B.C.FAN]

The vast majority said they preferred keeping the league's overtime format, which has teams take turns scrimmaging from their opponent's 35-yard-line, instead of changing to a different format, such as two five-minute halves or some other sort of "mini-game". But many suggested various tweaks to the format.

In the end, the rules committee agreed the format should not be changed and decided that the best "tweak" is requiring two-point converts in overtime.

That's more than a tweak. That's an unnecessarily drastic move to hasten the end of a game. It reduces the likelihood of getting to a second overtime. No one likes to see a game end in a tie but I'd much rather see the NCAA rule, where two-point convert attempts are mandatory after the second OT but the teams keep playing until a winner is declared.

It is recommending another change which would allow a team that gives up a field goal (during regulation time) the option of scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off.

The committee decided to suggest changing the current rule, which requires a kick-off after a made field goal.

This is just nuts. Kickoffs are exciting, and onside kicks at the end of close games are way more exciting than watching a team try to protect a lead by scrimmaging at the 35 and repeatedly taking a knee.

The rules committee is also recommending no penalty for pass interference be applied if a forward pass is deemed uncatchable.

Fair enough, as long as DBs don't use the opportunity to take cheap shots. Laying a big hit on a receiver chasing an overthrown pass should draw an unnecessary roughness penalty.

It is also proposing that, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, the resulting penalty be reduced from fifteen to five yards.

Agreed. Too many times, especially in windy conditions, a ball hits the ground and bounces off a member of the cover team. A 15-yard penalty in such cases is overly harsh.

[Lions4ever]

Re: the 35 yd line scrimmage after a FG. Isn't this just going back to the way the rule was a couple of years ago? Isn't it more like "Well, we tried it but didn't like it so now we're reversing the rule change? Or am I missing something?

[Ballistic Bob]

They use that two point convert in overtime for US college games IIRC. BB

[Lions4ever]

I believe in U.S. college, you must attempt a 2-pt convert on the team's second possession in OT...and there are unlimited possessions in OT until a winner is decided.

Slight correction: It's after the 2nd possession.

[sj-roc]

The vast majority said they preferred keeping the league's overtime format, which has teams take turns scrimmaging from their opponent's 35-yard-line, instead of changing to a different format, such as two five-minute halves or some other sort of "mini-game". But many suggested various tweaks to the format.

In the end, the rules committee agreed the format should not be changed and decided that the best "tweak" is requiring two-point converts in overtime.

That's more than a tweak. That's an unnecessarily drastic move to hasten the end of a game. It reduces the likelihood of getting to a second overtime. No one likes to see a game end in a tie but I'd much rather see the NCAA rule, where two-point convert attempts are mandatory after the second OT but the teams keep playing until a winner is declared.

That would appear to be the intent. These games are on TV after all, and part of the league's success lies in delivering a product that the networks (or network in this case) are happy with. And I'd have to think they would approve of any move that reduces their risk of having to pre-empt programmes (and advertising) that follow their telecasts.

[Honour Dewalt]

I'm still hoping one day they adjust the single point rule to only apply when the ball is still in play. This means if a missed fieldgoal goes right through the endzone without the chance of a return, there is no point awarded. It only makes sense, but it seems like it will never happen. One day a team will win a big game with a missed fieldgoal and you will all be saying the same thing.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

I'm still hoping one day they adjust the single point rule to only apply when the ball is still in play. This means if a missed fieldgoal goes right through the endzone without the chance of a return, there is no point awarded. It only makes sense, but it seems like it will never happen. One day a team will win a big game with a missed fieldgoal and you will all be saying the same thing.

As that rule already applies on kickoffs, that sounds reasonable to me. Anyone aware of the rationale for why it applies on kickoffs and not on punts and field goals?

[Lionheart]

Easy, when you're kicking off the ball is not in play. The reason for a kickoff is to give it to the opposing team in the field of play.

[sj-roc]

Easy, when you're kicking off the ball is not in play. The reason for a kickoff is to give it to the opposing team in the field of play.

Yup, on a kickoff the game clock doesn't start ticking until first contact after the kickoff. So technically the ball is never in play if it gets kicked straight through the end zone, and if it's never in play, how can a score be awarded?

[notahomer]

I'm not sold on the 'uncatchable' Pass Int. IIRC, this is like a NFL Pass Int. rule. It really makes this yet another judgement call on the CFL Officials. Kinda like the NFL's forceout rule. I like how it is now, if you don't get both feet in, its not a catch. Black and white. No interpretation on whether he woulda/coulda/shoulda got the feet in had the defender not hit him.

What is uncatchable? Disgression of the official perhaps even based on the player. Would an uncatchable ball for Simon be the same uncatchable ball for Jackson? I think it lets Defenders off the hook, if you interfere, its Pass Int. regardless of the whether the ball was catchable, IMO.

[Blue In BC]

I'm still hoping one day they adjust the single point rule to only apply when the ball is still in play. This means if a missed fieldgoal goes right through the endzone without the chance of a return, there is no point awarded. It only makes sense, but it seems like it will never happen. One day a team will win a big game with a missed fieldgoal and you will all be saying the same thing.

No we won't. Teams have been winning big games on " missed " field goals for many years. That's the value of the single point whether on a punt of FG attempt.

I was just looking at the WDF ( 3 game best of series : Bombers and Eskimos ) from 1960 which I remember watching as a kid.

Bombers lost the last game and thus the series with a score of 4 - 2. Don't really remember much expect it was a snowy field. Not sure if the points were singles, FG's or Safeties but it was as low a scoring game as you're going to get. Tough wa to miss going to the GC.
I guess the bonus for a Bomber fan was that I lived in Ottawa at the time and beat the Esks in the Grey Cup.

Singles and safety touches rule.

[Ballistic Bob]

I'm still hoping one day they adjust the single point rule to only apply when the ball is still in play. This means if a missed fieldgoal goes right through the endzone without the chance of a return, there is no point awarded. It only makes sense, but it seems like it will never happen. One day a team will win a big game with a missed fieldgoal and you will all be saying the same thing.

No we won't. Teams have been winning big games on " missed " field goals for many years. That's the value of the single point whether on a punt of FG attempt.

I was just looking at the WDF ( 3 game best of series : Bombers and Eskimos ) from 1960 which I remember watching as a kid.

Bombers lost the last game and thus the series with a score of 4 - 2. Don't really remember much expect it was a snowy field. Not sure if the points were singles, FG's or Safeties but it was as low a scoring game as you're going to get. Tough wa to miss going to the GC.
I guess the bonus for a Bomber fan was that I lived in Ottawa at the time and beat the Esks in the Grey Cup.

Singles and safety touches rule.

love the rouge. BB