Proposed rule changes

[Big Time]

Mark Cohon obviously didn't listen to my suggestion that there be a time limit for how long a coach has to challenge a play. I suggested that once the 20 second play clock starts, the coaches no longer have the option to challenge. This would force coaches to stop waiting until the last second before throwing the flag, and thus adding brutal delays to what is already an incredibly delayed process. Thanks for NOTHING, Mark!

[Lionheart]

Wouldn't be much fun without a little rouge in my life.

We are talking about lipstick right?

[Honour Dewalt]

I have never said get rid of the rouge. My suggestion does not change anything to do with the player conceding the point or having to punt it out after receiving, all that would still be in effect. But what is so exciting and necessary about getting a single point when you miss a 15 yard field goal, the ball sails right through, and no option to return it even exists?
I will never understand why we want to keep that. I am all for keeping the singles if they concede or are tackled in the endzone, that makes purrfect sense.

[Toppy Vann]

Why do they want to add stupid, gimmic rules that make it hard for the average, casual fan to understand. I used to think the CFL had OT right with two 5 min. mini games. I assume it is TV that prevents that with back to back games games waiting now for the other to end but forced two pointers is dumb is not a good move IMO.

[Hambone]

I have never said get rid of the rouge. My suggestion does not change anything to do with the player conceding the point or having to punt it out after receiving, all that would still be in effect. But what is so exciting and necessary about getting a single point when you miss a 15 yard field goal, the ball sails right through, and no option to return it even exists?
I will never understand why we want to keep that. I am all for keeping the singles if they concede or are tackled in the endzone, that makes purrfect sense.

I always find this debate to be much ado about nothing. Like any athlete kickers aren't purrfect but CFL kickers are pretty darned good. Unless aided by a tailwind most need to be kicking from 35 and in to kick it clear through the end zone; a range where misses are rare. In 2009 they combined for nearly 82% success rate. Over 72 games there were 71 missed FG attempts. Of those 71 misses only 32 resulted in a rouge, less than 1 every 2nd game. In 2008 even with Alexis Serna being an adventure league kickers were 88.2% accurate inside of 40 making 224 of 254. The aforementioned Serna was accountable for 1/3 of the 30 missed FGs. Once inside 30 the accuracy jumped to 95.7% as they made 154 of 161. Inside of 20 they were 100% accurate going 69 for 69. Most CFL detractors point to the "point for failure" for missing a FG as a reason. Having studied the numbers for several years now the 2009 scenario is pretty much the norm. There is an average of 1 missed FG per game with roughly 40% to 45% of missed FG's resulting in a rouge.

Why do we want to keep it? Well why are some so hot to trot to change it? Rule changes should only be contemplated to either correct an injustice or flaw in the rules or to improve the game. Changes should not be implemented to cover a hypothetical circumstance that might come around as often as Halley's Comet; a circumstance like winning a game on a missed last second chip shot FG that goes clear through the endzone. I've been following the CFL for over 40 years and still don't recall a team winning a game on such a play. That's probably why the rule remains as it is; because it has rarely if ever been a factor in the outcome of a game.

[Hambone]

Why do they want to add stupid, gimmic rules that make it hard for the average, casual fan to understand. I used to think the CFL had OT right with two 5 min. mini games. I assume it is TV that prevents that with back to back games games waiting now for the other to end but forced two pointers is dumb is not a good move IMO.

I'm with you on that Toppy. Count me as being one who felt the CFL had it right with the two 5 minute halfs. I'm a traditionalist who doesn't like any form of shootout to be used in deciding games. I'd gladly trade the NHL shootout for an extra 5 minutes of 4 on 4. I don't know if TV was a factor when the league opted for this format. It probably was a factor in reducing it from the original format of a max of 4 OT frames to 2. Based on what it takes to play 10 minutes of regular football a game going into OT in the old 2 mini-game will automatically add a good 20 minutes to a telecast once you've gone through the formalities of setting up for it.

[KnowItAll]

the more I see the various debates on various boards about how OT should or should not be done, the more convinced I become that all leagues in all sports should simply scrap OT for the regular season.

[Lionheart]

I've been following the CFL for over 40 years and still don't recall a team winning a game on such a play. That's probably why the rule remains as it is; because it has rarely if ever been a factor in the outcome of a game.

So what if it did? The detractors just can't wrap their head around the fact that we have more than two ways of scoring when advancing the ball past the goal line. We are also not americans. These are all good things. The rouge actually does not need to be scored on the last play to determine and outcome as the point in the first is the same as the point in the fourth. The point is is given for advancing the ball and that in the end is the end is what each play strives for.

As for overtime, scape it. There is nothing wrong with two teams who have battled hard and ended in a tie. The greater injustice is to rob us of that finish and falsly concoct a winner of nefarious means.

Ties rule.. no to shootouts!

However two five minute halves would be ok, at least it's football and not a shootout.

I also HATE shootouts in hockey... you'd get the same cheer if Wellwood threw a giant dart for two points.

[Toppy Vann]

There has to be a tie breaker or you might get more non football related tie breaking rules in play if teams are tied at the end. It can still happen with OT that two teams are tied at the end of the season but I'd hate to see no OT in regular season as OT is exciting (unless it is NFL where it's pretty much over with the toss of the coin).

[ynot]

i love the single point also but i have to agree with honour dewalt, i think that if the ball sails through the endzone, then no pts...i think this would uphold the intent of the rule to keep the ball in play and remove doubt that you are awarding a point for missing the field goal