CFL Exploring Elimination of the Extra Point?

[notahomer]

....There was an interesting game this year in which the team winning the OT coin toss elected to kick off because of fairly heavy (32 km./hr.) wind. This was the Patriots vs. Broncos game in NE, and Bill Belichick elected to kick off after winning the toss. It worked out for the Patriots as they went on to win 34-31 in OT, benefiting from the wind advantage.


..... Wind, of course, could play a role in the decision.

Not to nitpick too much South P. but IIRC, the Patriots did NOT CHOOSE to kick off. They chose to play WITH the wind, feeling confident that Peyton/Bronco's offence would struggle playing into the wind. They felt that would help on so many counts and that is why they did not care who got the ball. Of course, considering the Patriots took the wind, the Broncos obviously were willing to make them kick it off.

And to your second point. The Wind played a huge role in that game. Throwing was tough with/against but worse against. The Patriots won the game due to a muffed punt that touched a blocker on the return team and that was probably due to the swirling wind (and Welker not making his mind up to call him off SOON ENOUGH).

Wind and/or injuries really put some teams in a bind for particular games. When a starting kicker goes out you'll see teams going for two when they normally wouldn't just because they don't trust the execution and also due to the weather. IIRC, there was a Eagles/Ravens game where it just became pointless (no pun intended )to try extrapoints/field goals due to the weather/snow....

[South Pender]

....There was an interesting game this year in which the team winning the OT coin toss elected to kick off because of fairly heavy (32 km./hr.) wind. This was the Patriots vs. Broncos game in NE, and Bill Belichick elected to kick off after winning the toss. It worked out for the Patriots as they went on to win 34-31 in OT, benefiting from the wind advantage.


..... Wind, of course, could play a role in the decision.

Not to nitpick too much South P. but IIRC, the Patriots did NOT CHOOSE to kick off. They chose to play WITH the wind, feeling confident that Peyton/Bronco's offence would struggle playing into the wind.

So fill me in here. Perhaps I've remembered this game incorrectly. After winning the toss, were they allowed to (a) choose which end they preferred to defend or (b) receive the kick? And, if so, I guess they chose the end from which the wind was blowing....

[B.C.FAN]

No, CFL teams averaged 77 plays from scrimmage, including punts and field goals, in 2013. I don't have the comparabe NFL figures.

Those numbers are a bit deceiving perhaps. I was looking at the stats for BC. One stat shows 1403 total plays. But when you add up rushes, pass attempts, punts, FG attempts, converts and KOs they total 1266. Penalties must also be factored in somehow.

When I compared purely the offensive stats I came up with the following in 2013:

Rushes:
CFL: 19.0 per game
NFL: 23.4 per game
Pass Attempts:
CFL: 33.2 per game
NFL: 27.1 per game
Punts:
CFL: 7.4 per game
NFL: 4.9 per game
FG Attempts:
CFL: 2.67/game
NFL: 1.95/game
Add the 4 categories up:
CFL: 62.3/game
NFL: 57.35/game

CFL pure average ratio of play breakdown:
Runs: 27% of plays
Passes: 48% of plays
Kicks (Punt, FG, Conv, KO): 25% of plays involve a kicker.

Good breakdown. I think you've hit on a key point. In addition to different rules surrounding the play clock, the CFL and NFL also have different ways of keeping stats. It makes direct comparisons difficult. The CFL keeps two sets of stats for plays from scrimmage, offensive plays and total plays, including kickoffs, punts, field goal attempts and plays negated by penalty. The CFL game stats have all plays numbered from 1 to 154 (on average). Plays negated by penalty don't count in game stats but they do take time off the clock and the penalties incurred on the plays result in a change of yardage so they still have an impact on the game.

[TheLionKing]

No, CFL teams averaged 77 plays from scrimmage, including punts and field goals, in 2013. I don't have the comparabe NFL figures.

Those numbers are a bit deceiving perhaps. I was looking at the stats for BC. One stat shows 1403 total plays. But when you add up rushes, pass attempts, punts, FG attempts, converts and KOs they total 1266. Penalties must also be factored in somehow.

When I compared purely the offensive stats I came up with the following in 2013:

Rushes:
CFL: 19.0 per game
NFL: 23.4 per game
Pass Attempts:
CFL: 33.2 per game
NFL: 27.1 per game
Punts:
CFL: 7.4 per game
NFL: 4.9 per game
FG Attempts:
CFL: 2.67/game
NFL: 1.95/game
Add the 4 categories up:
CFL: 62.3/game
NFL: 57.35/game

CFL pure average ratio of play breakdown:
Runs: 27% of plays
Passes: 48% of plays
Kicks (Punt, FG, Conv, KO): 25% of plays involve a kicker.

Interesting. Thanks

[JohnHenry]

While the number of plays might be similar, the typical CFL play lasts about twice as long as in the NFL, especially on punt and kick returns. So in reality, there's twice as much football action in a CFL game. In the NFL players mostly just stand around and watch even during their 2 to 3 seconds of action per play.

[South Pender]

While the number of plays might be similar, the typical CFL play lasts about twice as long as in the NFL, especially on punt and kick returns. So in reality, there's twice as much football action in a CFL game. In the NFL players mostly just stand around and watch even during their 2 to 3 seconds of action per play.

I can see this on kick and punt returns with the fair catch in the NFL, no returning of a FG, and the many touchbacks on kickoffs. These all add up to 15-20% of all plays (and some punts and kickoffs are returned in the NFL--see, e.g., Golden Tate, who returns more punts than he fair-catches--and some missed FGs are just left for single points, with no play on them, in the CFL. But I can't see that there would be any difference between the leagues in the duration of an offensive play--running or passing--and the number of these is almost equal between the leagues (50.5 per game in the NFL; 52.2 in the CFL).

[notahomer]

....There was an interesting game this year in which the team winning the OT coin toss elected to kick off because of fairly heavy (32 km./hr.) wind. This was the Patriots vs. Broncos game in NE, and Bill Belichick elected to kick off after winning the toss. It worked out for the Patriots as they went on to win 34-31 in OT, benefiting from the wind advantage.


..... Wind, of course, could play a role in the decision.

Not to nitpick too much South P. but IIRC, the Patriots did NOT CHOOSE to kick off. They chose to play WITH the wind, feeling confident that Peyton/Bronco's offence would struggle playing into the wind.

So fill me in here. Perhaps I've remembered this game incorrectly. After winning the toss, were they allowed to (a) choose which end they preferred to defend or (b) receive the kick? And, if so, I guess they chose the end from which the wind was blowing....

EXACTLY. They got to choose which end to defend, thereby playing with the wind. Like I admitted, I'm nitpicking BUT after the Patroits chose the end they wanted technically the Broncos COULD have elected to kickoff. I can't think of why they would do that but whatever.......

I think this happens in the CFL all the time. A team (team A) will kick off to start the game either because they deferred or the other team chose to recieve the ball. Then since its a close game at halftime and wind has been a problem team A again kicks off BECAUSE they want the wind for the fourth quarter......It looks really weird though because one team ends up kicking off to start both halves.....

[Toppy Vann]

US OT rule in the NFL is a joke. Win the coin toss and it's practically a sure thing to win as if you score the other team is not given a chance.

I hear what you're saying, but it turns out to be not quite as sure a thing as we might expect. Since 2012, the NFL has gone to a slightly-modified sudden-death format, in which if the receiving team can only score a FG on its first drive, then the other team gets the ball and is given a chance to score. A TD on a first possession, however, does end the game. With the new format, I believe that the proportion of teams that have won the coin flip in OT (and chosen to receive) have won something on the order of 60+% of the games. There was an interesting game this year in which the team winning the OT coin toss elected to kick off because of fairly heavy (32 km./hr.) wind. This was the Patriots vs. Broncos game in NE, and Bill Belichick elected to kick off after winning the toss. It worked out for the Patriots as they went on to win 34-31 in OT, benefiting from the wind advantage.

Let's not follow stupidity and consider eliminated the PAT. Maybe move it further back if you are not going for 2 points.

Right. Not to repeat myself, but why not make the kick come from the 35 (or some well-thought-out distance) or the team could elect to run a regular scrimmage from the 4-yd.-line (or some well-thought-out point), with both options leading to one point if successful. Some statistical analysis would provide the right placements for both options that would lead to about the same probability of success. Wind, of course, could play a role in the decision.

Thanks for the update. I don't see enough NFL games to keep track of the OT change. Not a huge fan of their kicking game and the OT even with that change.

Coin tosses should not be a factor. Even in hockey if the ice is bad the ref can make them change ends halfway thru a period even though it might give a minor disadvantage to a home team based on bench location.

Not a bad idea for PAT - choice of 35 or 4 yard line for 2 pts is a fairer test but there is a real risk the game gets screwy overall. You want kids to learn the facets of the game including kick returns and kicking. One issue is the weather factor and how it might influence a missed PAT in bad conditions and favour dome teams and nice weather home teams with sure things from the 35 versus missed PATs in bad weather stadiums which some teams will see more of than others.

[sj-roc]

Coin tosses should not be a factor. Even in hockey if the ice is bad the ref can make them change ends halfway thru a period even though it might give a minor disadvantage to a home team based on bench location.

This was done during the Wings/Leafs outdoor game on New Year's Eve. As I recall they only did it in the third but not first or second periods of the game as one change can suffice to right the 40/20 imbalance to an even 30/30 with a minimum of otherwise unnecessary play stoppages. IIRC they also switched sides at the 2:30 mark of the 5min sudden-death OT en route to the SO ending. As far as bench location I don't think any team ever has an advantage since at any given time both teams have either a short or long change from their defensive zone to the bench. For this game it was strictly the presence of weather factors that factored into the (pre-planned) 3rd period & OT end-switching.

I've noticed from re-broadcasts similar end-switching in the 1972 Summit Series but I don't recall if they did this every period or just the 3rd like in the NYD game earlier this month.

[Toppy Vann]

Coin tosses should not be a factor. Even in hockey if the ice is bad the ref can make them change ends halfway thru a period even though it might give a minor disadvantage to a home team based on bench location.

This was done during the Wings/Leafs outdoor game on New Year's Eve. As I recall they only did it in the third but not first or second periods of the game as one change can suffice to right the 40/20 imbalance to an even 30/30 with a minimum of otherwise unnecessary play stoppages. IIRC they also switched sides at the 2:30 mark of the 5min sudden-death OT en route to the SO ending. As far as bench location I don't think any team ever has an advantage since at any given time both teams have either a short or long change from their defensive zone to the bench. For this game it was strictly the presence of weather factors that factored into the (pre-planned) 3rd period & OT end-switching.

I've noticed from re-broadcasts similar end-switching in the 1972 Summit Series but I don't recall if they did this every period or just the 3rd like in the NYD game earlier this month.

The rules do give the home team the short change twice in the game.

86.3 Choice of Ends - Home clubs shall have the choice of goals to defend at the start of the game except where both players’ benches are on the same side of the rink, in which case the home club shall start the game defending the goal nearest to its own bench. The teams shall change ends for each period of regulation time and, in the playoffs, for each period of overtime. (See Rule 84 – Overtime)

I think the game officials can force the teams to alternate ends if the ice is bad. Can't find the rule. BUT this is likely just in 3rd period or the game might be in doubt as to be able to play it if ice is that bad.

Ryan Walter on line changes that shows the home team gets advantaged - slight IMO.

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/e ... ne-changes

Not sure of the 72 series and any changes of ends - and I was at the game in Pac. Col. with Russia - Canada and don't think they changed ends.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

It comes to mind that changing halfway through the third period used to be the common rule in international games, but I may be remembering wrong. Or maybe it was when I watched university or high school games (1970s HS in Ontario, 80s uni in Alberta).

[sj-roc]

Coin tosses should not be a factor. Even in hockey if the ice is bad the ref can make them change ends halfway thru a period even though it might give a minor disadvantage to a home team based on bench location.

This was done during the Wings/Leafs outdoor game on New Year's Eve. As I recall they only did it in the third but not first or second periods of the game as one change can suffice to right the 40/20 imbalance to an even 30/30 with a minimum of otherwise unnecessary play stoppages. IIRC they also switched sides at the 2:30 mark of the 5min sudden-death OT en route to the SO ending. As far as bench location I don't think any team ever has an advantage since at any given time both teams have either a short or long change from their defensive zone to the bench. For this game it was strictly the presence of weather factors that factored into the (pre-planned) 3rd period & OT end-switching.

I've noticed from re-broadcasts similar end-switching in the 1972 Summit Series but I don't recall if they did this every period or just the 3rd like in the NYD game earlier this month.

The rules do give the home team the short change twice in the game.

86.3 Choice of Ends - Home clubs shall have the choice of goals to defend at the start of the game except where both players’ benches are on the same side of the rink, in which case the home club shall start the game defending the goal nearest to its own bench. The teams shall change ends for each period of regulation time and, in the playoffs, for each period of overtime. (See Rule 84 – Overtime)

I think the game officials can force the teams to alternate ends if the ice is bad. Can't find the rule. BUT this is likely just in 3rd period or the game might be in doubt as to be able to play it if ice is that bad.

Ryan Walter on line changes that shows the home team gets advantaged - slight IMO.

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/e ... ne-changes

Not sure of the 72 series and any changes of ends - and I was at the game in Pac. Col. with Russia - Canada and don't think they changed ends.

"The rules do give the home team the short change twice in the game." But there's no such thing as "**THE** short change". Either both teams have **A** short change at the same time — i.e., their bench is closer to their own goalie than the other team's — or they both have a long change. And so both teams (not just the home team) have a short change in the 1st and 3rd and both teams (not just the home team) have a long change in the 2nd (and OT if nec). It's not as if both benches are on the same side of centre ice to give a scenario whereby one team when under attack would have a short trip to the bench whereas the other team when under attack would have a long trip. Are we considering the same point here?

As for 1972, perhaps this mid-period end switch was only in effect for the four Moscow games but I definitely recall it from that series as it was the first time I'd ever even heard of such a thing.

[Mane]

How about making it more like rugby. The extra point being kicked from 25 yards out at the point where the touchdown was scored. Lot harder to do it this way.

[WestCoastJoe]

How about making it more like rugby. The extra point being kicked from 25 yards out at the point where the touchdown was scored. Lot harder to do it this way.

Get the foot back in football.

Which brings to mind ... I would not mind if on any punt, or field goal attempt or extra point, the kicker had to be on the field, on the play prior to the kick. Part of my pet peeve is the kickers not having other football skills.

I liked it better when Lou Groza, an O Lineman, kicked field goals. Or Paul Hornung, a halfback. Or Gary Collins, receiver and punter. Not as skilled as a modern-day specialist, perhaps, but that is fine with me, as long as they have some other football skills. And with this restriction, athletes would develop kicking skills along with their blocking, tackling, running etc.

As with rugby, they do not bring a specialist on just for the kick (as far as I know).

[WestCoastJoe]

How about making it more like rugby. The extra point being kicked from 25 yards out at the point where the touchdown was scored. Lot harder to do it this way.

Get the foot back in football.

Which brings to mind ... I would not mind if on any punt, or field goal attempt or extra point, the kicker had to be on the field, on the play prior to the kick. Part of my pet peeve is the kickers not having other football skills.

I liked it better when Lou Groza, an O Lineman, kicked field goals. Or Paul Hornung, a halfback. Or Gary Collins, receiver and punter. Not as skilled as a modern-day specialist, perhaps, but that is fine with me, as long as they have some other football skills. And with this restriction, athletes would develop kicking skills along with their blocking, tackling, running etc.

As with rugby, they do not bring a specialist on just for the kick (as far as I know).