New Rule Change effective immediately

[Big Time]

This is a big step in the right direction. Clearly Ambroise read my post in the other thread and followed my advice! This shows both wisdom and humility

However, it's only the first of what I hope are quite a few more steps in the right direction. If a coach can still challenge PI, we will still have the same problem. The reality is PI, like holding, could probably be called on every single play depending on your interpretation of the rule. For me, the enjoyment of the entire game was being significantly undermined by the fact that I felt that any play at any time could be called back due to what seems like an arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

I'm willing to reserve judgement to see how this plays out. If coaches get one challenge per game regardless of whether it is successful or not, then they will likely use more discretion before using it. It was patently obvious that Jason Maas was banking on the lack of judgement within the Command Centre to try and get him out of not having another kicker. Maas is probably the most arrogant dickhead in the league so I'm not surprised the league reacted to this.

I recognize it's a coaches job to win and it's the league's job to enforce what is good for the game. This decision by the league shows promise for their leadership. Let's hope it results in a better game on the field, and hopefully a few more losses for Calgary and Edmonton in the process.

[Hambone]

This doesn't go far enough. Judgment calls such as pass interference can still be challenged. That's where the problem lies. That's where coaches are fishing for penalties. Let the players play and ban challenges for pass interference or illegal contact.

I worry about that. Take away the ability to challenge PI and IC and I think coverage guys will be emboldened to go back to their old clutch and grab ways because they would know the only eyes watching them will be the ones wearing stripes. One thing I've noticed this year that I see as a positive is a greater frequency of cover guys breaking up plays with pure athleticism, reaching around receivers without making contact etc. To me that says they are getting the message and have finally adjusted to the tighter rules and les tolerance put in 2 years ago. I think the more wide open play and higher scoring we're seeing this year is a direct result of that. I'd hate to see them take a step backwards.

[DanoT]

This is a big step in the right direction. Clearly Ambroise read my post in the other thread and followed my advice! This shows both wisdom and humility

However, it's only the first of what I hope are quite a few more steps in the right direction. If a coach can still challenge PI, we will still have the same problem. The reality is PI, like holding, could probably be called on every single play depending on your interpretation of the rule. For me, the enjoyment of the entire game was being significantly undermined by the fact that I felt that any play at any time could be called back due to what seems like an arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

I'm willing to reserve judgement to see how this plays out. If coaches get one challenge per game regardless of whether it is successful or not, then they will likely use more discretion before using it. It was patently obvious that Jason Maas was banking on the lack of judgement within the Command Centre to try and get him out of not having another kicker. Maas is probably the most arrogant dickhead in the league so I'm not surprised the league reacted to this.

I recognize it's a coaches job to win and it's the league's job to enforce what is good for the game. This decision by the league shows promise for their leadership. Let's hope it results in a better game on the field, and hopefully a few more losses for Calgary and Edmonton in the process.

I don't quite agree with your assessment of Jason Maas. He has a high level of football knowledge an intensity that I respect. He is a hot head on the sidelines that I disrespect.

[Dusty]

This doesn't go far enough. Judgment calls such as pass interference can still be challenged. That's where the problem lies. That's where coaches are fishing for penalties. Let the players play and ban challenges for pass interference or illegal contact.

I worry about that. Take away the ability to challenge PI and IC and I think coverage guys will be emboldened to go back to their old clutch and grab ways because they would know the only eyes watching them will be the ones wearing stripes. One thing I've noticed this year that I see as a positive is a greater frequency of cover guys breaking up plays with pure athleticism, reaching around receivers without making contact etc. To me that says they are getting the message and have finally adjusted to the tighter rules and les tolerance put in 2 years ago. I think the more wide open play and higher scoring we're seeing this year is a direct result of that. I'd hate to see them take a step backwards.

I'm "somewhat" OK with PI challenge remaining, because as I understand PI, the ball is in play to that receiver. What is ridiculous to me are the IC calls which occur on the other side of the field. Yes, one could argue that without the IC the ball "could" be in play to that receiver, but I see a lot of the IC calls as being quite incidental to the plays.

My understanding of PI may be flawed, and I welcome any further education on this point.

[DanoT]

Reducing the coaches challenge to one per game is the right mid season instant fix. Post season a more thorough review of the Command Centre and video review options and resulting recommendations can take place.

[Sir Purrcival]

I think I can propose the next modification. You can't call a challenge if you have a player injury. Saw an example tonight where player took a knee to give the Schmoes a chance to review footage to decide if they should toss the flag.

[KnowItAll]

I think I can propose the next modification. You can't call a challenge if you have a player injury. Saw an example tonight where player took a knee to give the Schmoes a chance to review footage to decide if they should toss the flag.

yet what to do if there is an obvious and serious wrong call with a legitimate injury??

[Sir Purrcival]

Well, I guess they don't get to make the challenge. If coaches didn't engage in such practises as "Phoney" injuries, it wouldn't be an issue. It has been a long standing tradition unfortunately. When a player takes 20 steps to the sideline and then "takes a knee", it is pretty obvious. If coaches were willing to scour tablets for anything they could call, you know that they are going to evolve quickly to slow the game down long enough for them to assess the viability of making a challenge. For me, it goes back to the concept of sportsmanship. Injury timeouts were not intended so that teams could get a breath, settle themselves down and what have you. They are intended for aiding the injured. It is another of those things that technically is "within the rules" but does nothing for the credibility of the game. I have long wished for a delay a game penalty to be called on some of these "fake" injuries. Just to plant the seed of doubt in coaches and players about engaging in such practises.

[TheLionKing]

Whatever rules the league implements, coaches will find a way to circumvent it.

[Hambone]

I think I can propose the next modification. You can't call a challenge if you have a player injury. Saw an example tonight where player took a knee to give the Schmoes a chance to review footage to decide if they should toss the flag.

With only 1 challenge available I'm OK with the way things are. The questionable injury time out was a common delay of game tactic long before challenges became part of the game. Mike "Time Out" Maurer was good for coming up "hurt" at least once a game while with the Eskimos.

[Sir Purrcival]

In some ways, I wish they would deal with that a little more assertively in general. It is a practise that has gone unchecked in I don't know how long. I think the worst example I saw was with Toronto where Pinball was telling one of his players to go down and two fell simultaneously like they had been shot. It that wasn't worth a delay of game penalty, I don't know what is. It is hard to assess whether a player is "injured" legitimately or not but this would be one way to at least make it so that it isn't adapted to this new reality of the challenge.

[DanoT]

The "fake injury time out" was addressed a number of years ago by having the so called injured or legitimate injured player sit out the next 3 plays. That said it wouldn't surprise me if some of the new young CFL HCs like Dickenson, Maas, Campbell, have a designated "fake injury guy" who they can easily replace and afford to sit out for3 plays.

[Hambone]

The "fake injury time out" was addressed a number of years ago by having the so called injured or legitimate injured player sit out the next 3 plays. That said it wouldn't surprise me if some of the new young CFL HCs like Dickenson, Maas, Campbell, have a designated "fake injury guy" who they can easily replace and afford to sit out for3 plays.

I put it into a category of not worth worrying about. Does it happen? I can't say it doesn't. Does it happen often? Not at all, certainly not enough to be considered remotely a priority for the Rules Committee to address. If that finds it's way onto their agenda then we must have be in near purrfect shape in terms of rules, game flow etc.

[KnowItAll]

the bottom line from the willis "injury" is that the right call ended up being made.

I didn't have a problem with it.

[Blitz]

I believe this was the best good news our Leos have received from CFL headquarters in a long time.

The reduction of challenges means less opportunity for him to get challenges wrong and look foolish at times, for his 'system' of challenges (What system?- His coaches yell at him at times to challenge, his backup quarterback runs up to him and shows why he should challenge using his tablet, he has no headphones or direct method of communication with spotters).

I refer to it as Wally's "Anarchy System" when it comes to refs challenges.

We are now advantaged with the reduction of challenges allowed - less opportunity for opposition coaches to get a call reversed and less opportunities for us to screw up and lose timeout.