Rule Change

[BomberBall]

https://press.cfl.ca/cfl-approves-rules-change-on-coaches-challenges#

In the middle of a season is a bit strange... During a week where a game has already been played, is really strange.

[Blueandgold]

It's progress but it's not enough.

[BigBlue]

I don't like the compromise worked out here ... the refereeing is so frequently wrong ... personally, I would like to see unlimited challenges when you are right and a 10 yard delay of game when you are wrong to a maximum of 2 or 3 ... leave the timeouts alone...

Edited August 26, 2016 by BigBlue

[Fatty Liver]

2 minutes ago, BigBlue said:

I don't like the compromise worked out here ... the refereeing is so frequently wrong ... personally, I would like to see unlimited challenges when you are right and a 10 yard delay of game when you are wrong to a maximum of 2 or 3 ... leave the timeouts alone...

I agree, giving up yards on the field is a more appropriate penalty because they are usually throwing the challenges to sustain drives.  If a penalty puts them out of FG range it may decrease the "hail Mary" challenges.

[wbbfan]

The challenge system has been really slowing down the games. Its a good change, though first half time outs arent treated with the importance 2nd half TOs. 

The real bog to the system is the time it takes for refs to make decisions. They need to be kept into the time line. If its taking that long there almost certainly isnt sufficient evidence to over turn. 

7 minutes ago, BigBlue said:

I don't like the compromise worked out here ... the refereeing is so frequently wrong ... personally, I would like to see unlimited challenges when you are right and a 10 yard delay of game when you are wrong to a maximum of 2 or 3 ... leave the timeouts alone...

Thats an interesting idea. Id say any challenge after the first has the weight of a delay of game penalty.

[TBURGESS]

I like this rule change, but I don't think it will make coaches think twice about throwing the challenge flag. Losing a timeout, that you might not even need, isn't that much of a deterrent. 

I like the 10 yard delay of game idea for getting it wrong even better than losing the timeout.

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

I like this rule change, but I don't think it will make coaches think twice about throwing the challenge flag. Losing a timeout, that you might not even need, isn't that much of a deterrent. 

I like the 10 yard delay of game idea for getting it wrong even better than losing the timeout.

I would like the delay of game idea if the officials were even semi-good at getting the calls consistent.

[Chaosmonkey]

I think this will reduce the amount of fishing expedition challenges in the first half of games. Get a challenge wrong early, have to use a time out in the final 3 minutes of the first half for whatever reason, now bam, out of challenges and time outs the rest of the game.

[Blueandgold]

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would like the delay of game idea if the officials were even semi-good at getting the calls consistent.

I would say that the delay of game would be an ideal penalties for challenges that are proven wrong, but not for the ones that aren't overturned because the evidence is inconclusive. 

[TBURGESS]

55 minutes ago, Mike said:

I would like the delay of game idea if the officials were even semi-good at getting the calls consistent.

I'd love to see consistent calls too, but I fear I'd die before that happens. I'd like to see more black and white rules so there wouldn't be any interpretation involved, but a lot of calls aren't black and white and I'm fairly sure that they are designed that way to give refs some leeway in making calls. I don't agree with a lot of the calls even after they've gone through the challenge process, so I want it to cost the coaches for making bad challenges.

The way I see it, challenges were introduced to get the obviously bad calls (In or Out, Fumble or not, 'Obvious PI') overturned, but that's not how they are being used and it's ruining the flow of the game at least for me.

[Mr Dee]

I agree with this rule change. It will put the onus on the coaches to have a second thought before tossing that flag.

I do disagree with the notion that it's taking too long to render a decision. I found that there's been a conscious effort to get the review out quicker, especially in the last few weeks. Before, you could whistle and make a sandwich while waiting, then the review was done. Now, I bet you it's been within a minute. Too many challenges made it seem longer.

 

[Dragon37]

It's a start but they should do away with challenges altogether. Video challenges do not improve refereeing. If they want to improve reffing don't change rules all the freaking time. More training and defining of what constitutes each penalty then you can get better reffing. Really though I don't find CFL officiating that bad.

[Eternal optimist]

9 hours ago, Blueandgold said:

I would say that the delay of game would be an ideal penalties for challenges that are proven wrong, but not for the ones that aren't overturned because the evidence is inconclusive. 

 

1 hour ago, Dragon37 said:

It's a start but they should do away with challenges altogether. Video challenges do not improve refereeing. If they want to improve reffing don't change rules all the freaking time. More training and defining of what constitutes each penalty then you can get better reffing. Really though I don't find CFL officiating that bad.

^ This! They've been changing the rules so much ever since they introduced the PI as something that can be challenged. I also find it mildly funny that in an attempt to reduce delays, the refs now have to notify the crowd (and the coach) they will be charged a timeout...which inherently increases the delay.

[HardCoreBlue]

Watching Volleyball at the Olympics, the CFL should adopt how coaches are able to challenge. Within five seconds of the official call made, they had to make the challenge or it was too late. That would make it a lot tougher for the CFL Coaches to go on fishing expeditions. As soon as the ref makes the call, the timer is on. The other thing I think should happen is they don't call pi if the ball is uncatchable so they should also call no penalty on penalties challenged by coaches that had no effect on a play that happened well away from that infraction.  It's the same logic in my mind. Consistency is needed with these challenges.

Edited August 27, 2016 by HardCoreBlue
Grammer