Rule Changes For 2018

[BigBlue]

We saw the league Commissioner change the challenge rule midseason 2017.

I believe his change put an end to the horse hockey where the head coaches were trying to leverage the delicate rules on pass interference and defensive back obstruction on receivers. It took control of the game out of the referees hands in using fine judgement or in evening up the calls.

Still, the zebras make multiple mistakes per game, often more than one critical call. Increasing the tempo of the game needs to be balanced with eliminating egregious referee decisions.

Personally, I would like to see more timeouts per half (perhaps two or even three). I think it would prove the quality of the game and increase scoring. To that end what I would prefer to see changed is an increase the number of challenges available to the coach BUT that an unsuccessful challenge would have a severe penalty: for instance, an unsuccessful challenge would cost the challenger a 10 yard penalty for delay of game plus the loss of a timeout. The end of frivolous "it won't hurt to try" challenges might prove to provide better balance and tone to the game. Challenges would only be made when the coach was sure the referees had made a serious blunder.

Another rule change I would like to see is making the safety touch more onerous. Often football is a game of field position and the coaches know that giving up 2 points is better than giving up 3 or 7 when having to punt from deep in your own end.

What can be done on the safety? One solution would be to kick off from deeper in your own end than the 25 yard line. Another would be to have to punt instead of kick off from the 25 (as we see in the NFL). A third possibility  would be to increase the scoring of a safety from 2 points to 3 points. The goal is to get teams to punt instead of taking the safety.  Then all the hard work of a good defence would not go  so severely unrewarded.

I would also like to see an increase in the number of players that can dress for a game and also to increase the roster size to include players that have typically been hidden on the injury list; the goal would be to get some who are on the practice roster onto the main roster.  There is an economic challenge here but I believe it can be worked out without too much damage to profitability. I would also like to see more designated imports  dressed  to improve the quality and flexibility of each team. 

The last suggestion I have right now is the next time there is a negotiation with the CFL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION I hope that instead of just increasing the salary cap we would see an increase in the number of Canadians on the roster, perhaps by a factor of 4 to 6 players. There is a shortage of quality players coming out of the Canadian college system and the junior teams. Having more Canadian players (who might not even dress game day) would allow for a higher level of learning and instruction thus increasing the size of the Canadian talent pool that all teams could draw upon..

In the NFL, not that we need to clone them, their rules committee makes changes every year to lower the number of potential injuries and also to improve the flow and quality of the game. I believe the CFL also needs to continue to amend their rules to make the game safer and more entertaining.

The changes I have proposed here have been on my mind for a long long time. Some proposals made in the past on the site by me and other members have been adopted by the league. I don't know whether we were originators of the ideas but in the very least we provided the league's rule committee with some confirmation of what the fans thought would improve the game.

What do you have in terms of ideas to improve the CFL?

[TBURGESS]

My take:

No additional time outs. The game is slow enough as it is and we don't need any more stoppages.

The challenge system as it was changed mid-season is working exactly as it should. It speeds up the games and it gets rid of the egregiously bad calls. It was never meant for fishing expeditions or to change every perceived mistake made by the refs.

There's nothing the matter with the current safety rules. It's a coaches decision if he wants to give up 2 to try and save the 3 or 7.

There are enough players on the sidelines already. No need to make any changes there. No need to add Canadians either as their aren't enough good ones to go around right now. In fact, I'd reduce the number of NI's on each team by 1 (The worst guy on each team that no one but his family would miss) and add an extra DI.

Rule changes I'd like:

No single point on balls kicked through the end zone. That just rewards failure. I'd keep the 1 point if the ball stays in the end zone to get the run backs that are so exciting.

Designate all NI's as NI's, including QB's.  Yup it means some teams, not named the Bombers, get an advantage of an additional DI. If we want that too, we can always sign an NI QB.

[johnzo]

I think the onfield rules are fine. An occasional blown call is not nearly as bad as multiple fishing challenges in a quarter, especially the fourth quarter.

Wouldn't mind seeing one less national starter with the NFL vacuuming up so much canuck talent these days, but I doubt the PA is interested in that. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by johnzo

[Tracker]

I would like to see a Canadian quarterback be counted for the NI ratio, and a total of three successful challenges but only one failed one during a game. 

[kelownabomberfan]

If a Saskatchewan player goes down while the Bombers are in hurry up, just keep playing and run right over him, even if he is legitimately injured. 

[Eternal optimist]

Scaling back of the fishing expeditions was good...

I think the only gripe I had this year was the 'Riders "injuries"... but there really is no effective way to police that unfortunately. The only thing I can think of that could possibly work would be limiting the number of injury timeouts a team has... but that would still be a very thorny situation, the PA wouldn't like it, and it would only be a matter of time before a player attempted to play through an on-field injury if their team was out of timeouts.

tldr; No changes of note?

[DR. CFL]

The  only issue I have with scaling back challenges is when teams are forced to use their challenge on a call that was clearing incorrect by the officials.  I don’t mean a judgement call or illegal contact. I guess the other question  is why can’t some of those erroneous calls be corrected. By the eye in the sky official?

[Fatty Liver]

13 hours ago, DR. CFL said:

The  only issue I have with scaling back challenges is when teams are forced to use their challenge on a call that was clearing incorrect by the officials.  I don’t mean a judgement call or illegal contact. I guess the other question  is why can’t some of those erroneous calls be corrected. By the eye in the sky official?

I would hope that the "eye in the sky" becomes the tool it has the potential to be and communicates with the on-field officials to overturn egregious calls immediately.   Jesus works that way, why can't they?

Edited January 8, 2018 by Throw Long Bannatyne

[Floyd]

Like the game the way it is right now...  

Might make a rule that the team loses a timeout or a down if there's an 'injury' after the play is blown in but before the snap

I'd also expand the rosters to 46 and gameday to 44 - teams are stable now to afford this and it would help keep good players in the league - teams just mess around with IR anyway

Cdn QB should absolutely affect the ratio 

 

[Mike]

I'm probably in the minority that wants to see teams keep a second challenge if they win their first, but only because the reffing is still so terrible that having one is really just not fair. 

[Mark F]

Top, number one for me is the need to make helmet to helmet an immediate ejection, and suspension for minimum one game.

no excuses or exceptions permitted.    

As somebody here posted, (maybe Speedflex, or Booch), learn to tackle properly, forget about the highlight reel hit, and putting someone at risk of permanent brain damage.

I'm tired of watching that crap, CFL, and NFL. How many of those did Nichols and Harris take last season? Plain Brutality.

Actually, if it keeps up, I will probably lose all interest in North American football.

Don't think I'm alone on that one.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Mark F

[Fan Boy]

18 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

My take:

No additional time outs. The game is slow enough as it is and we don't need any more stoppages.

The challenge system as it was changed mid-season is working exactly as it should. It speeds up the games and it gets rid of the egregiously bad calls. It was never meant for fishing expeditions or to change every perceived mistake made by the refs.

There's nothing the matter with the current safety rules. It's a coaches decision if he wants to give up 2 to try and save the 3 or 7.

There are enough players on the sidelines already. No need to make any changes there. No need to add Canadians either as their aren't enough good ones to go around right now. In fact, I'd reduce the number of NI's on each team by 1 (The worst guy on each team that no one but his family would miss) and add an extra DI.

Rule changes I'd like:

No single point on balls kicked through the end zone. That just rewards failure. I'd keep the 1 point if the ball stays in the end zone to get the run backs that are so exciting.

Designate all NI's as NI's, including QB's.  Yup it means some teams, not named the Bombers, get an advantage of an additional DI. If we want that too, we can always sign an NI QB.

I kind of like the ball in play single point idea. The rouge survives but is not so automatic. There is more drama in coming up empty with a missed short field goal instead of at least one point (except hitting the post, I know).  

[Atomic]

3 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Top, number one for me is the need to make helmet to helmet an immediate ejection, and suspension for minimum one game.

no excuses or exceptions permitted.    

As somebody here posted, learn to tackle properly, forget about the highlight reel hit, and putting someone at risk of permanent brain damage.

I'm tired of watching that crap, CFL, and NFL. How many of those did Nichols and Harris take last season? Plain Brutality.

Actually, if it keeps up, I will probably lose all interest in North American football.

Don't think I'm alone on that one.

Impossible to enforce.  Helmet-to-helmet happens on virtually every play.  You can't have tackle football and outlaw helmet-to-helmet contact.  You have to choose one or the other.

[Mark F]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

Impossible to enforce.  Helmet-to-helmet happens on virtually every play.  You can't have tackle football and outlaw helmet-to-helmet contact.  You have to choose one or the other.

That's what used to be said about fighting in the NHL. "part of the game"

How many guys have brain damage and suicided from damage those fights?

and now, it's pretty much gone, and hockey is much better.

Figure out a way to get it out of football.  Not just for the health of the players, but for the health of the leagues.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Mark F

[Atomic]

1 minute ago, Mark F said:

That's what used to be said about fighting in the NHL. How many guys have brain damage and suicided from those fights?

and now, it's pretty much gone, and hockey is better.

Figure out a way to get it out of football.  

OK but it's easy to play hockey without fights.  That's a totally different situation which I'm sure you are aware of.  Tackling is central to the game of football.

As a defender you can line up a clean hit, then suddenly the ball comes in low, the receiver stretches to make the catch and puts his head in the line of fire.  How on earth is a defender supposed to avoid that?  Or a running back makes a cut, slips, and goes a little low while a defender who is already 8 inches taller, comes in for a hit.  What do you propose that defender does?

And what about linemen?  Dozens of sub-concussive hits per game.  They go head-to-head on every play.  Don't care about that?  Could be far more long-term effect from that than just from huge hits.  How could you possibly enforce head-to-head contact along the lines?

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

[DR. CFL]

Part of the issue with helmet to helmet ejection is having to make a determination if the ball carrier or QB ducks his head immediately prior to impact. This then results in helmet to helmet. If you can determine intent I am open for potential ejection.....tough call at full speed.

[Jpan85]

Two more DI on the game day roster

[Mark F]

33 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

Two more DI on the game day roster

That is a great idea....

[mbrg]

2 hours ago, Mark F said:

That's what used to be said about fighting in the NHL. "part of the game"

How many guys have brain damage and suicided from damage those fights?

and now, it's pretty much gone, and hockey is much better.

Figure out a way to get it out of football.  Not just for the health of the players, but for the health of the leagues.

What needs to be removed is using the helmet as a weapon.  It is meant to be there to protect.

[Mark F]

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Saw a tackle on the weekend, the defensive guy was basically a missile, flying parallel to the ground, helmet first, into a guys head. Those kind of hits need to go. Just wrap up and tackle, rugby style.

no more cruise missile type tackling,  would eliminate many head injries.

That's pretty simple.

anyway, it might be hard, but that is not a reason to not try to eliminate it as much as possible. so far the CFL is far too relaxed about these hits.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Mark F

[Mark F]

1 minute ago, mbrg said:

What needs to be removed is using the helmet as a weapon.  It is meant to be there to protect.

exactly.

Thanks.

[Atomic]

Just now, Mark F said:

Saw a tackle on the weekend, the defensive guy was basically a missile, flying parallel to the ground, helmet first, into a guys head. Those kind of hits need to go. Just wrap up and tackle, rugby style.

no more cruise missile type tackling,  would eliminate many head injries.

That's pretty simple.

That's easier but that's not what you said.  You said any head-to-head hit.

I agree that kind of tackle needs to go but it is still a judgment call.

[Mark F]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

That's easier but that's not what you said.  You said any head-to-head hit.

I agree that kind of tackle needs to go but it is still a judgment call.

agree... I was too strong with initial comment.

[kelownabomberfan]

3 hours ago, Mark F said:

Top, number one for me is the need to make helmet to helmet an immediate ejection, and suspension for minimum one game.

no excuses or exceptions permitted.    

As somebody here posted, (maybe Speedflex, or Booch), learn to tackle properly, forget about the highlight reel hit, and putting someone at risk of permanent brain damage.

I'm tired of watching that crap, CFL, and NFL. How many of those did Nichols and Harris take last season? Plain Brutality.

Actually, if it keeps up, I will probably lose all interest in North American football.

Don't think I'm alone on that one.

That hit to the head on Kelce on Saturday had me almost tossing my cookies, it was so disgusting.

Edited January 8, 2018 by kelownabomberfan

[kelownabomberfan]

49 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Saw a tackle on the weekend, the defensive guy was basically a missile, flying parallel to the ground, helmet first, into a guys head. Those kind of hits need to go. Just wrap up and tackle, rugby style.

no more cruise missile type tackling,  would eliminate many head injries.

That's pretty simple.

anyway, it might be hard, but that is not a reason to not try to eliminate it as much as possible. so far the CFL is far too relaxed about these hits.

I think you were talking about the Kelce hit.  He got up and was doing the funky chicken all the way to the side-lines.  Tyrod Taylor took two serious shots to the noggin yesterday in the Bills game.  I don't know how his brains aren't scrambled right now.  This is the kind of stuff that is going to end up killing football.   I don't see how the game can survive long term, now that they are starting to see the brain damage effects.