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?

Pretty hard to eliminate all head hits, since there are times the ball carrier turns into the defender at the last instant.

Anyways , I am in favour of adding one more challenge per team. If you lose it, you lose a time out. 

Bring the "reserve" guys onto the game day roster...they are getting paid anyways, might as well play 'em.

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I think you were talking about the Kelce hit

that's the one.

4 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.

So, you're suggesting that we move to flag football?  Because that's the only way you can have any hope of removing head to head hits.  Deliberate hits to the head or leading with the head?  I agree completely.   Immediate ejection.  Subsequent infractions get ejection and suspensions, but you can never remove incidental helmet to helmet contact in a sport where 24 guys are colliding with each other at high speed.

The only rule changes that I would suggest are

1.   adding of a second challenge if the coach wins the first one.   It seems strange that a coach may have to burn his challenge to correct a officials error, but then doesn't have that opportunity later.   I would off-set this with a 10 yard penalty for an unsuccessful challenge to help prevent the "fishing" flags.

2.  Increase the mandatory plays off for injury delays.    1st time a player goes down (requiring assistance leaving the field) he is out for 3 plays (same as it is now)   2nd time the same player goes down, he's out for 10 plays.   3rd time, he's done for the day.   I believe that this will make it tougher for coaches to implement the fake kneel to slow down the game, while still allowing players needing medical assistance to get some help.

44 minutes ago, Jaxon said:

The only rule changes that I would suggest are

1.   adding of a second challenge if the coach wins the first one.   It seems strange that a coach may have to burn his challenge to correct a officials error, but then doesn't have that opportunity later.   I would off-set this with a 10 yard penalty for an unsuccessful challenge to help prevent the "fishing" flags.

2.  Increase the mandatory plays off for injury delays.    1st time a player goes down (requiring assistance leaving the field) he is out for 3 plays (same as it is now)   2nd time the same player goes down, he's out for 10 plays.   3rd time, he's done for the day.   I believe that this will make it tougher for coaches to implement the fake kneel to slow down the game, while still allowing players needing medical assistance to get some help.

I'd agree with the challenge rule.  I think that if  player goes down after the play is whistled in then they should receive a delay of game penalty and that player is gone for minimum 6 plays.

Edited January 8, 20188 yr by WBBFanWest

29 minutes ago, Jaxon said:

1. would off-set this with a 10 yard penalty for an unsuccessful challenge to help prevent the "fishing" flags.

2.  Increase the mandatory plays off for injury delays.    1st time a player goes down (requiring assistance leaving the field) he is out for 3 plays (same as it is now)   2nd time the same player goes down, he's out for 10 plays.   3rd time, he's done for the day.   I believe that this will make it tougher for coaches to implement the fake kneel to slow down the game, while still allowing players needing medical assistance to get some help.

I like 2.

On 1, tho -- a lot of fishing challenges are 4Q last-gasp things where they still make sense to go after even with the potential 10 yard penalty, so is the penalty doing enough to disincline the fishing coach?

 

What if they had one challenge per half

6 hours ago, DR. CFL said:

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.

I suggest that the answer is to review the game tapes after the game and suspend the offender for s long as it takes for the victim to recover.

give teams 2 challenges but stop letting them challenge PI problem solved. 

13 hours ago, 17to85 said:

give teams 2 challenges but stop letting them challenge PI problem solved. 

Yeah I'm not sure how I feel about this.  It is refreshing to watch NFL and know that PI is PI and there isn't a challenge coming.  But the officiating is just so inconsistent in the CFL, especially in regards to PI... I think we need the challenge.

I'd allow challenges on pi, but not illegal contact. A bad pi call can change a game.

The CFL needs to hire my wife to oversee the challenges. Sometimes she knows I am wrong even before I open my mouth.

35 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I'd allow challenges on pi, but not illegal contact. A bad pi call can change a game.

This.  Being able to challenge illegal contact is ridiculous and that's what teams look for when they need a desperation bail out call.   Most of the time it has nothing to do with the play and the QB never even looks to the side where the 'infraction' takes place.

41 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I'd allow challenges on pi, but not illegal contact. A bad pi call can change a game.

I like this solution.

The refs in the CFL are terrible and get PI incorrect so frequently, I would hate to see the challenge for it go away. But illegal contact rarely has an effect on the outcome of the play, IMO.

Edited January 9, 20188 yr by JCon

47 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I'd allow challenges on pi, but not illegal contact. A bad pi call can change a game.

Sweep for commish!

Any challenge for illegal contact....not saying it should even be allowed should only be possible on a play involving the intended receiver.  The junk 50 yds away from where the ball is thrown is embarrassing.

6 minutes ago, DR. CFL said:

Any challenge for illegal contact....not saying it should even be allowed should only be possible on a play involving the intended receiver.  The junk 50 yds away from where the ball is thrown is embarrassing.

We've been over how that wouldn't work. Only the coaches/players know who the intended rec. is for that specific play. And illegal contact can change it. So I'd just rather do away with the illegal contact challenging all together than put in another rule that the refs/coaches can get wrong or abuse.

5 hours ago, JCon said:

I like this solution.

The refs in the CFL are terrible and get PI incorrect so frequently, I would hate to see the challenge for it go away. But illegal contact rarely has an effect on the outcome of the play, IMO.

but PI is a subjective call, which is why reviewing it is crazy to me. By the letter of the law you can probably find PI on any play, which is why so many coaches went on fishing trips so much and it was so successful. It was a gross over reaction to one missed call in the playoffs a few years ago and it's made the game worse. Just let the refs call PI on the field and screw it up or not, feels better when it's screwed up in real time than when it's still screwed up after review. 

Regarding reffing:

- most of the time they get it right

-yes, at times it is terrible

-NFL refs also make terrible calls; just saying...

5 minutes ago, blueingreenland said:

Regarding reffing:

- most of the time they get it right

-yes, at times it is terrible

-NFL refs also make terrible calls; just saying...

Thats kind of the nature of reffing. Its like playing OL. 90% of the time you do some thing good or get it done right no one notices. The times you get it wrong or its close, every one notices. 

The PI rules as they are make our refs look bad. The inconsistency in more severe penalties (stuff that get fines and suspensions)  is my biggest problem with the refs.Even that has a lot to do with the league though. 

Just fix the PI & IC rules. The way they are it stinks. Defenders should be allowed to fight for the ball. The way it stands now, a defrnder can be called for IC if a receiver deliberately runs into them. They have to allow more physicality. Keep the coaches challenges to one each per game.

11 hours ago, blueingreenland said:

Regarding reffing:

- most of the time they get it right

-yes, at times it is terrible

-NFL refs also make terrible calls; just saying...

NFL refs do make bad calls sometimes but from watching both leagues pretty extensively I'm comfortable saying the problem is far worse in the CFL.  It's the consistency of calls.  I know what PI is in the NFL.  In the CFL, I usually have no idea.

6 minutes ago, Atomic said:

NFL refs do make bad calls sometimes but from watching both leagues pretty extensively I'm comfortable saying the problem is far worse in the CFL.  It's the consistency of calls.  I know what PI is in the NFL.  In the CFL, I usually have no idea.

I can't agree enough with this statement. The refs in the CFL are horrible and very inconsistent in what and when they call things.

I mostly watched high-profile college games this year, so I probably saw the best crews, but I was extremely impressed with the refing in the NCAA.

On 1/8/2018 at 4:14 PM, Jaxon said:

The only rule changes that I would suggest are

1.   adding of a second challenge if the coach wins the first one.   It seems strange that a coach may have to burn his challenge to correct a officials error, but then doesn't have that opportunity later.   I would off-set this with a 10 yard penalty for an unsuccessful challenge to help prevent the "fishing" flags.

2.  Increase the mandatory plays off for injury delays.    1st time a player goes down (requiring assistance leaving the field) he is out for 3 plays (same as it is now)   2nd time the same player goes down, he's out for 10 plays.   3rd time, he's done for the day.   I believe that this will make it tougher for coaches to implement the fake kneel to slow down the game, while still allowing players needing medical assistance to get some help.

How about like they do in hockey where they call the offensive player for diving, call the player who fake kneels, delay of game?

Subjective call especially when it's a potential injury but . . .?

46 minutes ago, JCon said:

I was extremely impressed with the refing in the NCAA

one of my favourite reffing outcomes is from US college football

Quote

 

LAS VEGAS -- Sports bettors in Nevada are complaining to state gambling regulators over a scoring change in last weekend's USC-Utah football game that didn't affect the outcome, but swung the betting result in many sports books from the Utes to the Trojans.

Enforcement chief Jerry Markling of the Nevada Gaming Control Board told The Associated Press on Monday that regulators have been taking calls from gamblers and casinos and are trying to resolve disputes after Pac-12 officials changed the score of Saturday night's game two hours after it ended.

Normally, the change wouldn't have meant much. But in the betting world, it caused major concern as USC bettors who had scrapped their tickets or thought they were losers found themselves poring over the technicalities of house rules, trying to see how their casino was supposed to handle the situation

 

 

Edited January 10, 20188 yr by Mark F