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?

19 hours ago, 17to85 said:

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. 

PI is not as 'subjective' as it used to be.  Especially not after the review.  In my opinion, the review process has made PI about 90-95% accurate especially since there is a single review official that knows exactly what to look for now.  

You won't see PI challenges taken out of the game any time soon as long they are accurately affecting the outcome of the game, which I feel they mostly are.

 

13 minutes ago, TrueBlue said:

PI is not as 'subjective' as it used to be.  Especially not after the review.  In my opinion, the review process has made PI about 90-95% accurate especially since there is a single review official that knows exactly what to look for now.  

You won't see PI challenges taken out of the game any time soon as long they are accurately affecting the outcome of the game, which I feel they mostly are.

What game were you watching all season?  Even after review it was a crapshoot whether a call would be PI or not.  It was totally inconsistent.

4 minutes ago, Atomic said:

What game were you watching all season?  Even after review it was a crapshoot whether a call would be PI or not.  It was totally inconsistent.

Call it a crapshoot or inconsistent or whatever you want, but what you're looking for and what the replay official is specifically looking for could be much different.   What makes you determine whether it's PI or not?  It's a fine line.  (This is a whole other problem.)

Are there mistakes either way?  Of course there are, but the system has made it better than what it used to be. 

 

13 minutes ago, TrueBlue said:

Call it a crapshoot or inconsistent or whatever you want, but what you're looking for and what the replay official is specifically looking for could be much different.   What makes you determine whether it's PI or not?  It's a fine line.  (This is a whole other problem.)

Are there mistakes either way?  Of course there are, but the system has made it better than what it used to be. 

No it's actually quite simple.  If I see a play called PI in one game, and then an almost identical play not called PI in the next game, that is a problem.  I don't care what the definition of PI is as long as it is applied consistently.  This is the problem.

There is no way to spin this.  I watch both leagues obsessively.  I love the CFL.  I'm not trying to tear it down here.  CFL officiating is worse.  Objectively.  And it needs to get better... replay included.

1 hour ago, TrueBlue said:

PI is not as 'subjective' as it used to be.  Especially not after the review.  In my opinion, the review process has made PI about 90-95% accurate especially since there is a single review official that knows exactly what to look for now.  

You won't see PI challenges taken out of the game any time soon as long they are accurately affecting the outcome of the game, which I feel they mostly are.

 

Hmm, so why don't they put that guy in the booth?

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

No it's actually quite simple.  If I see a play called PI in one game, and then an almost identical play not called PI in the next game, that is a problem.  I don't care what the definition of PI is as long as it is applied consistently.  This is the problem.

There is no way to spin this.  I watch both leagues obsessively.  I love the CFL.  I'm not trying to tear it down here.  CFL officiating is worse.  Objectively.  And it needs to get better... replay included.

On field officials call it wrong all the time, that's not what I am referring to. 

Highly unlikely you're seeing "an almost identical play" being challenged one game to the next.  If you are, please enlighten me with an example.   

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that on-field CFL officiating is consistent and without it's faults.   Far from it!

3 hours ago, TrueBlue said:

PI is not as 'subjective' as it used to be.  Especially not after the review.  In my opinion, the review process has made PI about 90-95% accurate especially since there is a single review official that knows exactly what to look for now.  

You won't see PI challenges taken out of the game any time soon as long they are accurately affecting the outcome of the game, which I feel they mostly are.

 

OK so the replay officials get it right, but you are still only giving coaches the single challenge for it but it's something that the refs can miss in real time way more often than that, in addition to all the other stuff that might need challenged. Honestly I've never been a fan of the review process. There's always going to be human error in reffing I'd just let them ref, or you just take them completely out of the equation and review everything all the time. 

I stand by the PI being a gross over reaction to a badly blown call in a playoff game which has made things worse in the long run. 

So the rules committee meets in March

What is your best recommendation for improving our game this season ..... personally I am going with contacting a receiver away from the play ... mot as a rule and how the reffs call it but as a challengeable play ... if the reffs miss it , too bad

I wouldn't change a thing. The review system is imperfect, so what? Even if somehow referees were hypothetically able to call a perfect game 100% of the time, you'd still have fans griping about bad calls.. unfortunately it is just in the very nature to be inherently biased as fans.

 

 

15 hours ago, Eternal optimist said:

I wouldn't change a thing. The review system is imperfect, so what? Even if somehow referees were hypothetically able to call a perfect game 100% of the time, you'd still have fans griping about bad calls.. unfortunately it is just in the very nature to be inherently biased as fans.

 

 

I would like to see one year where there were not a bunch of changes.

Maybe see if officiating gets better if they're not spending time learning new rules?

41 minutes ago, Jesse said:

I would like to see one year where there were not a bunch of changes.

Maybe see if officiating gets better if they're not spending time learning new rules?

NFL makes changes every year and it does make the game better & safer .... I want to see more refinement

22 minutes ago, BigBlue said:

NFL makes changes every year and it does make the game better & safer .... I want to see more refinement

Yeah, not too many big name NFL players got hurt this season, eh.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-2017-all-injured-team-is-loaded-with-pro-bowl-players-at-halfway-point-of-season/

9 hours ago, BigBlue said:

NFL makes changes every year and it does make the game better & safer .... I want to see more refinement

What? In the past few years, the NFL has put in Thursday night football which has diluted their product, and added to player injuries. On top of that, their current concussion "protocol" is laughable... look at how the Texans handled Tom Savage, he was back on the field for the next series after he took that hit.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000899837/article/texans-wont-be-disciplined-for-tom-savage-concussion

In neither of these situations is the NFL looking out for their players. Add on top of that, their league is losing viewership in droves (http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-nfl-ratings-20180104-story.html), remind me again why they should be our role model?

1+1 option year contracts back please.

I would leave the challenge rules as they are but allow the eye in the sky to correct egregious errors without a challenge being required. If we could take better advantage of the eye in the sky to correct the incorrect calls without requiring review then I believe we would see better officiating over all. I would expect the eye in the sky to call the play at the same gamespeed as the ground officials meaning they are only going to call those plainly obvious calls.

On ‎1‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:41 AM, JCon said:

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.

I watch a lot of NCAA football and they make their share of mistakes.  Overall though, they have a far easier job than either pro league because the players are so much slower and have poorer technique. 

The rule change the CFL should make is that if a player's helmet comes off during the course of legal contact (i.e. another player does not rip it off), that player is ejected from that game and immediately suspended from the next.

The biggest threat to football at all levels is CTE.

The best protection from concussions is the helmet - when it is worn correctly.  Most players are wearing helmets so they can take them off easily and you see helmets flying off players in every game.  The only way to fix it is to penalize the player and the team.

5 hours ago, MC said:

The rule change the CFL should make is that if a player's helmet comes off during the course of legal contact (i.e. another player does not rip it off), that player is ejected from that game and immediately suspended from the next.

The biggest threat to football at all levels is CTE.

The best protection from concussions is the helmet - when it is worn correctly.  Most players are wearing helmets so they can take them off easily and you see helmets flying off players in every game.  The only way to fix it is to penalize the player and the team.

At league meetings next week I expect the rules committee will focus on "challenges"  and salary cap violations

I wonder what Ambrosie has up his sleeve .... he seems very innovative and proactive ... I bet he has been sitting on several ideas for years

Edited February 24, 20187 yr by BigBlue

Pulled from the Official CFL website today:

The so-called “force out rule” is eliminated: a receiver catching a ball has to place at least one foot inbounds regardless of whether he was contacted in mid-air. 

This will change how D play the perimeter (a bit). Advantage D.

What do Offense fans think of eliminating this force out rule?

9 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

Pulled from the Official CFL website today:

The so-called “force out rule” is eliminated: a receiver catching a ball has to place at least one foot inbounds regardless of whether he was contacted in mid-air. 

This will change how D play the perimeter (a bit). Advantage D.

What do Offense fans think of eliminating this force out rule?

I think it discourages throws to the sidelines. If I'm a DB, I don't risk an interference call, I just come in late and push the receiver out before he lands. 

 

I don't care for this change. 

The NFL got rid of the forceout rule a decade ago and they're better off without it IMO.  I've never been a fan of the rule.  You either land in bounds or you don't.  Who's to say that someone would have landed in bounds if they weren't contacted?  It's a judgment call and the less of those the better.

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

The NFL got rid of the forceout rule a decade ago and they're better off without it IMO.  I've never been a fan of the rule.  You either land in bounds or you don't.  Who's to say that someone would have landed in bounds if they weren't contacted?  It's a judgment call and the less of those the better.

Agreed, take the subjective calls out as much as possible.

QUOTE:

Pulled from the Official CFL website today:

The so-called “force out rule” is eliminated: a receiver catching a ball has to place at least one foot inbounds regardless of whether he was contacted in mid-air. 

This will change how D play the perimeter (a bit). Advantage D.

What do Offense fans think of eliminating this force out rule?

I do not support this rule change at all. It seems to me they barely call the rule properly now. 

To me, if the QB and the receiver make the proper reads and if the receiver makes a play for the ball, and catches it inbounds, then he should not be subject to a hit that will make the call ‘no catch’. 

The judgment calls will always be in sports. It’s part of the game. Good or bad. That ruling definitely helps the D. And besides, who’s to say it will eliminate subjectivity at all, as in: Did the receiver even have a play for the ball before he was hit out of bounds? Was it an early hit? Or necessary? etc.

On the surface It seems like a poor change. (the reversion of the force out rule) If a wr is goes up, gets the ball, is going to come down in bounds and the db pushes him out that doesnt seem fair. But at the same time, the dbs can do soo little with out getting a flag. And the field is soo wide, the offense should be able to operate well with in that range. Now just let the wrs and dbs hand fight, but not push off and im happy. 

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

The NFL got rid of the forceout rule a decade ago and they're better off without it IMO.  I've never been a fan of the rule.  You either land in bounds or you don't.  Who's to say that someone would have landed in bounds if they weren't contacted?  It's a judgment call and the less of those the better.

if 65 yards isnt wide enough the offense is doing it wrong. Plus the throw to the side line is not exactly a lethal offensive weapon.