https://www.cfl.ca/schedule/

 

Put all your Non-Back-to-Back Champion discussion in here. 

Shortening the field doesn't make more offence, neither does 15 yard halo rules. It means more points because offences don't have to go as far. That's less offence needed to score the same or more points.

The 15 yards on punts will increase the chances of big returns. Exciting times!

Hash mark rule should increase scoring by making it easier for the kickers, but I doubt that it creates more offence.

For me, it's like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It won't make any difference to the real problem.

5 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

There was bad blood going back a number of years between Edwards & Nenshi regarding the arena.

The bad blood was the Flames trying to bend the city over a barrel and show them the 50 states. Flames ownership wanted the same kind of sweetheart deal Edmonton gave the Oilers, Calgary council is unwilling to capitulate totally. Which is the right call. Flames basically want to subsidize the risk and privatize the profit.

These are good changes.

two qb? 
 

that alone is great.  
 

Dinwiddie, khari , buck, will use that. 
 

LaPo?

 

two roughing calls means ejection is a very good rule.

Edited April 28, 20223 yr by Mark F

53 minutes ago, Mark F said:

LaPo?

He loves a good gimmick so most likely yes.

20 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

This is a return to old rules on a No Yards penalty. It used to be 15 yards no matter what back in th day & fans howled & screamed for years how unfair it was. Especially in windy conditions, Now they go back to the way it was?? Cue the yelling, screaming & gnashing of teeth from a generation ago. Messing with No Yards is just ridiculous as it becomes blantly unfair to the kick cover team. This one rule alone will **** teams over like it did back then.  

This won't effect the Bombers because all their drives will end with TD's or FG's.

Book it!

The hash marks will have the unintended consequence of killing the vertical passing game.  Play callers will always opt for the path of least resistance and now you'll be watching a lot of 20-30 yard horizontal passes out into space.  Guess exciting for the YAC?

On 2022-04-27 at 1:36 PM, SpeedFlex27 said:

It's the wind that'll play a factor. Not motivation. No matter how hard the cover team may try they'll get caught at some point & if we're the kick over team it will suck. Especially if it costs us a game. This will be the equivalent of how the PI  & Incidental Contact rules were changed a few years ago & almoist every long ball was flagged. It affected the outcome of games. The rule changes were stupid & had to be tightened up.  Now this. Ugh. 

It's an alright rule in amateur football where most of the kickers only have range to 35ish yards.  In pro football with the kicking game it will make the coin toss the most important aspect of many games in the fall, even more than it has been of late.

The all 15 yard No Yards also gives no incentive to the return team to catch the ball which won't help the return game as hoped.  Hopefully more cover teams leave guys onside.

36 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The hash marks will have the unintended consequence of killing the vertical passing game.  Play callers will always opt for the path of least resistance and now you'll be watching a lot of 20-30 yard horizontal passes out into space.  Guess exciting for the YAC?

It's an alright rule in amateur football where most of the kickers only have range to 35ish yards.  In pro football with the kicking game it will make the coin toss the most important aspect of many games in the fall, even more than it has been of late.

The all 15 yard No Yards also gives no incentive to the return team to catch the ball which won't help the return game as hoped.  Hopefully more cover teams leave guys onside.

There will be more horizontal passes, but it will also open up the centre of the field.

I completely disagree on the no incentive to catch the ball in the air. For one thing, catching in the air gives you possession faster. And in a league where the punter or anyone behind the punter can recover the kick that's very important. And catching in the air usually gives the returner more momentum than picking it up off the ground.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

There will be more horizontal passes, but it will also open up the centre of the field.

I completely disagree on the no incentive to catch the ball in the air. For one thing, catching in the air gives you possession faster. And in a league where the punter or anyone behind the punter can recover the kick that's very important. And catching in the air usually gives the returner more momentum than picking it up off the ground.

Not to mention how unpredictably a football can bounce.

1 hour ago, Bigblue204 said:

There will be more horizontal passes, but it will also open up the centre of the field.

I completely disagree on the no incentive to catch the ball in the air. For one thing, catching in the air gives you possession faster. And in a league where the punter or anyone behind the punter can recover the kick that's very important. And catching in the air usually gives the returner more momentum than picking it up off the ground.

If it's a 45 yard punt in the air, sure.  If it's a 35 yard punt in the air there's no reason to risk catching it in the air now.  See it all the time in amateur football.  Most punts aren't returnable for starters unless the punter screws up.

9 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

If it's a 45 yard punt in the air, sure.  If it's a 35 yard punt in the air there's no reason to risk catching it in the air now.  See it all the time in amateur football.  Most punts aren't returnable for starters unless the punter screws up.

 If it's a 35 yrd punt. Grant would be moving to get under it, possibly catching it on the run. Momentum is huge in returns. And again a 35 yrd punt bouncing backwards is easily recovered by the kicking team.

 

5 hours ago, Noeller said:

 

Man alive what a pathetic attempt at saving face... how is it misconstrued? By your own admission jackals, you want more discussion on it because you think it makes offense easier. 

Go **** yourself. You voted yes on the "do I want to kill the cfl" question you can't walk that back.

There's a big difference between:

1. Do you vote for 4 downs &
2. Do you vote to explore 4 downs

My guess is that it was Question #2.

Here’s a rule change that would actually create “offense” (I think they need a clear idea of what they are after, just making it easier to score points by field position isn’t all that exciting).

 

Anyway, the rule change: lower the number of offensive players who have to be on the LOS to 5.  Essentially all eligible receivers then have forward motion, increase downfield passing, and you remove a bunch of boring penalties for illegal formations.

11 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

 If it's a 35 yrd punt. Grant would be moving to get under it, possibly catching it on the run. Momentum is huge in returns. And again a 35 yrd punt bouncing backwards is easily recovered by the kicking team.

What have you seen more…a punt recovered by an onside player or a punt muffed by a returner and then recovered by the kicking team?  There’s way less incentive to take the risk on catching those punts particularly in the wind.  
 

Now we’ll see if teams adjust to leave a couple onside guys with the punter to create a bit of a different risk for the return team.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

There's a big difference between:

1. Do you vote for 4 downs &
2. Do you vote to explore 4 downs

My guess is that it was Question #2.

It's the same thing. You don't explore something you aren't interested in.

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

What have you seen more…a punt recovered by an onside player or a punt muffed by a returner and then recovered by the kicking team?  There’s way less incentive to take the risk on catching those punts particularly in the wind.  
 

Now we’ll see if teams adjust to leave a couple onside guys with the punter to create a bit of a different risk for the return team.

You're second sentence is basically my point. If teams start letting the ball bounce, kicking teams will adjust to take advantage. 

43 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

It's the same thing. You don't explore something you aren't interested in.

Not quite. Exploring something doesn't mean you want. It basically saying you don't understand it and want to know more. Voting for something, means you understand it and want it.

If you're in that position of voting and you don't wipe your ass with the paperwork and hand it back to whoever is in charge, then you're as bad as all the assholes who want NFL Canada.... 

4 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

 

Not quite. Exploring something doesn't mean you want. It basically saying you don't understand it and want to know more. Voting for something, means you understand it and want it.

Yeah cause hufnagel doesn't know about 4 downs....

9 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Yeah cause hufnagel doesn't know about 4 downs....

? How would anyone know how 4 downs would work in the CFL? 

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

? How would anyone know how 4 downs would work in the CFL? 

Well there this league down south, see.... 

15 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Well there this league down south, see.... 

Of course....the only difference is 4downs vs 3downs. Otherwise the 2 leagues are identical 

Why are people bending over backwards to give hufnagel the benefit of the doubt here? His team's were the worst offender of having a designated receiver to run into a db so they could automatically challenge for PI. Guy has a history of only caring about keeping his offense on the field. 

He is clearly trying to backtrack after getting criticism for his voting choices but he doesn't get off the hook that easily.

5 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Why are people bending over backwards to give hufnagel the benefit of the doubt here? His team's were the worst offender of having a designated receiver to run into a db so they could automatically challenge for PI. Guy has a history of only caring about keeping his offense on the field. 

He is clearly trying to backtrack after getting criticism for his voting choices but he doesn't get off the hook that easily.

Not defending Huf, but the league itself.

Media was bending over backwards trying to convince everyone the league voted on switching to 4 downs.

Huf admitted here that it was an informal vote on whether to hold discussions or not - which is very different from deciding to make the switch.

Huf may well want to switch to 4 downs - the league as a whole does not.