Does the New Convert Rule Improve the CFL?

[BigBlue]

After watching the Toronto - Regina double overtime game, how do you think the new convert rule is affecting the CFL from a fan enjoyment perspective.

 

If you were Toronto's head coach, would you have gone "all or nothing" just before the end of regulation time going for the two point convert rather than kick the single to go into overtime? Although the odds are perhaps anti-percentage, Toronto could have controlled their own destiny with one play.

 

When the convert rule change was first proposed a couple years back, many posters decried the proposal as gimmicky and potentially ruining the game. One even said it was too exhausting for the players after the big climax of scoring a TD. Has any body changed their mind from negative to positive on the new convert rules?

 

In pre-season, (although I don't think anyone actually tried it this year), the league tested the possibility of having a 3 point convert, scrimmaging from the 10 yard line (which might allow a team to come back and tie the game when 9 points down). Is that too crazy, would that ruin the game or is it a good thing to keep the comeback team's hopes alive?

[TBURGESS]

The only part of the new convert rules I like is having to go for 2 in overtime.

 

The 32 yard convert doesn't make sense.  Kick from the 32 after a TD = 1, without the TD =3.  FG inside the 32 = 3.  I doubt we ever see a convert missed and run back for 2 the other way.  By the end of the season I'll bet we see around a 90% 1 point convert rate, which means it isn't much different than the old convert.

 

The 3 yard 2 point convert was made to make coaches think twice about going for it. From the 5 it was a very low chance.  From the 3 it's closer to 50-50.  It still hasn't made many coaches go for 2 unless they absolutely have to.

 

A 3 point convert from the 10 wouldn't make me happy either.  I'm more interested in seeing the team that played the best win, rather than the team that's behind having a great chance of pulling out a victory.

 

As for going for 2 on the last play... Nope!  Tie the game up and play out the mini games.  Too much chance of going home with a loss if you go for 2.

[max power]

I said dislike, but I reserve the right to change that to hate.

 

It's really annoying to get excited about a TD, and then have it immediately dampened a bit by another lousy Hajrullahulahoop missed convert.

[Jacquie]

The only part of the new convert rules I like is having to go for 2 in overtime.

Having to go for 2 in OT isn't a new rule.

[TBURGESS]

 

The only part of the new convert rules I like is having to go for 2 in overtime.

Having to go for 2 in OT isn't a new rule.

 

In that case, I don't like any part of the new rules.  

[voodoochylde]

 

 

The only part of the new convert rules I like is having to go for 2 in overtime.

Having to go for 2 in OT isn't a new rule.

 

In that case, I don't like any part of the new rules.  

 

 

I'm with you on this.

[Mr Dee]

I'm being converted to the scrimmage at the 25 yard line for the extra point rule. It's innovative, and puts more emphasis on getting all parts to function, instead of being automatic.

[Starman115]

"Do you like this year's rule change on the convert (32 yard kick for 1 point, scrimmage from the 4 for 2 points)"

 

I believe the two point convert this year is scrimmaged from the 3 yard line.

[BigBlue]

"Do you like this year's rule change on the convert (32 yard kick for 1 point, scrimmage from the 4 for 2 points)"

 

I believe the two point convert this year is scrimmaged from the 3 yard line.

 

That was a typo that I think has been corrected

[Arnold_Palmer]

I actually like it. And as the weather gets worse you'll be seeing more teams go for two. It's different and unique but this is one rule I think I'm slowly beginning to like.

[Marshall]

I would like to see them do away with the single point altogether and must go for 2.

[Yourface]

Well, two-point converts are much more exciting than field goals as far as I'm concerned. There's also a little more strategy involved now which I don't mind.

[Atomic]

Love it. The convert actually means something now, and we are already seeing more two point attempts. Great addition to the game.

[Goalie]

Like it, too early to love it but it definitely makes the convert which was automatic interesting.. Nope to the 3 point one and occasionally go for 2 depending on the importance of the game. 

[JuranBoldenRules]

Thinking about the Toronto-Saskatchewan game, would you have liked to see it end, after Toronto drove the entire field to score a major, on a missed 1 point convert?

 

I wouldn't and that's why I really dislike the new convert.  Kicking is already a HUGE part of the Canadian game without adding to the difficulty of the convert.  I also think moving the 2 pt convert to the 3 just devalues points, and I'm not sure why teams aren't going for 2 more.  The Bombers are a good example.  That triple option with Marve, Cotton, Marshall that they run on short yardage would probably be about 80% on 2 pt converts over the long haul.

 

I'd rather they force teams to go for 2 from the 5 than any other change they've made, but personally I'd just leave it how it always was and let the players decide the games, not the kickers.

[Atomic]

If you are going to remove the kick for a convert then I would suggest removing it entirely and have the pass/run convert from the 5 be worth only a single point. No reason for it to be worth 2 if there is no single point option.

However I enjoy the strategic aspect of choosing to go for one or go for two. The problem is that it wasn't much of a decision anymore so we rarely saw teams go for 2. Now the decision is tougher, generating more discussion and ultimately becoming a far more meaningful part of the game than it ever was before.

[Guest]

I'd like to see the one point convert moved to the 20 yard line (27 yard field goal) and the 2 point convert moved back to the 5 instead of the current 3 yard line. While I loved the idea of moving the 1 point attempt back, I feel that the league went too far with it, heck even going to the 15 yard line (22 yarder) I'd be okay with. IMO the league had a massive overreaction to last season and putting the 2 point convert at the 3 clearly is the league trying to "force" teams to go for it., which IMO isn't a good thing as over time the 2 pointer will become less exciting.

[BigBlue]

I'd like to see the one point convert moved to the 20 yard line (27 yard field goal) and the 2 point convert moved back to the 5 instead of the current 3 yard line. While I loved the idea of moving the 1 point attempt back, I feel that the league went too far with it, heck even going to the 15 yard line (22 yarder) I'd be okay with. IMO the league had a massive overreaction to last season and putting the 2 point convert at the 3 clearly is the league trying to "force" teams to go for it., which IMO isn't a good thing as over time the 2 pointer will become less exciting.

a two point convert will NEVER become less exciting

[TrueBlue]

However I enjoy the strategic aspect of choosing to go for one or go for two. The problem is that it wasn't much of a decision anymore so we rarely saw teams go for 2. Now the decision is tougher, generating more discussion and ultimately becoming a far more meaningful part of the game than it ever was before.

Agree 100%.

[BigBlue]

Thinking about the Toronto-Saskatchewan game, would you have liked to see it end, after Toronto drove the entire field to score a major, on a missed 1 point convert?

 

I wouldn't and that's why I really dislike the new convert.  Kicking is already a HUGE part of the Canadian game without adding to the difficulty of the convert.  I also think moving the 2 pt convert to the 3 just devalues points, and I'm not sure why teams aren't going for 2 more.  The Bombers are a good example.  That triple option with Marve, Cotton, Marshall that they run on short yardage would probably be about 80% on 2 pt converts over the long haul.

 

I'd rather they force teams to go for 2 from the 5 than any other change they've made, but personally I'd just leave it how it always was and let the players decide the games, not the kickers.

"I'd rather they force teams to go for 2 from the 5 than any other change they've made, but personally I'd just leave it how it always was and let the players decide the games, not the kickers." This whole chain of reasoning sounds frustrated and self contradictoryy

[Mike]

Don't know why more teams aren't going for the 2 - all you have to do is operate at a 51% clip for it to be more beneficial than going for 1 (assuming those are automatic, which they aren't)

 

As said earlier in this thread, Marve/Cotton/Marshall could operate at a much higher clip than that. If O'Shea suddenly woke up tomorrow and decided he was ALWAYS going to go for 2, I would not be upset.

[JuranBoldenRules]

 

Thinking about the Toronto-Saskatchewan game, would you have liked to see it end, after Toronto drove the entire field to score a major, on a missed 1 point convert?

 

I wouldn't and that's why I really dislike the new convert.  Kicking is already a HUGE part of the Canadian game without adding to the difficulty of the convert.  I also think moving the 2 pt convert to the 3 just devalues points, and I'm not sure why teams aren't going for 2 more.  The Bombers are a good example.  That triple option with Marve, Cotton, Marshall that they run on short yardage would probably be about 80% on 2 pt converts over the long haul.

 

I'd rather they force teams to go for 2 from the 5 than any other change they've made, but personally I'd just leave it how it always was and let the players decide the games, not the kickers.

"I'd rather they force teams to go for 2 from the 5 than any other change they've made, but personally I'd just leave it how it always was and let the players decide the games, not the kickers." This whole chain of reasoning sounds frustrated and self contradictoryy

 

 

Let me simplify:  Creating more opportunities for kicking to influence the outcome of a game which is already heavily influenced by the kicking game is the opposite of exciting for me.

[BigBlue]

I am not sure what I am happier about .... the more potent offences or an exciting convert ... but I love both a lot

[mbrg]

No, it is stupid.

 

And the idea that the CFL has to come up with a half dozen or more rule changes every year just because they can is incredibly stupid.  Rule changes should happen because you have a problem with the existing ones, a problem that is glaringly obvious and needs to be fixed.  Not because Tim from Flin Flon is allowed to send in the suggestions that wandered thru his ether addled head.

[Mr Dee]

Let's face it..kicking is a part of the game. A big part. You can look at the new convert rule as having too much influence on the outcome of the game or, you can realize that out league is a leader in amending one part of the game - the convert, that was boring in its automaticacy ( new word, not as boring) and challenging the Coaches to think again about the 2 point convert.

Maybe by missing a convert, you'll have to try the 2 point version.

And besides, now I actually watch the converts.