Rule Changes for 2015

[TheLionKing]

http://cfl.ca/article/shell-offensive-p ... reviewable

[B.C.FAN]

LU has listed the proposed changes in point form here, so I'll comment on them individually.

— A one-point convert will now be kicked from the 32-yard-line and would be a live ball subject to a two-point runback if missed.

This strikes me as nothing but a cheap gimmick. It would be a major change to the game. I don't like the idea of scrimmaging from the 25 for a one-point attempt and from the 3 yard line for a 2-point attempt. What happens if there's a bad snap and a team tries to pass or run for 2 points? What if they want to line up for a kick and then run a fake? Move all convert attempts to the 3-yard line and make it more tempting for teams to go for 2 points, or to keep the defence guessing as to whether they'll kick, run or pass.

— If a two-point convert is attempted, the line of scrimmage will be moved up two yards to the three-yard line. According to a league news release, a three-point convert will be the subject of a pre-season experiment if a team elects to snap the attempt from the 10-yard line.

For reasons expressed above, I don't agree with spotting the ball differently for 1- or 2-point attempts. Spot it at the 3 yard line for every attempt and you'll open a lot more possibilities.

— On punts, the league indeed will add an automatic five yards to a no-yards play where the ball bounces, rather than giving the return team the option whether to accept the penalty. Wally Buono of the Lions submitted the original proposal.

This will help return teams. Cover teams are now coached to take the 5-yard penalty to prevent a big return. This still allows for big returns, and gives the return team an extra 5 yards at the end of the return, even if the return is greater than 5 yards.

— The league will also borrow from the NFL and restrict interior players in formation from crossing the line of scrimmage until the ball is punted, with the hope it will open up some space for bigger returns. The Lions can only benefit from that change.

This is a great way to open up the return game. As stated, this is similar to the NFL rule, wich allows only 2 players downfield before the kick.

— Another rule brought from the NFL will ban illegal contact on an offensive player further than five yards downfield from the line of scrimmage. Receivers and defenders engage in trench warfare currently, which could result in a penalty on every play if past practice continues.

This can really open up the passing game. CFL receivers and DBs have been getting away with all kinds of downfield contact. If it's mutual handfighting and no one gains an advantage, the practice has been to allow it but having officials call it consistently is a problem, especially with the introduction of replay. This should minimize downfield contact and make pass interference penalties more obvious.

— With time being of the essence, offences will now have the option to put the ball into play immediately if the rules committee recommendation is accepted. No-huddle offence has already been top of mind with new coach Jeff Tedford.

This can help speed up the game. Let the offence dictate the tempo.

— And if defensive pass interference can be challenged, so now can offensive interference, though officials have been quick to point out that no additional challenges will be given to coaches, throwing cold water on the notion that games will get even longer.

I didn't like pass interference when it was introduced. I don't like it being expanded in any way. The officials generally do a good job, and their calls aren't often overturned. Allowing PI challenges just shifts the focus of fans from the players to the officials. Don't give fans an extra opportunity to blame officials for a loss by their team. We have yet to see a pass-interference challenge change the outcome of a game but it will happen and it will be ugly.

[Big Time]

— A one-point convert will now be kicked from the 32-yard-line and would be a live ball subject to a two-point runback if missed.

This strikes me as nothing but a cheap gimmick. It would be a major change to the game. I don't like the idea of scrimmaging from the 25 for a one-point attempt and from the 3 yard line for a 2-point attempt. What happens if there's a bad snap and a team tries to pass or run for 2 points? What if they want to line up for a kick and then run a fake? Move all convert attempts to the 3-yard line and make it more tempting for teams to go for 2 points, or to keep the defence guessing as to whether they'll kick, run or pass.

How in the world did they come up with the 32 yard line? I know the NFL is talking changes to converts but I don't really think this is a problem that is in need of a solution. Like you said, this seems like a gimmick. And only 2 points for a run back? Any time a team runs a ball back should be a touch down. Don't like this change.

— If a two-point convert is attempted, the line of scrimmage will be moved up two yards to the three-yard line. According to a league news release, a three-point convert will be the subject of a pre-season experiment if a team elects to snap the attempt from the 10-yard line.

Don't like this either. This is another example where the current rules for two point converts were just fine. I actually think the NFL should move back their 2 point convert to the five yard line. Considering how much space there is in the CFL endzone, this makes a two point convert virtually automatic. Hell, if I were a CFL coach and considering I have a chance to go for a 1 pointer from the 32 yard line, or a two pointer from the three yard line, I'm probably going to by default go for two every time. Was this the intent behind the rule?

— On punts, the league indeed will add an automatic five yards to a no-yards play where the ball bounces, rather than giving the return team the option whether to accept the penalty. Wally Buono of the Lions submitted the original proposal.

This is a good change. There was virtually no consequence to the 5 yard no yard penalty and it often made more sense for the kicking team to just to take the penalty than allow for a run back.

— The league will also borrow from the NFL and restrict interior players in formation from crossing the line of scrimmage until the ball is punted, with the hope it will open up some space for bigger returns. The Lions can only benefit from that change.

Don't really understand this change.

— Another rule brought from the NFL will ban illegal contact on an offensive player further than five yards downfield from the line of scrimmage. Receivers and defenders engage in trench warfare currently, which could result in a penalty on every play if past practice continues.

This can really open up the passing game. CFL receivers and DBs have been getting away with all kinds of downfield contact. If it's mutual handfighting and no one gains an advantage, the practice has been to allow it but having officials call it consistently is a problem, especially with the introduction of replay. This should minimize downfield contact and make pass interference penalties more obvious.

Oh boy. HATE HATE HATE this change. Any change that allows the CFL officials to make more bad calls is going to vastly hurt the game. The CFL officials are by and large horrible and their calls on pass interference are probably the worst of any area of the game. Making it easier to call PI by removing some of the subjectivity is only going to make it worse. Watch for PI calls to increase x100 next year. I have a feeling this rule change is going to be one of the most talked about rule change since they allowed PI to be challenged. This is not a good thing.

— With time being of the essence, offences will now have the option to put the ball into play immediately if the rules committee recommendation is accepted. No-huddle offence has already been top of mind with new coach Jeff Tedford.

Like this.

— And if defensive pass interference can be challenged, so now can offensive interference, though officials have been quick to point out that no additional challenges will be given to coaches, throwing cold water on the notion that games will get even longer.

I didn't like pass interference when it was introduced. I don't like it being expanded in any way. The officials generally do a good job, and their calls aren't often overturned. Allowing PI challenges just shifts the focus of fans from the players to the officials. Don't give fans an extra opportunity to blame officials for a loss by their team. We have yet to see a pass-interference challenge change the outcome of a game but it will happen and it will be ugly.

Agreed. I believe one of the worst, most unnecessary rule changes the CFL ever made, was allowing defensive PI to be challenged. It led to all sorts of delays in the game, as coaches would routinely throw a "what the hell" challenge for PI with the hopes of getting calls. Seriously, if a coach has a challenge, there will never be another hail mary that goes unchallenged. The league made this even worse by allowing officials to not only review PI, but look for any other penalties they may have missed during the play in question. The enforcement of PI upon review was so inconsistent I had no clue what was a penalty by the end of the year. Neither did the players. I can honestly say that this change more than any other detracted from my love of the CFL to the point that I nearly walked away last year.

And now they want to EXPAND replay to offensive pass interference? Oh god. The CFL has already shown that they have close to zero competence under the current review system. This has potential to be another gong show.

[Big Time]

One other rule that I wish the league would consider: Coaches should have not be able to throw a challenge flag after the next play clock has started. Far too many times a coach will wait until the very last second to call a challenge. This adds unnecessary delays. Back when Danny Machioccia was the coach of the Esks, he was notorious for doing this kind of nonsense. If you're going to challenge, you can throw the flag within 15 seconds of the last play ending, Otherwise, keep it in your pocket and swallow your medicine.

[Coast Mountain Lion]

— A one-point convert will now be kicked from the 32-yard-line and would be a live ball subject to a two-point runback if missed.

How in the world did they come up with the 32 yard line?

Spot the ball at the 25. The holder (and hence the kick) is generally seven yards back.

[WestCoastJoe]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/co ... e-changes/

Converts pushed back under new CFL rule changes

Extra points will now be kicked from the 32-yard line instead of the 12-yard line. (Darryl Dyck/CP)

Canadian Press

April 8, 2015, 5:15 PM

TORONTO — Kicking the extra point is about to become a little more challenging in the CFL.

Converts will be pushed back 20 yards after the league approved a series of significant rule changes Wednesday.

Extra points will now be kicked from the 32-yard line instead of the 12-yard line.

The change is expected to make the extra point less of a foregone conclusion. Last year, 99.4 per cent of kicks for a single point following a touchdown were successful.

If a team is trying for a two-point convert, the ball will be scrimmaged from the three-yard line instead of the five-yard line under the new rules.

But league’s board of governors rejected the idea of testing a three-point convert during the exhibition season if a team successfully ran or passed the football over the goal-line from the 10-yard line.

The changes were initially proposed last month by the league’s rules committee.

Other approved modifications include:

— A defensive back will be able to contact a receiver in front of him within five yards of the line of scrimmage but neither player will be allowed to initiate contact beyond five yards.

— When a punted ball hits the ground and a five-yard no-yards call is made, the penalty will automatically be added to the end of the return or the point where the ball was first touched by the return team, whichever results in better field position.

— Offences will now be allowed to signal to the referee they don’t want to substitute and rather use a tempo offence, resulting in the officials blowing the play in immediately once the ball and yardsticks are set.

— A coach’s ability to request a measurement has been removed, leaving it to the referee to measure when he is unsure if a first down has been made.

— On punts, the five interior linemen on the kicking team won’t be able to leave the line of scrimmage until the ball is kicked. A 10-yard penalty will result for violating this rule.

Coaches will continue to be allowed to challenge defensive pass interference but the board turned down a proposal that offensive pass interference also be subject to video review.

[TheLionKing]

TORONTO via CFL Communications- Significant changes to the convert, passing rules and the pace of the game will be in place when the new Canadian Football League season kicks off this June.
The league's Board of Governors approved today most of the changes proposed earlier this Spring by the CFL's Rules Committee.
"The Board endorsed the view that this is a great time for our league to innovate," said Michael Copeland, the CFL's President and Chief Operating Officer.
"We're looking forward to putting in place changes that have the potential to improve an already great game."
The CFL is modifying the convert that follows a touchdown to make it less predictable.
A kick for a single point, which took place from the 12-yard line in past seasons, will now be kicked from the 32-yard line.
Last year, 99.4 per cent of kicks for a single point following a touchdown were successful. For field goal attempts from between 31 and 33 yards, 81 per cent were successful.
If a team opts to run or pass the ball into the end zone for a two point convert following a touchdown, the ball will be scrimmaged from the three-yard line, instead of the five-yard line, which may entice more coaches to "go for two".
Last year, there were only 23 two-point convert attempts, and seven, or 30 per cent, were successful.
But the Governors rejected the Committee's suggestion that the league test a more radical approach during pre-season games: a convert worth three points if a team chose to run or pass the ball over the goal line from the ten-yard-line.
To open up the passing game, the Governors approved a change designed to create more room for a passing offence.
It will allow a defensive player to contact a receiver that is in front of him within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but it will not allow either player to create or initiate contact that impedes or redirects an opponent beyond five yards.

The Board agreed that on a punt play, when the ball bounces on the ground and a five yard no yards penalty is called, the penalty will automatically be added to the end of the return, or from the point the ball was first touched by the return team, whichever is better.
In the past, the receiving team had to choose between the five-yard penalty or the yards gained on the return.
It is believed that making the penalty more punitive could reduce the number of no yards penalties.
To increase the tempo of the game, at any time in the game the offence will now be allowed to signal to the Referee that it doesn't want to substitute and it wants to use a tempo offence.
The officials will then blow the play in immediately upon the ball and yardsticks being set for play.
This new protocol will be combined with a rule change made last year - which meant the offence no longer had to wait for the defense to substitute before initiating a play if the offence had not substituted.
Together, the changes create an opportunity for the offence to dictate the pace of the game.
Also to improve game flow, the CFL is removing the ability of a coach to request a measurement, leaving it to the Referee to measure when he is unsure if a first down has been made or not.
On punts, a rule change will prohibit the five interior linemen on the kicking team from leaving the line of scrimmage until the ball is kicked.
This should reduce the number of illegal blocking and no yards penalties, while increasing the amount of room the receiving team has to set up a return.
There would be a ten-yard penalty for violating this new rule.
The CFL is maintaining the ability for a coach to challenge Defensive Pass Interference, an innovation introduced last year. But the Board of Governors rejected a proposal that Offensive Pass Interference also be made subject to video review.
It approved no longer giving the receiving team the option of demanding that a team kick again after one of its kick offs goes out of bounds. The receiving team will now either take the ball where it went out of bounds, or at a point 30 yards in advance of where the ball was kicked off, whichever is better.

The Rules Committee includes several CFL coaches and general managers as well as representatives of the CFL, CFL Players' Association and CFL Officials.
The CFL Board of Governors includes owners of privately held teams, chairmen of community owned teams, and several team presidents.
Thank you for attention and for your support as a BC Lions season ticket holder - we look forward to speaking to you soon!
Serving you with PRIDE,
Your BC Lions Fan Customer Services Team

[sj-roc]

With pre-season wrapped, Wpg Sun's Kirk Penton has assessed the impact of this year's rule changes through the nine games played thus far.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/06/20/cf ... pre-season

CFL’s new rules didn’t have intended effect in pre-season
By Kirk Penton, Winnipeg Sun
First posted: Saturday, June 20, 2015 05:54 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, June 20, 2015 06:02 PM EDT

CFL vice-president of officiating Glen Johnson called the league’s rule changes “pretty significant” when the rules committee passed them on March 26.

It looks like the new rules, just like the players, needed the pre-season to get into shape, because they didn’t exactly have a massive effect during exhibition play.

The league wanted more scoring and a faster tempo after a lacklustre 2014. It looks like the games are actually moving faster than they used to, which is a good thing, but the number of points scored per match in the pre-season was actually fewer than last season.

Of course it’s only the pre-season and teams fielded many players who won’t be around when the regular season begins this week, but the biggest rule change didn’t have receivers wide open, running free in the secondary, and scoring touchdown after touchdown.

Eligible offensive players and defenders are no longer allowed to make contact with one another more than five yards past the line of scrimmage. That, combined with new punt return rules, led Winnipeg Blue Bombers head coach Mike O’Shea to say in April he expected some games this season to hit a combined 100 points.

It doesn’t look like that is going to be the case.

Here’s a closer look at the rule changes, how they’re expected to change the game in 2015 and what we saw during the exhibition slate that might indicate how they’ll impact the season:

ILLEGAL CONTACT

This is the rule most observers feel will change the three-down game.

Defenders aren’t allowed to jam or disrupt the route of receivers more than five yards past the line of scrimmage, and the fear was there would be flag after flag after flag as defensive backs adjusted to the newly printed pages in the rule book.

The pre-season indicates those defensive players got the message loud and clear, which isn’t surprising when you consider it was the first thing many defensive co-ordinators across the league were coaching at mini-camps in April.

Over the course of nine pre-season games, there were only 26 illegal contact on a receiver infractions. That’s fewer than three per game. There were a boatload of penalties overall in the pre-season, but it wasn’t because of this new rule.

As for an increase in scoring, it wasn’t seen in the pre-season. There was an average of 40.1 points scored per game. Last season, which led the CFL to make these rule changes, there was an average of 45.5 points scored per game.

There’s no way we’re going to see 100 point games regularly this season.

PUNTING

The new rule prohibits the five down linemen on the punt team from advancing past the line of scrimmage until the ball is kicked.

Special teams co-ordinators were up in arms when the rule was changed in late March, saying they would have to get bigger players to line up on special teams, but there wasn’t much of an impact during the pre-season. In fact, not every team made systematic changes to their punt team structure.

We’ll let O’Shea explain why the Bombers didn’t alter their look too much.

“The initial thought processes are we can put bigger guys on our five-man unit on the punt team,” he said. “So you can keep those guys a larger size because they’re not going to be able to cover right away anyway, so they should be able to absorb a bit more of the load. Whereas last year the zone punt teams kept a wall of guys in the back end and your speedy guys just left and covered. Then you left the rush to just hit this wall that protected the punter.

“So you think: Oh well, we’ll just flip that. We’ll put our wall of humanity as our first five guys and put our cover guys in the back end more and they can leave and get going down field quickly. Then you start to think: Well, why? You don’t have to. As long as the guys in the first five can block you still want proficient tacklers and speed guys that can get down there. As long as they show they can block, that’s what our thought process is moving to.”

NO YARDS

The reasons for the punt team changes were twofold: spice up the return game a bit and cut down on the number of no yards penalties.

They were successful with one in the pre-season but not the other.

The average punt return in the pre-season was 10.2 yards, which is better than the 9.3 yards from last year and the paltry eight yard mark in 2013. There were a few long returns, including a 93-yarder for a touchdown, during this year’s pre-season schedule, but the bad ones are still bad, boring and plentiful.

No yards penalties actually increased in the pre-season, but let’s hope that was the result of a bunch of Americans playing the three down game for the first time and not knowing any better. There were 17 no yards infractions in nine exhibition contests, which works out to 1.9 per game. Last year there were 1.6 no yards calls per match.

After watching pre-season games, there doesn’t seem to be that much more room for returners. The five down linemen on the punt team might have to wait one second more before moving down field under the new rules, but that doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.

CONVERTS

One point convert kicks have moved from the 12 to the 32 yard line this season, which means it’s no longer automatic.

Teams attempted 33 convert kicks during the pre-season, and the placekickers made good on 30 of them, which works out to a 91% success rate. Last year the success rate on field goals between 31 and 33 yards was only 81%.

Two point converts have been moved up to the three yard line from the five in an attempt to lure teams to try more of them, and CFL squads were 4-for-8 in the pre-season.

The thinking was the one and two point converts would be similar in their odds of success, but it looks like the convert will continue to win.

So it’s simple: Move the convert back to the 50! (Kidding).

HEAD SETS WILL HELP

In pre-season games viewed in person and on television, the officials seemed to speed up the pace at which they announced penalties.

Now, there were a ton of flags during the nine games (a whopping average of 33 per contest), which would slow any game down, but the Winnipeg-Hamilton game on Friday night flowed well and got done in two hours and 50 minutes. That’s pretty good for a game that featured 26 penalties.

The officials are wearing head sets this year so they don’t have to congregate after each flag. They will only get faster as the season progresses, and the number of penalties should decrease as well.

Another initiative to limit the length and number of play stoppages is the referee will be in direct contact with the review centre in Toronto over his head set.

Kudos to these moves, because it looks like it has the potential to work.

[Toppy Vann]

OMG OFFICIALS WEARING HEADSETS!!! That slows this down according to Wally when he was so defensive of JC hand jobbing his play calls to the benefit of Defensive coaches/players/spotters who got pretty good at picking off the signals.

The new rule changes might affect scores but more likely will have the affect of changing a big play by the DEF if they INT.

[sj-roc]

http://cfl.ca/article/statsgeek-changing-the-rules

In-depth article from cfl.ca about the rule changes. It's too long to quote in its entirety and also contains graphics and a video so it's worth checking the link.

Excerpt:

StatsGeek: A deeper look at CFL rule changes

Posted: June 24, 2015 06:00 PM
Updated: June 25, 2015 03:32 PM

CFL.ca Staff
#CFLKickoff

StatsGeek is a new weekly segment on CFL.ca featuring the work of league chief statistician Steve Daniel. It highlights growing trends around the league and much of the same data powering all nine CFL coaching staffs and head offices. Coaches and General Managers use Steve’s analysis on a daily basis to guide important front office and on-field decisions – analysis that frames trends and changes in the game in a purely factual and meaningful way.

The inaugural edition of StatsGeek considers the role statistics and analysis played in the CFL off-season rule changes, from the placing of the extra point attempt to modifying blocking rules on punt returns.

[sj-roc]

The OT in today's Tor@Ssk tilt got me to thinking about one rule that might have become redundant with this year's rule changes.

A few years after the OT went to a shootout format in 2000, they further modified the shootout format to make 2PCs compulsory, because the 1PC from the 5 was such a gimme that it offered little chance to break the tie if teams kept exchanging TDs. The lower conversion rate on 2PCs, the argument went, would increase the chances of resolving a tie with (up to) two possessions each.

But with the 1PC now scrimmaged from the 25, I'm wondering if compulsory 2PC in OT is necessary or even desirable.

Right now, you must go for 2 — there's no thinking involved. But if the option of 1 or 2 were reinstated, this introduces a coaching decision to be made. Neither play is really a gimme so it could make things more interesting. If you're up first and get the major, do you go for 2 to force the other team to score 8 to stay alive should you succeed? Or do you go for the more likely (but not automatic) one point, knowing that if you miss it, the other team can go for that same one point (and the win, more easily than if they need to go for two as is now the case) if they get a major?

And if you're down 7 after the other team has had their series, do you go for 1 to tie or 2 to win? Does the choice depend on whether it's your first or second series? Perhaps the impact on the standings might come into play, particularly if it's a late season game and/or to settle a tiebreaker.

It seems to me the new convert rules have at least somewhat if not largely obviated the rationale for a compulsory 2PC in OT.

Repealing it could add intrigue with the necessity of an extra coaching decision to be made.

At the very least, it would give the media and fans something to talk about afterward as to whether the correct decision was made. Who doesn't love second-guessing (with hindsight) the coaches and their decisions?

Thoughts?

[B.C.FAN]

I too would like to see coaches have the option of going for one or two points. Those 32-yard kicks will become even more difficult later in the season when wind and weather become more of a factor. We may even see one returned the other way for two points. That adds another dimension to the decision-making. The rule-makers have made it too easy for coaches by forcing teams to go for two points.

[sj-roc]

I too would like to see coaches have the option of going for one or two points. Those 32-yard kicks will become even more difficult later in the season when wind and weather become more of a factor. We may even see one returned the other way for two points. That adds another dimension to the decision-making. The rule-makers have made it too easy for coaches by forcing teams to go for two points.

Forcing the 2PC attempt made sense under the old convert rules but I think the new ones would add an interesting wrinkle if the force were repealed. I'm not sure whether the rules committee considered the implications on the OT convert; perhaps they did and felt it would create too much change all at once to have to decide in OT, on top of how it would change play in regulation. Def worth considering for next season though.

I have to admit that like others I was very skeptical of the convert rule change when I first heard about it but already I think the extra dimension it adds to the decision-making process more than makes up for any gimmicky aura it might have. Apparently scrimmaging at the 25YL was based on a league-targeted success rate of 80-85%, which is the distance for that accuracy last year (possibly plus recent others). Steve Daniel expects kickers will beat this % this year on the converts as they practice more from this distance, so the implication is this 25yd scrimmage distance could increase again.