New Rule Change on Coaches Challenge

The Place for BC Lion Discussion. A forum for Lions fans to talk and chat about our team.
Discussion, News, Information and Speculation regarding the BC Lions and the CFL.
Prowl, Growl and Roar!

Moderator: Team Captains

Post Reply
Blitz
Team Captain
Posts: 9094
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:44 am

From now on, a coach will lose a timeout on his first challenge if he is unsuccessful. Previously it was a free one. The second challenge, if unsuccessful, will also cost a time out.

I like the change.
"When I went to Catholic high school in Philadelphia, we just had one coach for football and basketball. He took all of us who turned out and had us run through a forest. The ones who ran into the trees were on the football team". (George Raveling)
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

User avatar
almo89
Legend
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 2:51 am
Location: Coquitlam

Interesting that it's effective immediately instead of after the season is over.
User avatar
Coast Mountain Lion
Legend
Posts: 1374
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:52 pm
Location: Champlain Heights

almo89 wrote:Interesting that it's effective immediately instead of after the season is over.
Not only that, but after one of this week's games has already been played. It's a good move, but handling it this way doesn't exactly help the league's image.
Bobbyp
Champion
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Under priced Kelowna

Awesome ...they should really think about the ramifications when thy *frig* with stuff. Watching is getting to be hard when they have some BS play that had no bearing on the play and the coaches pick the play apart and throw the challenge flag.
Some mispelling may or may not occur as well as using a word incorrectly in my posts
READER CAUTION IS STRICTLY ADVISED
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

Well, I think there was a message in there for the Head Coaches. I don't think the league envisioned the kinds of chicken poop challenges that looked better suited to a fishing derby than a CFL game. As per the norm, there are always a few who have to challenge the boundaries of good sense causing a reaction the other way. I am surprised they made the change in the midst of week 10 with the game on Thursday being governed by different rules than the game on Friday? You would have though that they would have let this weekends slate of game go through and then make the change.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8175
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

Sir Purrcival wrote:Well, I think there was a message in there for the Head Coaches. I don't think the league envisioned the kinds of chicken poop challenges that looked better suited to a fishing derby than a CFL game. As per the norm, there are always a few who have to challenge the boundaries of good sense causing a reaction the other way. I am surprised they made the change in the midst of week 10 with the game on Thursday being governed by different rules than the game on Friday? You would have though that they would have let this weekends slate of game go through and then make the change.
It might've made more sense to do it prior to the BC game as all teams would've played 8 games at that point. While it is a subtle change in the rules that could have a big impact on reducing the number of challenges it has no impact on the way the game is played on the field between the whistles. As it was in the BC game there was only 1 challenge and it was successful. The new rule wouldn't have come into play in that game.

I wonder if the timing was simply a case of needing to convene the Rules Committee. The Commish cannot unilaterally impose something like this. It must come as a recommendation from the Rules Committee. There are 12 voting members on the Rules Committee; 9 team rep, Jeff Keeping (CFLPA), Andre Proulx (CFLOA) and Glen Johnson (CFL). Orridge is the Chairman of the committee but doesn't have a vote. They need 75% to be present to meet quorum guidelines. I don't know if they can conduct these things via conference call but it just happened that this week BC, Calgary and Winnipeg are all back east meaning 10 of the 12 were already "in the neighbourhood" should they require a face-to-face meeting. I suspect at least a few weeks ago the CFL had raised the challenge process as an issue causing negative effects on the game and with the fans and had tabled it with the Rules Committee with instructions them to report back with a recommendation(s) that could be implemented at the earliest possible time. As for a message in there for the Head Coaches interestingly 4 of the 9 team reps on the committee which made this recommendation are Head Coaches; Buono, Jones, O'Shea and Popp.
Last edited by Hambone on Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

I like it. Midseason? No matter. The change is good. Progressive. Not stuck in the mud. Not with head in the sand. No point in waiting. Fix it now. Done.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8175
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

WestCoastJoe wrote:I like it. Midseason? No matter. The change is good. Progressive. Not stuck in the mud. Not with head in the sand. No point in waiting. Fix it now. Done.
Agreed. Rule changes made in the offseason are always made with the best of intentions but as much as you try to consider all possible ramifications coaches or players will still find loopholes or ways around them. In this case there was a rare opportunity to make a subtle mid-season change that doesn't impact the way the game is played but should positively impact the product. Kudos to the CFL for recognizing and reacting. Bush league would've been to as you say stick their heads in the sand and say we can't do anything about this until next year thus allowing the situation to further fester in the minds of the fans.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12581
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Hambone wrote:
WestCoastJoe wrote:I like it. Midseason? No matter. The change is good. Progressive. Not stuck in the mud. Not with head in the sand. No point in waiting. Fix it now. Done.
Agreed. Rule changes made in the offseason are always made with the best of intentions but as much as you try to consider all possible ramifications coaches or players will still find loopholes or ways around them. In this case there was a rare opportunity to make a subtle mid-season change that doesn't impact the way the game is played but should positively impact the product. Kudos to the CFL for recognizing and reacting. Bush league would've been to as you say stick their heads in the sand and say we can't do anything about this until next year thus allowing the situation to further fester in the minds of the fans.
This issue has really taken on a life of its own in the minds of fans. Even though coaches are still allowed two challenges a game, as they have been in past years, and they haven't been using all of their allowed challenges (averaging 1.25 challenges per team per game this year) the perception in the minds of fans was that games were being needlessly delayed by frivolous challenges. (They haven't been. Games are averaging 2 hours and 54 minutes this year, which is on par with the average from the past five years and is a minute less than the average of 2:55 in 2013 and 2014.)

Coaches' challenges were brought in, and expanded over the years, because of a perception in the minds of the fans that officials were getting crucial calls wrong. Public perception seems to have swung the other way, against challenges and in favour of living with the calls on the field. I'm OK with that, regardless of whether it's based on perception or fact.
User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8175
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

B.C.FAN wrote:This issue has really taken on a life of its own in the minds of fans. Even though coaches are still allowed two challenges a game, as they have been in past years, and they haven't been using all of their allowed challenges (averaging 1.25 challenges per team per game this year) the perception in the minds of fans was that games were being needlessly delayed by frivolous challenges. (They haven't been. Games are averaging 2 hours and 54 minutes this year, which is on par with the average from the past five years and is a minute less than the average of 2:55 in 2013 and 2014.)

Coaches' challenges were brought in, and expanded over the years, because of a perception in the minds of the fans that officials were getting crucial calls wrong. Public perception seems to have swung the other way, against challenges and in favour of living with the calls on the field. I'm OK with that, regardless of whether it's based on perception or fact.
According to a snippet in the Game Notes document prior to the Lions game in Ottawa challenges have doubled this year.

Coaches’ Challenges Update: Thus far in 2016 there have been 90 Challenges, just 12 less than all of 2015 and at a rate of 2.50
per game (compared to 1.26 per game last year). Edmonton has been the most frequent and successful challenger with 14 in total
and 6 resulting in rulings being overturned. Calgary has challenged just 7 times and yet to have a successful one in 2016. Of the 90
Challenges in 2016, 74 have involved a penalty-related ruling (82%).


This comes from Page 4 - http://d3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net/wp ... at-Ott.pdf
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
User avatar
B.C.FAN
Team Captain
Posts: 12581
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:28 pm

Hambone wrote:
B.C.FAN wrote:This issue has really taken on a life of its own in the minds of fans. Even though coaches are still allowed two challenges a game, as they have been in past years, and they haven't been using all of their allowed challenges (averaging 1.25 challenges per team per game this year) the perception in the minds of fans was that games were being needlessly delayed by frivolous challenges. (They haven't been. Games are averaging 2 hours and 54 minutes this year, which is on par with the average from the past five years and is a minute less than the average of 2:55 in 2013 and 2014.)

Coaches' challenges were brought in, and expanded over the years, because of a perception in the minds of the fans that officials were getting crucial calls wrong. Public perception seems to have swung the other way, against challenges and in favour of living with the calls on the field. I'm OK with that, regardless of whether it's based on perception or fact.
According to a snippet in the Game Notes document prior to the Lions game in Ottawa challenges have doubled this year.

Coaches’ Challenges Update: Thus far in 2016 there have been 90 Challenges, just 12 less than all of 2015 and at a rate of 2.50
per game (compared to 1.26 per game last year). Edmonton has been the most frequent and successful challenger with 14 in total
and 6 resulting in rulings being overturned. Calgary has challenged just 7 times and yet to have a successful one in 2016. Of the 90
Challenges in 2016, 74 have involved a penalty-related ruling (82%).


This comes from Page 4 - http://d3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net/wp ... at-Ott.pdf
That's correct. There's been roughly one extra challenge per game this year, but it's still well below the allowed limit of two per team per game.
User avatar
Hambone
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8175
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:25 pm
Location: Living in PG when not at BC Place, Grey Cup or Mazatlan.

B.C.FAN wrote:That's correct. There's been roughly one extra challenge per game this year, but it's still well below the allowed limit of two per team per game.
90 in only 36 games season-to-date versus 102 in 81 games last year is nonetheless a big difference. It may be just over one extra per game but that's still close to a 100% increase in something fans felt was taking place too frequently last year. I agree the reality and the perception are two different things not unlike the critics of the rouge used to make it sound like they were happening several times per game when historically it worked out to about 1.8 per game.
You're as old as you've ever been and as young as you're ever going to be.
User avatar
cromartie
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5005
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 2:31 pm
Location: Cleveland, usually

Good rule or bad, you never make changes to the rules to the game, unless it applies to something previously not addressed, during midseason, ever. It sets a terrible precedent.
User avatar
DanoT
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4309
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Victoria, B.C. in summer, Sun Peaks Resort in winter

cromartie wrote:Good rule or bad, you never make changes to the rules to the game, unless it applies to something previously not addressed, during midseason, ever. It sets a terrible precedent.
I say, never say never, especially if the changes don't affect the way the game is played or don't require any major coaching or strategy changes.
Post Reply