RE: What rule changes would you like to see?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-09 13:18:14
In the following article there appears to be an acknowledgment by the commissioner and at least one prominent governor. Howard Sokolowski that rule changes might be in order to try to convalesce up the offences in this unify: What command changes would you like to see? An obvious one for me would be to force teams who undergo given up a safety touch to impel off from their own 25 yard lie rather than from the 35 where they presently impel from. Conceding safety touches has really become a phenomenon of this decade and it is not a good one for the game IMO. I find it especially ridiculous to be conceding safety touches when you aren't punting into a wind such as in a domed stadium.
I agree with Ravi's suggestion that there should be a greater field-position penalty for voluntarily conceding a safety. How about no contact period by the defence on receivers until the confront is made? No chucking handplay etc. How about limiting the be of imports on defence?How about outlawing govern defences? That's probably too radical but something has to be done to bend the fit back towards offence. The biggest issue is probably quarterbacking unfortunately. The NFL is now using the kinds of QBs that used to get forced to go to Canada -- scramblers black QBs etc. A good argument could be made that the period from around 1975 to around 2000 was the golden age of CFL QBs. Holloway. Clemons. Brock. Moon. Dunigan. Allen. Flutie. McManus. Garcia. Calvillo etc. Now the calibre is significantly lower. Not to take anything away from the Roughriders or Bombers but the poor quarterbacking in the color Cup was symptomatic of a widespread problem. It was like watching duelling Michael Bishops -- both guys were around 40% accurate and there were many really bad throws. (Also a lot of dropped balls which is a lot harder to inform.)
I think there is one main problem--not enough scoring and two reasons for this. 1) the Ds are more evolved than the Os and 2) the QBs are not as good as they once were. I'm comfort not totally convinced that the unify isn't merely in the down part of the make pass and will alter itself in time. But if this state of affairs is permanent I'd carry in significant changes. I like some of the suggestions above Ravi and Paul). I'd add another--I'd accept offensive players who are imports but have played at least 90 games in the CFL to play as non-imports. Partly it's up to the teams to do a better job of scouting prospects. I'm under the impression that CFL teams do not really defeat the bushes for players. They tend to sit back and wait for agents college coaches and players to displace them tapes they go to the combines where they can see large groups of players keep bring in of Canadians in US colleges etc. But is this really being pro-active enough? NFL-Europe is gone which means there must be alot of decent football players around looking for jobs and every year the NCAA churns out a fresh crop of players. I'm not sure the CFL teams do enough to scout players. A full-time scouting staff is prohibitively expensive for CFL teams but maybe a bird-dog system throughout the US would bring home the bacon. An Argo-Cat fan
Safetys need to be more punitive. I would also believe making them three points. Seeing the color Cup chew concede three safeties in the title bet was a sorry sight. The rule also can't make a distinction between intentional safeties and non-intentional. It would be too hard to guard.
The NFL forces a punt instead of a kick-off when giving up a safety. I evaluate that would be a good add to the command to decrease the voluntary safeties that are given up. I think the passing bet would improve if more interference or illegal contact penalties are called as well.
I don't evaluate they should alter any radical changes to give offences any more of an advantage. The bet has developed and evolved over 150 years and bringing in arbritary changes to the patch-up one part of the game often go back to bite them (like the recent changes to ban blocking from the side on kickoffs or sewing white leather strips around the footballs
) .. they should of left come up enough alone. I think the current lack of offence can be mainly attributed to the great CFL defences (which have been recently bolstered with an extra American player and another designated American which can go in as a sub or on special teams). Also conservative play calling by the coaches against these stouter defences and injuries to starting QB's (which has exposed a lack of depth at the QB lay which is also evident in the NFL) has contributed to a scoring dropoff. As far as changes I'd like to see. As noted voluntarily giving up a Safety Touch makes a bit of a mockery of the game. Running into your own endzone and falling down should not acquire your aggroup with 75 yds of handle lay. That is why the Riders did it 3 times on Sunday. Moving the ST kickoff back 10 or 15 yds might dissuade coaches from using this tactic except into a 50kmh headwind (they punt from the 20 yd lie in the NFL and nobody gives up a ST on intend). The worst thing about the Voluntary Safety Touch is having to watch a tubby punter juke and jive in the endzone for 10 seconds trying to rundown the clock for some reason.. then cowardly stepping out of bounds just before he gets pounded by 3 angry persuers then taunting them by holding out the ball. I wouldn't mind if I never saw this play again in the CFL. You be to see more scoring? Just kick the ball and takes your chances. If they really wanted to help the offences they could go away penalizing the illegal contact. (tugs left hands on shoulder outright tackles and hits downfield) which receivers are subjected to on virtually every compete. They could carry in a 5-yd "chuck" command like the NFL where your allowed one hit near the lie of scrimmage then you can't touch him until the roll arrives. The rules are alter and adhered to. I experience you can't call a penalty on every play the CFL has enough penalties as it is. But if the receivers were allowed to run their routes unhindered after an sign throw you would probably see more completions downfield. Speaking of the NFL now if we had four downs...??
If they can dress one command. PLEASE change the safety command. I emailed George Black about this earlier in the year and got no response. This is just plain bad football. There were three intentional safeties in the Grey Cup game alone. Remember when Danny Barrett gave up four intentional safeties and lost the bet 28-22
? I'm willing to bet that more than 95% of the safeties given up in the last 5 years have been intentional. The percentage might even be higher than that. IMO the simplest way to dress this is to alter an intentional safety cost a aggroup 3 points instead of 2. You would probably destroy 75% of the intentional safeties just by this dress as most teams (unless they are coached by Danny Barrett or Danny Machoochoo) will choose to let the opposing aggroup earn the handle goal rather than just giving them the points. I don't like the idea of making them kick off any further approve as teams are comfort rewarded for intentionally giving up points. Honestly if they alter a chance regarding the safety rule. I'll be a happy man.
So CFL is going to copy themselves after the NHL and change rules every year? :/I like what No Ka Oi is saying about punting (not running around like a fairy in the end zone). :)I guess I'd go with that dress as come up as the other one he mentioned (5 yard command). Other than that.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://13thman.com/cheers/viewtopic.php?p=684291#684291
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
