PDA

View Full Version : Rule Changes



Soudog
02-24-2005, 08:05 PM
"During yesterday, the final day of meetings, the CFL's management council recommended several minor rule changes to be approved or rejected by the board of governors at its next meeting in April.

Among the recommendations was that players not be allowed to bring items such as cell phones, pagers or magazines onto the field.

This was mainly to discourage players from using these items in post-touchdown celebrations. The penalty would be 10 yards.

If a player brings a dangerous object (like a knife) on the field he will be disqualified and the team assessed a 25-yard penalty.

A player who spits at an opponent or game official will be disqualified and his team penalized 25 yards.

A pass interference call will now be made even if the throw is deemed uncatchable. This will prevent a defender from taking a "shot" at a receiver thinking he won't be penalized because the pass was uncatchable."


Take note of that last one, folks... a lot of people will be asking "I thought the rule was..." during upcoming games this season...

Just remember: "Well armed is well argued!"

esks4life
02-24-2005, 09:23 PM
Bringing a knife on the field? Who would be stupid enough to do that in the first place? And Ive never seen a CFL player with a cell phone or magazine on the sidelines.

lloyd
02-24-2005, 09:33 PM
Bringing a knife on the field? Who would be stupid enough to do that in the first place? And Ive never seen a CFL player with a cell phone or magazine on the sidelines.

Keith Stokes did it this year IIRC.

The only major one is the last rule change dealing with PI on uncatchable balls. I think it might be for the best, but I guess time will tell.

EskiPhenom
02-24-2005, 10:46 PM
Most of these rules are just common sense ideas, things that needed to be put in place so the league can keep some of the more obnoxious imports in check.

However, I DON'T agree with the new pass interference rule. If anything they should modify the intentional grounding rule on QB's to include throw aways. I think a QB throwing the ball 30 yards out of bounds is one of the dumbest plays in football. Yes I can see you have a strong arm, thank you. Keep it on the field and make the play, or you deserve to be sacked. The rule as it is allows us the fans see some of the game's biggest hits, and itís entertaining:

"Here's the safety flying down the field going for the body on the cocky receiver who looked at the ball flying by, decided 'not worth the effort' and starts to let up, then BOOM!!!"

Its sends a message and shows that the smaller guys can be physical too. I'm not saying I want injuries, but anybody who has a problem with contact in this (the no fair catch) league, is not a CFL fan.

Well that my 2 cents and my 1st post! I became tired of reading and decided to get in on the action. :thup:

MEEZY
02-25-2005, 12:03 AM
Personally, I like the amendment to the pass interference rule. Often, a defender can't tell whether a pass is catchable or not, so his coverage on a receiver usually doesn't take that into consideration. Defenders generally employ clutching and grabbing when the receiver has beaten them, and thus, the accuracy of the pass is irrelevant at the time. After all, pass interference calls have been made when the receiver in question was not even part of the play. Thus, whether or not a ball is catchable has nothing to do with the DB's actions, and he should be penalized accordingly.

earl2
02-25-2005, 12:06 AM
I'd like to see PI's on uncatchable balls be called as illegal contact on eligible recievers. You would eliminate the head hunting they are trying to stop, while not necessarily giving the offence an automatic first down.
However, I think that very few PI's are committed with the intent to lay a big hit on a reciever (even on uncatchable balls). Most are the clutching/grabbing that occur while the ball is in the air. Hardly intent to injure in a situation like that. IF a player takes a "shot" at another while the ball is clearly uncatchable, why not call it UR or objectional conduct? I don't think this rule is needed.

Evil Dr. Len
02-25-2005, 07:51 AM
I'm glad they decided against changing the current rouge rules and punter rules...the rest is as they say...history :p

Esks4ever
02-25-2005, 08:20 AM
Most of these rules are just common sense ideas, things that needed to be put in place so the league can keep some of the more obnoxious imports in check.

However, I DON'T agree with the new pass interference rule. If anything they should modify the intentional grounding rule on QB's to include throw aways. I think a QB throwing the ball 30 yards out of bounds is one of the dumbest plays in football. Yes I can see you have a strong arm, thank you. Keep it on the field and make the play, or you deserve to be sacked. The rule as it is allows us the fans see some of the game's biggest hits, and itís entertaining:

"Here's the safety flying down the field going for the body on the cocky receiver who looked at the ball flying by, decided 'not worth the effort' and starts to let up, then BOOM!!!"

Its sends a message and shows that the smaller guys can be physical too. I'm not saying I want injuries, but anybody who has a problem with contact in this (the no fair catch) league, is not a CFL fan.

Well that my 2 cents and my 1st post! I became tired of reading and decided to get in on the action. :thup:


welcome to the site :thup: great first post...


I agree with you on the intentional throwing out of bounds..seeing big hits is very entertaining and what football is about. Hitting People. They wanted to remove the punting out of bounds so the returners can do their jobs and in return entertain the fans... well big hits entertain the fans allmost as much as a killer return.

Edmonton Fan
02-25-2005, 12:22 PM
If a player is stupid enough to bring a dangerous object on to the field in the first place, then he shouldn't even be on the football team as far as I'm concerned.

eskimoses
02-25-2005, 12:44 PM
Very astute reply!!
Thanks Tyrell for showing CFL players what they already know what to do... man, it's just common sense!!
As for the PI rule, I gotta admit you raise an excellent point. Ball is a high on a reciver coming across the middle and he doesn't make an effort to catch it becuse he is lazy or scared to sacrifice his body for the ball(insert TEAM here), why penalize the db for a "clean" lick(note** I said a "clean" lick) on the reciever!!
Also, can't agree more with tossin' the ball away by the QB... gotta make it such that there must be an elgiable reciever within 5-10 uards of the ball.
My biggest issue for the BOG meeting is the decision not to use instant relplay at field level and their lack of addressing the inferior(or at least inconsistent) level of officiating in this league. EVERY TEAM was bit in the ass by very poor officiating last year and in some cases it cost the team the game(hello Calgary!!). We can't allow the effort to put good product on the field be sabotaged by boneheaded zebras!!
And before anyone jumps on my about the refs... I've been a carded basketball offical for over 10 years and can appreciate the challenges of "calling the game". In you hoops you blow the call you are damn well responsible and every one can question if it's correct...why should these guys be any different. Things like IR would only help by giving the zebras the added(and necessary)tools to make the appropriate call!

WHEW.... time for wee dram after all that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :confused: :mad: :eek: :soap: :gulp:

gizmo fan 2
02-25-2005, 02:41 PM
I'd like to see PI's on uncatchable balls be called as illegal contact on eligible recievers. You would eliminate the head hunting they are trying to stop, while not necessarily giving the offence an automatic first down.
However, I think that very few PI's are committed with the intent to lay a big hit on a reciever (even on uncatchable balls). Most are the clutching/grabbing that occur while the ball is in the air. Hardly intent to injure in a situation like that. IF a player takes a "shot" at another while the ball is clearly uncatchable, why not call it UR or objectional conduct? I don't think this rule is needed.

I agree. Good call. :thup: