Want to help the CFL change some rules?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Technically, defense should be better for the CFL due to defending only 3 downs instead of 4.

The American game introduced four downs hoping to increase scoring, but it had the opposite effect. Four downs allows teams to grind it out on the ground and shorten the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...rican_football

To generate more offence, the number of downs was also increased by Harvard to 4 from 3 as set by McGill.

The 2008 CFL rule book:

http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I'm a much bigger fan of the NFL then CFL. Mostly due to talent and defensive nature of the game. CFL is very offensive oriented, and it doesn't have as good defense as NFL more so because of talent rather then size and passing nature of the game due to the lack of a down. Technically, defense should be better for the CFL due to defending only 3 downs instead of 4.

A good NFL defence would look a lot worse on a CFL field, which is 20% wider and 25% longer. "Technically", the field size has a lot more to do with how successful passing is in the CFL than player talent or size, not to mention the D-line having to play a yard off the ball, the movement allowed in the backfield and the extra player.

I can see why the NFL is preferable to some people, but basing that preference on essentially understanding nothing about the difference between the games is annoying.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by jammies

A good NFL defence would look a lot worse on a CFL field, which is 20% wider and 25% longer. "Technically", the field size has a lot more to do with how successful passing is in the CFL than player talent or size, not to mention the D-line having to play a yard off the ball, the movement allowed in the backfield and the extra player.

I can see why the NFL is preferable to some people, but basing that preference on essentially understanding nothing about the difference between the games is annoying.

I do understand the difference in feild side and how it makes things harder for the defense and easier for the offense. Offense will pick apart defense easier, but when I look at the two games and the average defense between teams, CFL DBs look worst then their counterparts in the NFL. If you stick NFL DBs to cover CFL, I wouldn't hesitate to say that defense would imrpove on the CFL side.

Besides, only the best DBs play in the NFL. If a CFL DB was good enough and can fit on someone team with a good enough role, they would be down there rather then up here.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I do understand the difference in feild side and how it makes things harder for the defense and easier for the offense. Offense will pick apart defense easier, but when I look at the two games and the average defense between teams, CFL DBs look worst then their counterparts in the NFL. If you stick NFL DBs to cover CFL, I wouldn't hesitate to say that defense would imrpove on the CFL side.

You said "Technically, defense should be better for the CFL due to defending only 3 downs instead of 4", and this is just plain wrong. The reason there are 3 downs instead of 4 is that with 4 downs, the defence would hardly ever make a stop except on a fumble or interception because the field is much bigger. Not mentioning this is akin to claiming the CFL has defences that suck so bad they are forced to shave off a down in the league to keep the scores respectable.

Put an NFL offence against an NFL defence using a CFL field and CFL rules, and the NFL defence would have a very difficult time - that's what I'm getting at. The number of downs can't be considered apart from all the other changes in the rules - if you tried to change the rules in the NFL to having 3 downs with the same field, you'd have 3-0 and 6-3 scores in practically every game, but it wouldn't mean the defences were objectively any BETTER, just the rules were slanted more in their favour.

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by jammies

You said "Technically, defense should be better for the CFL due to defending only 3 downs instead of 4", and this is just plain wrong. The reason there are 3 downs instead of 4 is that with 4 downs, the defence would hardly ever make a stop except on a fumble or interception because the field is much bigger. Not mentioning this is akin to claiming the CFL has defences that suck so bad they are forced to shave off a down in the league to keep the scores respectable.

Put an NFL offence against an NFL defence using a CFL field and CFL rules, and the NFL defence would have a very difficult time - that's what I'm getting at. The number of downs can't be considered apart from all the other changes in the rules - if you tried to change the rules in the NFL to having 3 downs with the same field, you'd have 3-0 and 6-3 scores in practically every game, but it wouldn't mean the defences were objectively any BETTER, just the rules were slanted more in their favour.

I don't think that if you made the downs less that scores will be that low. Teams would take more of a passing slant as it is done in the CFL. I do get your point in what your saying and agree. But believe that NFL defense would perform better then CFL defense because they are the best players in the world.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by jammies

A good NFL defence would look a lot worse on a CFL field, which is 20% wider and 25% longer. "Technically", the field size has a lot more to do with how successful passing is in the CFL than player talent or size, not to mention the D-line having to play a yard off the ball, the movement allowed in the backfield and the extra player.

I can see why the NFL is preferable to some people, but basing that preference on essentially understanding nothing about the difference between the games is annoying.

Think so? NFL linebackers are lightning fast.
I like both games but the last year or so I prefer the CFL game more cause of the tv coverage of the NFL game. Way too commercialized, takes 3+ hours to show 20 minutes worth of play? What's that show in NFL Network... Games in 30? There's less than 30 minutes of actual play in an NFL game.

CFL utilizes the 60 minute clock alot better.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Think so? NFL linebackers are lightning fast.
I like both games but the last year or so I prefer the CFL game more cause of the tv coverage of the NFL game. Way too commercialized, takes 3+ hours to show 20 minutes worth of play? What's that show in NFL Network... Games in 30? There's less than 30 minutes of actual play in an NFL game.

CFL utilizes the 60 minute clock alot better.

I don't know that I consider numerous punts to be a better use of 60 minutes.

And I think you're right about NFL linebackers on a CFL field, sure they're a lot bigger, but they are just as fast if not faster. I wouldn't expect there to be many issues with covering the extra space, remember that there's an extra man as well.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't know that I consider numerous punts to be a better use of 60 minutes.

And I think you're right about NFL linebackers on a CFL field, sure they're a lot bigger, but they are just as fast if not faster. I wouldn't expect there to be many issues with covering the extra space, remember that there's an extra man as well.

id rather watch a team punt a ball and have a possibility of a big return (or a fumble or punt block) then watch the same commercials over again.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I don't think that if you made the downs less that scores will be that low. Teams would take more of a passing slant as it is done in the CFL.

If this was so, why wouldn't they just "take more of a passing slant" NOW and have the luxury of an "extra" down as they continually moved the yardsticks effortlessly until they hit end-zone? Nothing is stopping any team from doing it - why don't they? Sheer pig-headedness and lack of imagination?

Just to illustrate, look at a team that DOES emphasize the pass already, last year's #1 offence the New Orleans Saints. They ran 636 pass attempts vs 398 rush attempts, for a 61.5% pass/run play ratio - for comparison sakes the pass-happy CFL Stampeders ran 380 rush and 614 pass attempts, for a 61.7% pass/run play ratio. So you might say the Saints are ALREADY running a CFL-style offence, yet of their 354 first downs, 97 of them came on 3rd down, or 29% of the time, which I think we can safely say isn't a result of them not passing enough.

Now if you take the overall number of first downs they had, 354, and compare it to the total number of times they failed to get a first down, 111, you see they were about 76% successful (Stampeders 78%) getting a first down on each series; drop another 97 first downs and they are now at a 55% ratio, which is worse than the absolute crappiest offence (at converting first downs) in the league last year - the Raiders - who managed 57% and scored 263 measly points (compared to NO's 463 and Calgary's 595).

So the best offence in the NFL would be arguably below the statistics of the worst offence as currently exists. You'd be looking at score reductions in the range of a minimum 40%, in a league where a quarter of the teams already can't manage 20 points a game. And that's leaving aside the question of whether a bad team like the Raiders (who would have converted a pathetic 37% of their downs if only given 3 to work with) would score at all, as once you fall that low, you are looking at moving the ball for more than 2 consecutive first downs little more than 1 time in 20, so you will be relying on the big play or special teams for practically all your points.

So I don't think miniscule scores are at all unlikely, although maybe if you had a Indianopolis vs New Orleans barnburner, it might end up 21-17. Cincinatti vs Oakland, though, would be decided by who turned over the ball in the other team's field goal range more often than not...

[Joborule]

Originally Posted by jammies

If this was so, why wouldn't they just "take more of a passing slant" NOW and have the luxury of an "extra" down as they continually moved the yardsticks effortlessly until they hit end-zone? Nothing is stopping any team from doing it - why don't they? Sheer pig-headedness and lack of imagination?

Just to illustrate, look at a team that DOES emphasize the pass already, last year's #1 offence the New Orleans Saints. They ran 636 pass attempts vs 398 rush attempts, for a 61.5% pass/run play ratio - for comparison sakes the pass-happy CFL Stampeders ran 380 rush and 614 pass attempts, for a 61.7% pass/run play ratio. So you might say the Saints are ALREADY running a CFL-style offence, yet of their 354 first downs, 97 of them came on 3rd down, or 29% of the time, which I think we can safely say isn't a result of them not passing enough.

Now if you take the overall number of first downs they had, 354, and compare it to the total number of times they failed to get a first down, 111, you see they were about 76% successful (Stampeders 78%) getting a first down on each series; drop another 97 first downs and they are now at a 55% ratio, which is worse than the absolute crappiest offence (at converting first downs) in the league last year - the Raiders - who managed 57% and scored 263 measly points (compared to NO's 463 and Calgary's 595).

So the best offence in the NFL would be arguably below the statistics of the worst offence as currently exists. You'd be looking at score reductions in the range of a minimum 40%, in a league where a quarter of the teams already can't manage 20 points a game. And that's leaving aside the question of whether a bad team like the Raiders (who would have converted a pathetic 37% of their downs if only given 3 to work with) would score at all, as once you fall that low, you are looking at moving the ball for more than 2 consecutive first downs little more than 1 time in 20, so you will be relying on the big play or special teams for practically all your points.

So I don't think miniscule scores are at all unlikely, although maybe if you had a Indianopolis vs New Orleans barnburner, it might end up 21-17. Cincinatti vs Oakland, though, would be decided by who turned over the ball in the other team's field goal range more often than not...

Since teams would be playing with 3 downs instead of 4, teams will be working on getting the first down on the second down instead of third down. You cannot drop the percentages of first down conversions by just dropping the downs in relation to a dropped 4th down. Teams will not be running on forth a bit to go. They would pass instead since it's too far to get the first down. It changes the whole aspect of a team gameplan and down management.

[flip]

They should lose the helmets. Wimps. Rugby players don't wear helmets.

[Jason14h]

New England ran what could be considered a CFL offense in 07 and it worked great. However, it takes very specific talent to do this effectively. The NFL field size doesn't promote a passing game, unless the linebackers are already close to the line to stop the run. If they are in coverage you have every receiver double teamed.

[Smell My Finger]

lose the single point for missed FG. Its Rewarding failure.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by Smell My Finger

lose the single point for missed FG. Its Rewarding failure.

just to state what has already been stated.

Originally Posted by worth

I really don't see the problem with the single point, and I believe this whole issue stems from people not properly understanding the reason for it.

The reason the single point if given is not for kicking the ball through the end zone after missing a FG, it is because the team missed the FG, the ball is still live. If the ball lands in bounds, the defending team has a chance to return the ball out of their end zone. If they do then no point is awarded to the offensive team. therefore, the point is awarded for basically the defending team failing to get the ball out of the end zone.

So if the offensive team is close enough to boot it through the end zone while missing the FG, the point is automatically awarded, not for missing the field goal, but because the defensive team failed to get the ball out of the end zone.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The single point adds a different element of strategy to the game that would be a real shame to lose. Hey, it sucks that occasionally team get "rewarded" for missing a field goal, but FAR more often, the team is punished by only getting one point instead of three when they miss a field goal. It's not often that those single points decide games, and in all honesty, if you are relying on the other team to miss a short field goal in order for you to win the football game, your team probably doesn't deserve to win the football game.

you can see it as a reward for failure, but I think that is the wrong way to look at it. it rewards the offence for getting close enough to score a field goal and kick into the endzone. it also penalizes the defence for not getting the ball out of the endzone.
the argument can be made that if the defending team doesn't have a chance to return the ball, the offence shouldnt get a point, which is fair. but you have to consider that it is a 20 yard endzone, so if a team is kicking from the 20 and somehow misses (seriously, how often does that happen??), it has to be a 40 yard kick! i have no problem rewarding a 40 yard kick with a point, its a miss, so you are penalizing the kick by 2 points for missing (not rewarding a miss, but penalizing it!).
bottom line is the defence has a chance to return the point, which often happens on long missed field goals....
the other factor is the strategy it adds. without the single, there isnt as much incentive to return the ball out of the endzone in a close game.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by flip

They should lose the helmets. Wimps. Rugby players don't wear helmets.

And rugby players don't hit anywhere near as hard as football players. I love rugby, but the collisions in football are much more intense.

[cSpooge]

Originally Posted by valo403

And rugby players don't hit anywhere near as hard as football players. I love rugby, but the collisions in football are much more intense.

scientifically speaking rugby takes are actually more intense. While football takes are a little harder the impact is spread and absorbed by the equipment where as in rugby it is direct impact in to the body.

[valo403]

The hard tackles that they use in those mythbusters type studies occur maybe twice in an entire rugby game, if that. Intense football tackles occur on pretty much every couple of plays, the comparison is ridiculous. Football players use their bodies as missiles, that's simply not the case in rugby, at least not very often.

[worth]

Some football players (ie. OL, DL) hit pretty much as hard as they can 60 or 70 times a game. I don't know rugby very well, but I don't think anyone is hitting 60 times per match.

There's a week break between each game for a reason. 20/21 games per year is pretty much the max for a football player.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Joborule

Since teams would be playing with 3 downs instead of 4, teams will be working on getting the first down on the second down instead of third down. You cannot drop the percentages of first down conversions by just dropping the downs in relation to a dropped 4th down. Teams will not be running on forth a bit to go. They would pass instead since it's too far to get the first down. It changes the whole aspect of a team gameplan and down management.

What you are essentially saying is the teams would increase the number of yards gained per down with absolutely no justification other than your feeling that it's possible to do so. Yes, down management and the type of plays run would change, but what exactly is your justification for saying that this would be successful? Obviously they would have to try to get 1st downs in 2 plays, but whether they CAN do so is the question - again, if just passing more was the answer, why is it that an offence ALREADY passing as much as any CFL team still needed significant numbers of third down plays to get first downs?

You are not looking at WHY the dominant philosophy in the NFL is to run the ball and take short passes; it isn't because medium and long passes are more successful and that if only those crazy offensive co-ordinators would try it, it would work. On the contrary, it is only a few especially talented teams that can make such an offence work, which is why such teams are singled out as aberrations when they occur.

Your argument is analogous to saying that if they made the basepaths 15 feet longer in baseball (making it harder to get hits), they'd just have to concentrate more on hitting home runs (equivalent to making more and longer passes). You *could* have your hitters swing for the fences all the time, sure, but it isn't as effective as spreading your offence around with base hits and bunts, not only because it is harder (just like passing further and more is) but because the other team WILL adjust their defence to take advantage of your emphasis on one tactic.

[SportsJunky]