Blue Bombers Forum

We have been told we'll have a 35 sec play clock that starts when the previous play is blown dead.  We were not told there are any exceptions or workarounds or tweaks for the final 3 minutes of the game.  So for now we must assume the same 35s rule applies to the entire game.

Picture in your mind how that will affect our famous final 3 of each half.  Is the picture in your mind a worse thing than what we are used to?

Issues?  Workarounds?  Additional rules needed?

The thing I hate most about the NFL is the dumb thing of the time it takes the refs to place the ball and get out of the way counts against the team on O.  Sometimes it can cost a game.  And it looks silly & dumb.  And it's not constant or consistent: some refs are faster than others.  Yet another avenue to "rig" a game, too: "oops, didn't get the ball placed in time, sorry you didn't get the comeback win!"

Now picture ageing Proulx or not-too-skinny Major trying to run, all harried and stressed, to get the ball placed in time with 30s left on the game clock.  Even Commander Data may get flustered and make mistakes.

I don't want this for my league.  Certainly not in the last 3 mins.

Are teams going to have to start spiking the ball?  Another lame NFLism.

How can you waste a down on a spike when you only have 3 to work with, not 4?  Of course they can waste a down in the NFL, they have so many.

More Hegelian Dialectic?  Create the problem (teams need to spike but can't because of 3 downs), then provide the solution ("guess we'll have to go to 4 downs then! <smirk grin hand-rub>").

Riderforum has a good point.  In the final 3 minutes each 1st down can buy you 105 secs of clock bleed.  3 mins is 180 secs total.  So without even getting a first down you have bled more than half the clock (if you get a doable 3rd down like a sneak), maybe even more if you can make your plays take 4-6s to run before DBC.

That means, without any further updates on how the 3 mins is going to be treated specially, if you get one 1st down in the final 3 mins you are in victory and win the game (minus the 1 team timeout in the final 3, of course).

LAME.  Improved product my butt!

bomb squad pointed out that the game clock could be untied from the play clock like the NFL in the final 2 mins.  If the NFL doesn't run the game clock after an incompletion, just like the CFL, then the clock bleed may not be as big an issue as in my last post -- at least after incompletions.

However, from a "trying to bleed the clock" team A standpoint (when team A has the ball and the lead), they can still bleed the 70-105s+ every 1st down because they can opt to just run the ball or make sure they don't pass & go OOB.

That is still way too much compared to the 40-60s+ of bleed they get now.  Right now, if teams can't get 1st downs, we are basically guaranteed to get 3+ possessions in the last 3 mins.  That's exciting.  With the rule changes, we almost never get more than 2.  (Both adjusted for timeouts left, of course, although limited if the CFL keeps the "only 1 timeout after the warning" rule.)

I'm thinking that if you want to maintain the Best Final Minutes In Football in the world, and wild & wacky endings, there should be a carve out that returns us to the normal 20s clock rules for those 3 minutes (twice a game).  However, I'm pretty sure that will never happen.

Lame-butt waiting for refs to run it up and QB spiking the ball, here we come!  Gag

They (who exactly is "they" here anyway?) better come out with further information and explanation real soon on this, or people are going to continue assume the worst. It already is ugly as we can see. Any delay or "well we're going to look at this" put offs are really going to blow up on them. They should have a website with all this info already set up. Is there? I haven't heard anything.

I'm sure teams will get more timeouts with a rolling clock so they can stop it and try and get the ball back.

Both the NCAA and NFL use a similar system and both leagues also have fantastic endings do games a lot of the time.

Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 11:55:17 AMThey should have a website with all this info already set up. Is there? I haven't heard anything.

https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/

But you've probably seen that already anyway.  It says nothing to answer any question a non-casual fan would ask.  So, useless to us.

Interesting, and more tinfoil: they have 4 points shown.  Each one it basically one main topic. 1: goalposts, 2: field dimension changes, 3: rouge (near)death, 4: ... #4 they combined 2 things (why?): the bench move which every single fan on earth agrees with, and... the 35s play clock change which has absolutely nothing to do with bench positioning.

Why?  Why not make a point #5?  The two #4 issues are separate.  Oh ya, propaganda 101, combine and conflate 2 issues, listing the popular one first to gain support for the less popular one.  Combine them into 1 issue in the subjects' minds.  Make it hard to argue the unpopular point, "what? you take umbrage with point 4, are you insane? the benches being moved is awesome! shut up and go away."

Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 11:55:17 AMThey (who exactly is "they" here anyway?)

Ostensibly Johnston and the "board" of the CFL of which every team has a member/input.

My tinfoil says the "they" are Johnston's ultimate masters who selected & arranged his placement.  My guess is, because of the chain of ownership of his previous employer, "they" are ultimately Disney, who don't give 2 poops about the CFL or its fans other than profit motive and the desire to shape society to their goals.  Don't forget, Disney also owns ESPN, who lifted the mask years ago.

Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 11:55:17 AMbetter come out with further information and explanation real soon on this, or people are going to continue assume the worst. It already is ugly as we can see. Any delay or "well we're going to look at this" put offs are really going to blow up on them.

No kidding.  Say what you want about Ambrosie, but you never got the sense he was pushing a hidden agenda, even with his GLOB frivolity.  He just came out and told you what he was doing and why, and he was never proven a liar or sneak.

This new guy is as shifty as they come and mostly no one trusts his motives right now.  And mostly no one (on either forum) thinks this is the last of the NFL-ization.  Kinda hilarious: the one time everyone can see and feel and KNOWS the slippery slope is real... and intentional.

Some people do support the NFL-iszation, and that's a valid opinion to argue, but I would hope even they would demand transparency and full honesty about the intended direction this is going.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:00:33 PMI'm sure teams will get more timeouts with a rolling clock so they can stop it and try and get the ball back.

Then why not just say that?  Or did no one give these changes more than 5 minutes thought before the presser?  They do have a FAQ... what do they think it exists for?  Just to rehash what they already said, but in HTML?

Why didn't they just go to a game last week and stop & ask the average jersey-wearing STH.  "If we went to an auto-35s clock, what potential issues do you foresee?"  It took the fans on forums all of 30s to identify the pitfalls vis a vis the final 3 mins.

And their goal is to try to look LESS bush league??  Hahaha

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 12:31:50 PMThen why not just say that?  Or did no one give these changes more than 5 minutes thought before the presser?  They do have a FAQ... what do they think it exists for?  Just to rehash what they already said, but in HTML?

Why didn't they just go to a game last week and stop & ask the average jersey-wearing STH.  "If we went to an auto-35s clock, what potential issues do you foresee?"  It took the fans on forums all of 30s to identify the pitfalls vis a vis the final 3 mins.

And their goal is to try to look LESS bush league??  Hahaha

They said in the press conference there will be a series of other rule changes as a result of these big picture adjustments. They literally told you that.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 12:28:46 PMOstensibly Johnston and the "board" of the CFL of which every team has a member/input.

My tinfoil says the "they" are Johnston's ultimate masters who selected & arranged his placement.  My guess is, because of the chain of ownership of his previous employer, "they" are ultimately Disney, who don't give 2 poops about the CFL or its fans other than profit motive and the desire to shape society to their goals.  Don't forget, Disney also owns ESPN, who lifted the mask years ago.

No kidding.  Say what you want about Ambrosie, but you never got the sense he was pushing a hidden agenda, even with his GLOB frivolity.  He just came out and told you what he was doing and why, and he was never proven a liar or sneak.

This new guy is as shifty as they come and mostly no one trusts his motives right now.  And mostly no one (on either forum) thinks this is the last of the NFL-ization.  Kinda hilarious: the one time everyone can see and feel and KNOWS the slippery slope is real... and intentional.

Some people do support the NFL-iszation, and that's a valid opinion to argue, but I would hope even they would demand transparency and full honesty about the intended direction this is going.

How quickly they forget.

https://3downnation.com/2022/04/15/cfl-commissioner-randy-ambrosie-denies-anti-canadian-sentiment-but-sees-issues-with-current-ratio/

Its not about Ambrosie or Johnston. Its owners behind the scene that have been pushing in this direction for a while. Johnston is just the front man, and they likely went over a general review of this plan before he was hired to ensure they were all on the same page.
Doug Brown and Pete Dyakowski know the CFL, and are pretty astute (Dyakowski is actually the smartest person in Canada...look it up), and if they see this as the beginning of the end for the distinctiveness of the CFL, I am inclined to believe them.
Just like they moved the hashmarks and changed the kickoff starting points in 2022 to "increase offense", they will wait a year or two, talk about how the changes are working, but more "tweaks" are needed to increase offense further, and make the further necessary changes to bring us closer and closer to NFL rules.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 01:44:58 PMThey said in the press conference there will be a series of other rule changes as a result of these big picture adjustments. They literally told you that.

Uh, they said "we will change rules".  They didn't say anything about what rules those would be.  What they said does nothing to lift the 100% dark we are in.

We fans want DETAILS.  No, not whether they need to add 2 or 6 more timeouts, or the carveouts for the final 3 mins; but whether they anticipated a change to timeouts or 3 mins at all!  As Dr Evil says, throw us a frickin' bone man!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 01:50:51 PMUh, they said "we will change rules".  They didn't say anything about what rules those would be.  What they said does nothing to lift the 100% dark we are in.

We fans want DETAILS.  No, not whether they need to add 2 or 6 more timeouts, or the carveouts for the final 3 mins; but whether they anticipated a change to timeouts or 3 mins at all!  As Dr Evil says, throw us a frickin' bone man!

To be honest, I'd probably drip feed some of those things if it were my call. The off-season is long as the CFL needs all the help it can get from December to April.

Quote from: bunker on September 23, 2025, 01:45:37 PMHow quickly they forget.

https://3downnation.com/2022/04/15/cfl-commissioner-randy-ambrosie-denies-anti-canadian-sentiment-but-sees-issues-with-current-ratio/

But Unca Brosie was very forthcoming in that interview with actual answers to things and an actual attempt to anticipate fan angst and address it.  At least to the best of his ability within the confines of having to not blow his NDA on what he's forbidden to discuss.

And you know what, basically everything he says there came to pass and everything he said wouldn't, wouldn't.  At least not on his watch.

Ambrosie is like my grandpa (was) -- an old guy you feel has your interest at heart and understands -- because he literally was one of us, and even more so because he was a NAT player too!  Johnston is more like the sleazy used Yugo/Lada salesman cousin you have.  You just KNOW he's lying.  The misdirection and lying by omission from him is off the charts, like he straight out of Langley.

Undecided right now as with the current rules the clock is stopped after each play under 3 minutes (Q2 & Q4).  If they continue to play it out this way I would prefer it being a 20 second TC.  Running 35 without changing the amount of TOs would be a disaster, IMO.  Let's see where they go with this one, there hasn't been any mention to the final 3 minutes so far or to any TO changes.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 01:55:06 PMTo be honest, I'd probably drip feed some of those things if it were my call.

Ah, the ol'

(https://benwolf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/You-cant-handle-the-truth-meme-generator-you-want-the-truth-you-can-t-handle-the-truth-9789dd.jpg)

CFL is insulting my intelligence.

Just found: Johnston does address the details issue and acknowledges that the biggest fan issue since the announcement by far is the final 3 mins problem, in this interview I just found!

See my audio link in my new thread:
https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=56811.0

He gives no details, but he does address that this is the main fear.

Easy fix, we change things for the final 3 minutes right now, add this change to the clock:

During the final 3 minutes, the game clock does not start until 20 sec left on the 35 sec clock in the case or a play ending inbounds, or until the snap on plays ending in an incomplete pass, penalty or OB.

Pretty simple change.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:16:18 PMPretty simple change.

Ah, have you seen how incompetent the CFL clock people are?  "Please reset the game clock to ..."  <---- 10X per game.

You think these people are ambidextrous or something!?  Managing 2 clock buttons and synchronizing them with 15s offsets?  LOL

You get points for trying though!  Maybe a computer can do it all...

Teams burn 1:45 (105 seconds) plus the time to run the plays (5 seconds each?) for every 2 and out. It will affect the whole game, especially the 4th quarter when teams who are up by 2 scores will be draining the clock. I expect a lot of very slow 4th quarters.

We're going from no lead is safe to most leads are safe. 

The big difference in the 35 s clock will be in the last 3 minutes, where seconds are precious. In the current timing rules, if it is a run play and the ball stays in bounds, the game clock doesn't start until the ball has been placed for scrimmage. Under the new scenario, the clock starts immediately after the conclusion of the previous play. Assuming it takes the refs 15 seconds to get the ball back to be spotted on the ground, that time is now coming off the clock vs being held under current rules. 3 plays means 45 seconds has been rolled off the clock, whereas right now, those seconds would be on the game clock. If you only have 90 seconds left in the game when you get possession, tons of time under the current rules, you only have really 45 seconds, so LESS time to make plays when you really need them.

The proposed timing rule change will result in less scoring in the last 3 minutes and think about how many teams have come back this year to win during this time.

So we're eliminating the missed FG opportunity, so Vaval and Pimpleton would have their 3 TD's erased under the current proposal, and there would be less teams coming from behind in the final 3 minutes. Yep, those are making the game more exciting, NOT!!!

 We are being hood winked and lied to by the Commissioner and his minions!!

I would have liked the league to experiment with some of the new rules in preseason and see how it works out. If it still makes sense then implement the new rules. If it doesn't don't go ahead with it.BWISER FOR COMMISIONER!

Quote from: dd on September 23, 2025, 10:18:01 PMAssuming it takes the refs 15 seconds to get the ball back to be spotted on the ground, that time is now coming off the clock vs being held under current rules. 3 plays means 45 seconds has been rolled off the clock, whereas right now, those seconds would be on the game clock. If you only have 90 seconds left in the game when you get possession, tons of time under the current rules, you only have really 45 seconds, so LESS time to make plays when you really need them.

Good point.  Most of the focus has been on clock bleed for the team that is ahead and holds the ball.  But the other side of that, the team that's behind and has the ball, is also disadvantaged by the 35s change!

So in both (every!) scenarios the chance of a lead change(s) in the final 3 minutes has been greatly reduced.  That equals less chance of scoring/TDs.  Which directly contradicts their stated goal of "more TDs" and "more excitement".

Without tripling the time-out count each team gets, like the NFL, and allowing them to carry into the final 3, we will have the lamest end games imaginable.  There has to be a carveout for reverting to our old 20s clock in the last 3.  I don't care, Johnston, if it takes "a half hour to play the last 3 minutes", that's what we love!

Maybe you'd all be less concerned if there was a two minute warning instead of three  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Let's all hope for that.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 24, 2025, 05:27:48 PMMaybe you'd all be less concerned if there was a two minute warning instead of three  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Let's all hope for that.

(https://media.tenor.com/UPys2fcNBqEAAAAM/are-you-ok-paul-rudd.gif)

I haven't seen this explained to my satisfaction yet, but apparently there is more to this 35 second clock rule that will make it slightly more palatable.

Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 11:12:38 PMI haven't seen this explained to my satisfaction yet, but apparently there is more to this 35 second clock rule that will make it slightly more palatable.

Yes, I haven't heard from anyone that's willing to change the last 3 minutes of the halfs including Johnston, everyone realizes it's value, the details are TBD.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 12:35:51 AMYes, I haven't heard from anyone that's willing to change the last 3 minutes of the halfs including Johnston, everyone realizes it's value, the details are TBD.

Except even if we switch back to the "old way" in the last 3 mins, won't that just fluster and confuse the officials and timers?  I'm not sure I'd want to get used to doing the 35s all game then switching to a completely different mindset at the end.  I can foresee many screwups.  Plus, keeping anything of the "olds" will make people remember it and maybe miss it; Johnston wants your mind to flush all the "olds".

To Modernization, And Beyond!

In the CJME interview he seemed a bit surprised there was huge concern about the final 3 mins.  He came across as though he hadn't even thought of it before that moment!  Now THAT'S disconcerting.

Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 11:12:38 PMI haven't seen this explained to my satisfaction yet, but apparently there is more to this 35 second clock rule that will make it slightly more palatable.

You hearing something we aren't?  Share the link/source!

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 01:58:58 PMBut Unca Brosie was very forthcoming in that interview with actual answers to things and an actual attempt to anticipate fan angst and address it.  At least to the best of his ability within the confines of having to not blow his NDA on what he's forbidden to discuss.

And you know what, basically everything he says there came to pass and everything he said wouldn't, wouldn't.  At least not on his watch.

Ambrosie is like my grandpa (was) -- an old guy you feel has your interest at heart and understands -- because he literally was one of us, and even more so because he was a NAT player too!  Johnston is more like the sleazy used Yugo/Lada salesman cousin you have.  You just KNOW he's lying.  The misdirection and lying by omission from him is off the charts, like he straight out of Langley.

You are throwing a tantrum because you don't like the news that's been delivered. No one is lying to you. They very clearly stated what they're going to do through 2027. They told you in speech, then they gave you a website page AND FAQ AND video.

They believe it will lead to a more exciting game and a more profitable business. Johnson went out of his way to not lie by declining to answer questions on future rule changes that they may or may not do.

Relax.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 12:35:51 AMYes, I haven't heard from anyone that's willing to change the last 3 minutes of the halfs including Johnston, everyone realizes it's value, the details are TBD.

Was Johnston even asked about that? I can't recall. But the fact that he was unable to give a concrete answer on the three downs question makes me wonder how committed he is to anything when it comes to maintaining the unique identity of the CFL.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:02:34 PMYou are throwing a tantrum because you don't like the news that's been delivered.

Tantrum?  I don't think there's anyone else trying to logically and rationally break down the arguments and reasoning being put forth from Commish (and CFL and media) more than me.  A tantrum would be just yelling curse words and saying I'm quitting my ST.  That's not me.

And you're putting words in my mouth: I haven't yet said how I feel about each change.  Maybe a couple, as the opportunity arises.  (My only real beef is with the 110Y, to set the record straight.)

What I am miffed about is the way this is being done, the specious arguments and gaslighting utilized, and the smarmy fake way the Commish is talking about it.  And I have every right to be because it's insulting to intelligent people.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:02:34 PMNo one is lying to you. They very clearly stated what they're going to do through 2027. They told you in speech, then they gave you a website page AND FAQ AND video.

They are lying.  Lying by omission.  Because they are making people feel like the stated changes are the "big ones" and that only details remain to be hashed out.  They are failing to tell us the end goal they clearly have in mind, or the real rationale behind the changes.  I have destroyed the argument for most of them, so what are the real reasons?  That's not honesty, that's obfuscation through sophistry.

I'm glad you feel satisfied by what has been heretofore proffered.  I am not.

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:04:00 PMWas Johnston even asked about that?

He talked directly to the final-3 concerns in the CJME interview I posted a link to previously.  It's worth a listen.  He offered nothing of value other than it's the main concern people seem to have post-conference.

I am willing to try all the rule changes. Worse comes to worse we can undo them. Field alterations? This is the day the Canadian game dies. How long it will be on life support is the only question. Minor league American football here we come! Fully modernized.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 02:41:23 PMHe talked directly to the final-3 concerns in the CJME interview I posted a link to previously.  It's worth a listen.  He offered nothing of value other than it's the main concern people seem to have post-conference.

Seems like his MO as commissioner thus far.

Not even six months on the job but he acts like he knows what's best. No wonder his aggressive approach has ruffled so many feathers.

Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 02:51:22 PMI am willing to try all the rule changes. Worse comes to worse we can undo them. Field alterations?

That's the huge risk with the field alterations (100Y change), once they do it, it will be virtually impossible to undo.  Everything else can be changed back if it becomes clear the Commish is a trojan horse (he can always be ousted).  But once they've spent $1.5M each on 2 new stadium turfs (plus who knows what else on Usports/highschool fields), and/or modified or built new stadiums that no longer accommodate a 110Y field, then that ship will have sailed forever.

And that's what "they" want.  They love radical change that locks you into a whole new paradigm.  Then shift the overton window to the next completely "taboo" topics that everyone swears right now "define the Canadian game" (like 3 downs).

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:59:14 PMSeems like his MO as commissioner thus far.

Not even six months on the job but he acts like he knows what's best. No wonder his aggressive approach has ruffled so many feathers.

As a alleged "CFL fan" that didn't play the game how much understanding of the clock did Johnston have before taking on the job?  His biggest complaint of the game he mentioned was the last minute took 10 minutes to play.  To me that suggests the game was exciting and down to the wire and they weren't just wasting time, he was more concerned with getting the game over with and getting on with his busy day.

Listening to his interview on WST, the clock is not completely decided upon, except it is 35 seconds from dead ball to snap.

Presently, it is 20 after the ball is whistled in, and he said they have stats that show that it is about 15 seconds on average to whistle it in.  Makes 35 seconds.  Sometimes its whistled in in 12 seconds, sometimes in 22, so this makes it always 35, not 32 sometimes, or 42 sometimes...

Now, how tempo changes, how substitutions happen, these will be works in progress, and we will have to see how we work them out.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 02:40:07 PMTantrum?  I don't think there's anyone else trying to logically and rationally break down the arguments and reasoning being put forth from Commish (and CFL and media) more than me.  A tantrum would be just yelling curse words and saying I'm quitting my ST.  That's not me.

And you're putting words in my mouth: I haven't yet said how I feel about each change.  Maybe a couple, as the opportunity arises.  (My only real beef is with the 110Y, to set the record straight.)

What I am miffed about is the way this is being done, the specious arguments and gaslighting utilized, and the smarmy fake way the Commish is talking about it.  And I have every right to be because it's insulting to intelligent people.

They are lying.  Lying by omission.  Because they are making people feel like the stated changes are the "big ones" and that only details remain to be hashed out.  They are failing to tell us the end goal they clearly have in mind, or the real rationale behind the changes.  I have destroyed the argument for most of them, so what are the real reasons?  That's not honesty, that's obfuscation through sophistry.

I'm glad you feel satisfied by what has been heretofore proffered.  I am not.

Anybody who has any intelligence knows the reason. It's to increase revenue. So, yes making the game more entertaining should increase your customer base and increase revenues. I, personally, have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I agree with that position and fully support it. I love this league and the joy and pleasure it provides for me. Great. Win for me. But, I also realize there are people providing this for me who are not winning. I don't like that. I also hate seeing so many empty seats in the stands. I want this league to be successful. It isn't right now, and hasn't been for a long time. That has to change. 

This league also suffers from a perception problem. I think the impetus for some of these changes is to change perception. I know many like to bring up the US angle, but it's mainly right here in Canada.

So, why don't they just say these things? I can kind of understand why. Saying, "we're doing it make more money" just doesn't play well in the public domain. Just the nature of the beast. Similar thing for "we want to change the perception". How do you say 'our league isn't perceived well" without making the league and yourselves look weak?

I'm fine with the game and the rules as they are. Those things that "bug" people about them, don't bug me. Those things that make people not take the league seriously, I don't understand why. But, I do hear them. And I hear them a lot. So does the league hear them. Everybody does. That does bug me, because I know that's a big reason why those seats are empty.

So, that's my take on the real why here. Will the changes help? We'll see I guess. Does it hurt to try? Maybe. It's a big risk they're taking. In fact, they may be risking everything. But, they've made the decision and I don't think anything anybody says is going to get them to change their minds. They are all in here.

I am going to carry on supporting the league regardless. To be honest, and I know I'm going against the grain here, I am kind of excited to see how these changes play out. 

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 09:03:22 PMListening to his interview on WST, the clock is not completely decided upon, except it is 35 seconds from dead ball to snap.

Presently, it is 20 after the ball is whistled in, and he said they have stats that show that it is about 15 seconds on average to whistle it in.  Makes 35 seconds.  Sometimes its whistled in in 12 seconds, sometimes in 22, so this makes it always 35, not 32 sometimes, or 42 sometimes...

Now, how tempo changes, how substitutions happen, these will be works in progress, and we will have to see how we work them out.

He said a group will look at the last 3 minutes this off season.

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 25, 2025, 10:46:21 PMHe said a group will look at the last 3 minutes this off season.

But it would seem that all "looking into it" will be within the strict confines of the 35s play clock.  Can they keep the existing 3 min excitement with that new limitation?  That's the big question.

I, for one, would like assurances (promises!) that the CFL will NOT have spiking the ball or the speed of the keystone cops refs running the ball up for the next play deciding outcomes.  To me those are the stupidest parts of the NFL, even dumber than the fair catch.

He could very easily come out today and provide those assurances, even if the only way to achieve them is to switch back to the old 20s rules in the last 3 mins.

Quote from: bomb squad on September 25, 2025, 10:22:50 PMI am going to carry on supporting the league regardless. To be honest, and I know I'm going against the grain here, I am kind of excited to see how these changes play out.

A very well-reasoned and welcome post.

You make a good point that "more O / TDs" may be a bit of a misdirection.  Currently it's laid out as THE main argument, and most of my counter-arguments attack on the basis of that -- because almost all the "more O" changes have many other, less drastic and alienating, solutions.

If you are correct, and the main goal is perception, to stop being the laughing stock they say we are with "the kids these days", then a lot of things start to make sense.  Now, you can argue if the changes (or, really, anything) can help with youth "perception"; but maybe they truly believe they will.

On the basis of perception, what they have chosen to change are the most visible differences of the CFL: the ones a new viewer would instantly notice on TV.  And what they've chosen to ignore (for now) are the ones that are not as visible unless you're a hardcore football fan.

By that logic, the problem wasn't the 110Y field, the problem was the big 55 printed at center field.  No one watching on TV will notice a longer field, but they instantly see that 55.  There's one visible mocking-target eliminated.  Funny, but they could have achieved this by keeping the field 110Y, but making the yard markers an arbitrary slightly-bigger-than-1Y so that the C is labelled 50.  No one on TV would know our "yard" was really 1.1Y.  Fix the perception, keep the 110Y fans happy.  Of course, then the 1st down sticks would have to be 9 "yards" away, not 10...

The other visibly sore thumb is the posts.  Instantly noticeable on TV.  No solution to that other than to move them to match the NFL.  Not much way around that.  But the post moves is not really anyone's main beef, except that we'll miss the returns.

And even the EZ size change fits with the perception mantra.  20Y might be too hard to hide as "NFL normal", but 15Y probably looks pretty darn similar on TV to all but the most hardcore fans.

And the stuff they left alone are the things that are NOT noticeable.  12 men: unless you're doing counts for TMM, no one can eyeball count that, so no perception issue.  Wide field: with all the close-up shots TSN focuses on, it also is not noticeable.  Unlimited motion: noticeable but only hardcore fans know about the NFL motion rules: as there IS motion, just by 1 guy.  So not a perception problem.  1 yard off: unless it's a down-the-line shot (which we don't get enough of) it's also hard to tell if you're a casual viewer.

That leaves 3 downs.  But that's not visible on the field.  Only when they are kicking and the chyron says "3rd down" might someone perceive a difference.

So maybe you're onto something.  Then the argument shifts to whether perception really is keeping away the young'ns.  That remains to be seen.  It also means that success in 1-2 years cannot be measured in "more TDs" or "more excitement".  Success MUST be measured in more-young-butts-in-seats.

And if there's something to all of this, I still think doing the 'Brosie approach of just plainly telling it like it is would have been better.  Why worm & weasel your way around it?  It also means that the next casualty of beloved rules & norms will be what is the next-most visible on TV.  To me that's the 1 yard off, then motion, then 3 downs.  Scary thoughts...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 26, 2025, 09:24:22 AMBut it would seem that all "looking into it" will be within the strict confines of the 35s play clock.  Can they keep the existing 3 min excitement with that new limitation?  That's the big question.

I, for one, would like assurances (promises!) that the CFL will NOT have spiking the ball or the speed of the keystone cops refs running the ball up for the next play deciding outcomes.  To me those are the stupidest parts of the NFL, even dumber than the fair catch.

He could very easily come out today and provide those assurances, even if the only way to achieve them is to switch back to the old 20s rules in the last 3 mins.

Here's a thought.

Field dimensions, goal posts, these were not items that required input from players / coaches.  They do not really affect game play except make things easier for coaches and players.  Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

The rouge, that's an easy thing to define and change, and again, once the dimensions change, it makes sense, and the rule change doesn't have a lot of wiggle room in there.  So making the change didn't really need consultation.

But, on the clock, they did not give a definitive answer other than 35seconds from dead ball instead of 20 from spot.  Effort to standardize regardless of which crew is officiating.

As to how it is handled inside 3 minutes, it sound like a LOT of consultation and conversation is going to go on before that is decided.  Coaches and players and possibly even fans will be involved.  And rightfully so, it does change one of the real distinguishing points of the game, and something that makes our game exciting.

So I agree with the way the changes have been laid out, and applaud the BOG for recognizing that the clock issue needed to happen, but that there was work to be done in making it the best fit for the game.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 05:51:45 PMAs to how it is handled inside 3 minutes, it sound like a LOT of consultation and conversation is going to go on before that is decided.  Coaches and players and possibly even fans will be involved.  And rightfully so, it does change one of the real distinguishing points of the game, and something that makes our game exciting.

Well, they don't need fan input.  All we want is "just don't ruin it".  The only thing to figure out is how do you not ruin it with a 35s clock?

And the answer to that may tell us a lot in terms of whether the end goal is to go full-NFL or not -- whether Commish is a liar or not.  If they come out of this adding a ton more timeouts (like the NFL) to "solve the problem" then we'll have an answer to this question.

There is no need for the 35 s clock, none. The way we time games makes perfect sense, leave well enough alone.

Quote from: dd on September 27, 2025, 02:27:32 AMThere is no need for the 35 s clock, none. The way we time games makes perfect sense, leave well enough alone.

I actually like the new 35 clock (except for using it in the last few minutes of each half)

Watch during the Bombers game tomorrow, they are masters at running the clock down between plays.

The new clock will speed up play and will add 5-10 more plays to a game.

To call johnson a liar, with nothing but conjecture is out of line.
Heres my take, the board of governors wanted changes, status quo on a league that us seeing its fan base diminish was not acceptable.
 Johnsons approach was to look at what he could take from the successful nfl to add entertainment value.
Could he have looked at other ideas,sure and he still should. Migrating some best practices within the league such as concerts, the stampede bowl etc.
 Can also take ideas from the usfl such as how they are more visible with replay/command center calls.
A year from now You might be able to say I told you so we'll see

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 27, 2025, 03:33:37 AMI actually like the new 35 clock (except for using it in the last few minutes of each half)

Watch during the Bombers game tomorrow, they are masters at running the clock down between plays.

The new clock will speed up play and will add 5-10 more plays to a game.

Wonder if the 35 sec. clock will push the refs. to forego the little conferences they hold to sort out what each one saw and just move on with the original call.  I'll take the right call over the fast call every time.

In a sense the league might be trying to push the officials to be more productive.

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 27, 2025, 03:33:37 AMI actually like the new 35 clock (except for using it in the last few minutes of each half)

Watch during the Bombers game tomorrow, they are masters at running the clock down between plays.

The new clock will speed up play and will add 5-10 more plays to a game.

I just don't see the NEED for the change. Right now the officials control the pace of the game, the ball is spotted and the chain gang is set, then you blow the play in. It makes total sense. The new rule will result in the officials, especially the chain gang and downsbox, will be racing down the field to get the chains setup on a long pass. Why do that?? Why create chaos?? The nfl takes 40 seconds and they have a narrower field. We re supposed to do it 5 seconds quicker with a 10 yd wider field?? they haven't  done the math yet, it doesn't make any sense.

I just see teams and officials making more mistakes, so the quality of play will suffer, the way we do it now makes total sense

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 27, 2025, 03:33:37 AMI actually like the new 35 clock (except for using it in the last few minutes of each half)

Everyone likes the end goal of a snappier pace and/or more plays, my beef is that the 35s idea is not the only way to achieve this.  And the 35s idea is what has the potential to ruin the final 3.  It would seem pretty clear they just can't throw away the 35s idea come the 3 min warning.  Therefore it'll be 35s after the warning PLUS some stupid, mishmashed mitigations they come up with to save face.  Like 6 TOs per team per game.

How many other ideas could have been dreamed up by players, coaches, fans?  Like my "soft 35s clock" idea.  Or stricter rules on player sub timing.

Once again it's a case of the Commish jumping to the MOST DRASTIC solution possible to solve the ostensible problem.  (Unless said problems are merely red herrings, and the "solutions" are the real goals.)

Quote from: dd on September 27, 2025, 04:31:45 AMI just see teams and officials making more mistakes, so the quality of play will suffer, the way we do it now makes total sense

Ya, the first few weeks will be total keystone cops.  And how many more too-many-men penalties are going to occur?  I'd guess quadruple.  What if the keystone and TMM continue and don't go down as the season progresses?  You want to talk about Bush League looking on TV!

Remember, the D still needs time to see what the O has decided for personnel scheme.  It's going to be tight getting your D subs in.

Quote from: Pete on September 27, 2025, 04:04:15 AMTo call johnson a liar, with nothing but conjecture is out of line.
Heres my take, the board of governors wanted changes, status quo on a league that us seeing its fan base diminish was not acceptable.
 Johnsons approach was to look at what he could take from the successful nfl to add entertainment value.
Could he have looked at other ideas,sure and he still should. Migrating some best practices within the league such as concerts, the stampede bowl etc.
 Can also take ideas from the usfl such as how they are more visible with replay/command center calls.
A year from now You might be able to say I told you so we'll see

Not at all.

We have quotes from Wally Buono, who's has been hired on as a consultant for multiple teams since he retired. He repeatedly says that if he was commish, American expansion would be his number one priority.

We have quotes from Stew from back when he was with TSN saying the CFL should go to 4 downs.

We have the former TSN prez immediately installing changes that affect how the game looks on TV and making it fit better in American made stadiums. There are no other reasons to make the changes they did.

The changes they did decide to make, which will cost a fortune, need to be installed before the next TSN contract is up.

Despite massive debate across the league from fans, players, coaches, and media; TSN employees are for some reason in lock step in favour of the changes.

Quote from: Pete on September 27, 2025, 04:04:15 AMTo call johnson a liar, with nothing but conjecture is out of line.

Did you clutch your invisible pearls when you typed that?

What's out of line is making a bunch of unjustified, expensive changes that won't improve the game or increase revenue.

Stewart Johnston isn't the victim.

"Not ruining it with the 35 second clock" is the key.

The games have different paces depending on the crew, that is a fact.  Could you achieve the same by training the crews better?  Probably.  Put one of those restaurant beepers in the ref's pocket that goes off 15 seconds after the dead ball to remind him to get his butt moving.  Instead of a 35 second clock, make it a 15 second clock until the 20 second clock starts.  Give the crew 15 seconds to get the ball placed.  Like the pitch clock in MLB.

If the game clock is starting with the 35 second clock, then it takes plays off the total, because you can lose 15 seconds a play downed inbounds.  You still don't lose anything on the OB or INC plays. 

It could trim a few minutes off the game time, but nothing really difference making.  But it will quicken the pace with some crews (might actually slow it with others). 

In consultation with the refs and coaches, I could see it being tossed out, especially if they are going to have to make other adjustments (more timeouts, changes inside 3 min) to make it work, and settle on just better training that will improve the issue as we move the older crews/refs out.