2022 Rule Changes

[ModAdmin]

From the League...

Here are some of the major changes, along with the rationale for each one:

Change: Hash Marks on CFL fields will be moved closer to centre field. Each one will be 28 yards from the nearest sideline, instead of 24 yards. As a result, they will be nine yards apart instead of 17 yards apart.

"Moving the ball closer to centre will encourage teams to use the entire field and their entire playbooks," Ambrosie said.

"Our football leaders told us the current hash marks too often had the effect of taking the 12th man on the field - the receiver on the far side - out of the play. A throw to him was consistently seen as too risky. And that, in turn, was diluting the impact of our huge field, which is perhaps the most unique thing about Canadian football."

Canadian football features 12 players per side and its field (110 yards long and 65 yards wide, with 20-yard end zones) measures 87,750 square feet. US football has 11 players per side and its field (100 yards long and 53.3 yards wide, with 10-yard end zones) is roughly 57,564 square feet. If CFL defences have to protect the entire field and be mindful of every offensive player, there is a lot of potential open space for offences to take advantage of: 7,313 square feet per player in Canada, compared to 5,233 square feet per player in the US.

Change: Offences will get more of a head start. After a made field goal or single point, drives will start from the 40-yard line, instead of the 35-yard line. Teams kicking off for any reason will do so from their 30-yard line instead of the 35-yard line. The only exception is kickoffs following a safety: they will now occur from the 20-yard line instead of the 25-yard line.

"These changes should mean improved field position for the start of offensive series, and that should contribute to more scoring and more sustained drives, which makes for better game flow," Ambrosie said.

"We know offences starting in the shadows of their own goalposts are bound to be more conservative in their play calling, while good field position gives offences more options. Plus, moving the kickoff following a safety back five yards may discourage coaches from choosing to surrender a safety to protect field position. Having a player take a knee in the end zone may be perceived as strategic but it is anything but exciting to watch."

Change: Strategies to limit opportunities for kick returns will be discouraged more severely. All no yards penalties - which are assigned when the cover team invades a five-yard halo around the returner as he fields a punt - will be 15 yards. Previously, a no yards penalty was 15 yards only if the ball had been fielded in the air - and only five yards if the punt had bounced. Also, any punt that sails out of bounds before it reaches an opponent's 15-yard line will be assigned a penalty - instead of only punts that sail out of bounds before they reach the 20-yard line.

"Our coaches, general managers and team presidents all agreed that the kick return is an exciting and essential part of the Canadian game," Ambrosie said.

"When teams purposely commit an infraction to prevent any return, it takes away some of the excitement of our game, and it creates a stoppage in play while the penalty is assessed. We wanted to address that."

Some of the changes are incremental, he acknowledged, but Ambrosie said this will allow the league to monitor the results and consider further changes in the future if they are needed or are deemed beneficial.

"I want to thank Greg Dick, our Chief Football Operations Officer, and Darren Hackwood, our Associate Vice-President, Officiating, for leading a very thorough and effective process, our coaches, general managers and presidents for contributing tremendous insight, our governors for their support, and our fans for sharing their views in our market research and during my road trip across the country. Finally, my gratitude goes to our players who participated through their players' association."

Other changes include:

Change: Two quarterbacks will be allowed on the field at the same time, provided all other ratio rules are satisfied, which will allow for some additional imaginative play calling.

Change: A "communications co-ordinator" from the officiating department, connected to the on-field officials via headset communication, will be imbedded on each team's bench. This will allow information to be shared with coaches without requiring the referee to approach the sidelines, improving game flow. This will also make it easier for coaches to alert the officiating crew that they are initiating a timeout or a challenge.

Change: To also keep a game moving, a penalty that occurs at the end of the first or third quarter will be assigned at the start of the next quarter, rather than triggering an extension of the quarter. The non-offending team could still insist the penalty be imposed within the quarter if there is a clear advantage, such as wanting to keep the wind behind it for a crucial kick.

Change: The circumstances under which the Command Centre is allowed to help on-field officials - without a coach's challenge or an officials' huddle ? will be expanded to include possession rulings, boundary rulings and administrative rules such as a formation without an end or ineligible receivers downfield. This is designed to allow the Command Centre to get in front of a coach's challenge where an obvious outcome is known, improving the flow of the game. It is to occur via headset communication and without stopping the game.

Change: Introduction of a new objectionable conduct penalty for quarterbacks who "fake" giving themselves up by pretending to initiate a slide while carrying the football. The ball would also be spotted where the fake occurred. The safety of all quarterbacks is jeopardized when measures to protect them are instead used to gain an advantage.

Change: Automatic ejection of any player guilty of two unnecessary roughness penalties or two objectionable conduct penalties (or a combination of two UR and OC penalties) for infractions that occur following a play. This will discourage the type of conduct that can threaten player safety and disrupt game flow.

"With training camps scheduled to open in just three weeks, we're looking forward to a full season of great CFL football," Ambrosie said. "Throughout the year, we will be measuring the impact of these changes on the fun, excitement and speed of our game. We have great fans and we want more of them. We have great players and want to showcase their talents. A great product is job one as we work together to grow our league."

https://www.cfl.ca/2022/04/27/rule-changes-build-on-strengths-of-the-cfl-game/

[theaardvark]

Love all these changes... 

One interesting one, the 2 QB's rule, means there will be 2 players with headsets on the field... is there an additional advantage there? 

[Pete]

Really like the changes, moving kickoffs 5 yards back may make the kickoff returners role even more important and also ensuring you have a strong backup option.
The 2 qb option is intriguing, could you imagine having Streveler and Collaris in the same backfield? Realisticly don't think it will come into play much unless you have a backup that has great running ability, or has great hands like SInopoly

[Jesse]

I hate starting from the 40 - artificially trhing to create offence - might as well just change the field size if you're not going to let teams use the whole field.

The others seem reasonable.

[TBURGESS]

A bunch of changes to promote offense & give the command center more power.

I'm not really for or against any of the changes.

[Jockitch]

Don't care for the kickoff change or the 15 yard penalty for "no yards"

Love the Hash Mark move & the communication headset on each bench

[Pete]

A bunch of changes to promote offense & give the command center more power.

I'm not really for or against any of the changes.

Not sure about giving the command center more power, might just backfire and disrupt the flow of the game  I prefer the way it is now with coaches having limited challenges. Many times calling games tighter just results in slow moving pace.

[Blue In BC]

Love all these changes... 

One interesting one, the 2 QB's rule, means there will be 2 players with headsets on the field... is there an additional advantage there? 

Some posters wanted QB's to be able to play other positions and this accomplishes that.

What will this mean in actual games? It means another player would have to come off such as a receiver. Most QB's aren't going to be better than a starting receiver or import RB.

Will have to see who uses it and how or why.  " Imaginative " play calling?  Defences will be on the look out if a 2nd QB drops back to receive a lateral pass behind the LOS. Weren't they doing that anyway?

Don't really think this adds much besides the chance to have 2 QB's injured in one play.  You still only get 12 players on the field.

We should start a poll to see how many times we think we see this during the season.  Will watch to see if some teams rosters an actual RB and call him a QB.

[theaardvark]

Not sure about giving the command center more power, might just backfire and disrupt the flow of the game  I prefer the way it is now with coaches having limited challenges. Many times calling games tighter just results in slow moving pace.

Watching the USFL games, getting the command centre more involved doesn't seem too bad...

[Blue In BC]

Just figured out the loophole that a couple of teams could use to gain an extra DI as a result of the QB rule Not another DI by classification but subterfuge. There are 3 teams that might have a Canadian QB on their roster.

EXAMPLE: The Lions will start an import at RB and they probably roster 2 Canadian QB's.

Designate their starting RB as a QB and O'Conner ( # 2 actual QB ) as a receiver.  By rule any player can play QB whether he's designated a QB or not. That would allow a team with a Canadian back up at QB to add another import RB for example and still maintain the starting ratio and the overall roster ratio. Note that QB's are not included in the overall roster ratio which is something some posters wanted.

Nothing suggests a team can't have a 2nd QB on every offensive play. Implementing what I suggested doesn't break that rule change. It might be not what was intended. It might be unethical but go ahead and explain how it doesn't comply with the new rule?

[TecnoGenius]

Overall, mostly good or neutral.  Nothing horrible here.  So I guess we dodged some major (4-down) bullets.  So this is a win.

It sure is going to be hard to spot 1st downs outside the hashes.  If the ball is blown dead at the median point between the rail and hash, it's going to be hard to eyeball if 1st was gained.  Expect more measurements, which will slow the game down.  Why can't they draw mini-hashes at that point that are just used for yard eyeballing?  It's all going to look very strange when we see it in PS.

Return halo: well and good, but they should have also upped the penalty for "hovering" or "kick return interference" or whatever it's called to 20 or 25 yards.  And I still think intentional halo-busting to hellacious-hit the returner (yes, rarely seen) should be 25.

Change:[/b] To also keep a game moving, a penalty that occurs at the end of the first or third quarter will be assigned at the start of the next quarter, rather than triggering an extension of the quarter. The non-offending team could still insist the penalty be imposed within the quarter if there is a clear advantage, such as wanting to keep the wind behind it for a crucial kick.

I hope they actually defined "clear advantage" as ambiguous language will be taken advantage of.  I always liked the "can't end on a penalty" rule, though it probably drove TSN mad.  If there's wind, then you could argue that any O snap with the wind is an important advantage.

Yes, "to keep a game moving" is basically a lie.  This is solely to "keep the TV broadcast moving".  Sure, that might be just as important, but don't obfuscate it: just say it.

Change: Introduction of a new objectionable conduct penalty for quarterbacks who "fake" giving themselves up by pretending to initiate a slide while carrying the football. The ball would also be spotted where the fake occurred. The safety of all quarterbacks is jeopardized when measures to protect them are instead used to gain an advantage.

Uh, I watch every CFL game, always, and I have never seen a QB do this.  Is this a thing??  They sure fake-throw a lot, but I've never seen a fake slide or dive.  Is this open to interpretation?  Potential quagmire.  (Unrelated P.S. Yes, Cody was over the LoS in '19 WDF.)

Change: Automatic ejection of any player guilty of two unnecessary roughness penalties or two objectionable conduct penalties (or a combination of two UR and OC penalties)

There goes Duron Carter!! 

[TecnoGenius]

Watching the USFL games, getting the command centre more involved doesn't seem too bad...

Yes, AAF, XFL, USFL all did this and they all had much more command transparency like showing them watching the vids, hearing what they are debating, listening to the refs reporting, etc.  Phantom calls from the sky without transparency may make things worse as it can look "rigged".  CFL should open up command with mics and cameras just like the startup leagues do.  Every iffy call should have the rationale explained at the time, not 3 days after the game.

[TecnoGenius]

Designate their starting RB as a QB and O'Conner ( # 2 actual QB ) as a receiver.  By rule any player can play QB whether he's designated a QB or not. That would allow a team with a Canadian back up at QB to add another import RB for example and still maintain the starting ratio and the overall roster ratio. Note that QB's are not included in the overall roster ratio which is something some posters wanted.

Ya, but what does that buy you really?  I guess a free DI, but now you're stuck with a NAT starter at that receiver spot.  So that only helps you if you have a real, great NAT WR you can put in for most of the snaps.  Is that your intention?  Roster QB#2 as a starter but he never actually takes a snap?  Is that legal?

If BC does this, I would expect Ambrosie to clamp it down real darn quick.  He may be many things, but he doesn't put up with guff that hurts the league.

[TBURGESS]

Just figured out the loophole that a couple of teams could use to gain an extra DI as a result of the QB rule Not another DI by classification but subterfuge. There are 3 teams that might have a Canadian QB on their roster.

EXAMPLE: The Lions will start an import at RB and they probably roster 2 Canadian QB's.

Designate their starting RB as a QB and O'Conner ( # 2 actual QB ) as a receiver.  By rule any player can play QB whether he's designated a QB or not. That would allow a team with a Canadian back up at QB to add another import RB for example and still maintain the starting ratio and the overall roster ratio. Note that QB's are not included in the overall roster ratio which is something some posters wanted.

Nothing suggests a team can't have a 2nd QB on every offensive play. Implementing what I suggested doesn't break that rule change. It might be not what was intended. It might be unethical but go ahead and explain how it doesn't comply with the new rule?

Which rule states that any player can play QB? Current rules state that one QB or Kicker must be on the field for every offensive play & 2 players are designated as QB's. QB1 goes down. QB2 or a kicker must come in. QB2 goes down and a player designated as the 3rd QB comes in. (I've never been able to find a rule that allows this, but I've seen it done.)

In your example: QB1 goes down. QB2/Rec takes the QB spot, and RB must stay on the field.

It doesn't matter tho. If QB1 and QB2 are both Canadian, they take an NI spot. There is no 'extra' import in either situation so no advantage to calling QB2 a receiver.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I like all the rules except starting at the 40 yard line after a field goal. The 35 already seemed generous enough. It might even be significant enough that teams go for six at 10-15 and inside. It might be better off to safeguard that field position than to score 3 and let them go right out to the 40. It really, really punishes kickers for missing too. Miss a field goal and you get 1 point and it's already out near mid-field. Yikes.

[Blue In BC]

Which rule states that any player can play QB? Current rules state that one QB or Kicker must be on the field for every offensive play & 2 players are designated as QB's. QB1 goes down. QB2 or a kicker must come in. QB2 goes down and a player designated as the 3rd QB comes in. (I've never been able to find a rule that allows this, but I've seen it done.)

In your example: QB1 goes down. QB2/Rec takes the QB spot, and RB must stay on the field.

It doesn't matter tho. If QB1 and QB2 are both Canadian, they take an NI spot. There is no 'extra' import in either situation so no advantage to calling QB2 a receiver.

Wildcat formation describes a formation for the offense in football in which the ball is snapped not to the quarterback but directly to a player of another position lined up at the quarterback position. (In most systems, this is a running back, but some playbooks have the wide receiver, fullback, or tight end taking the snap.) The Wildcat features an unbalanced offensive line and looks to the defense like a sweep behind zone blocking. A player moves across the formation prior to the snap. However, once this player crosses the position of the running back who will receive the snap, the play develops unlike the sweep.


In my example, you could classify a player expected to be a RB as a QB. The new rule allows 2 QB's on the field at the same time. Further if the # 1 QB goes down the # 2 QB enters to play QB, however the rule doesn't state you HAVE to have 2 QB's on the field at one time. It only states you can have 2 QB's on the field at one time. A RB designated as a QB would still be on the field. He could also take a direct snap and / or throw a pass.

Canadian QB's do NOT TAKE a NI spot. As a starter they count against the 7 starters. Imports are restricted up to and including DI's. QB's are still a separate classification.

A team with 2 Canadian QB's would have 16 starting imports and 4 DI's = 20. A team with 2 import QB's would have 17 starting imports, 1 back up QB and 4 DI's = 22 Now if the # 2 Canadian QB is actually designated as a receiver, he could /  would in fact just be counted in the total count of NI's. That said you can roster more than the minimum requirement.

That's the loophole. The exclusion of QB's in the total context of the roster but counted in the ratio if they are starters. I spelt it out as clearly as I could.

[Zach Schnitzer]

Hashmark rules on paper will make offences better. But a team insider told me receivers are cautious to say that as the hashes are the main reference point for route running Eg when you hit the hash you slant etc.  also, I guarantee Richie and his staff are already finding ways to counter it and or plan for it.

[TecnoGenius]

Hashmark rules on paper will make offences better. But a team insider told me receivers are cautious to say that as the hashes are the main reference point for route running Eg when you hit the hash you slant etc.  also, I guarantee Richie and his staff are already finding ways to counter it and or plan for it.

At the very least 2022 kickers don't have the "muh hash marks made me miss" excuse anymore!!   

[TecnoGenius]

I like all the rules except starting at the 40 yard line after a field goal. The 35 already seemed generous enough. It might even be significant enough that teams go for six at 10-15 and inside. It might be better off to safeguard that field position than to score 3 and let them go right out to the 40. It really, really punishes kickers for missing too. Miss a field goal and you get 1 point and it's already out near mid-field. Yikes.

Good point.  It has a similar effect as my reduced-FG-points-as-you-get-closer idea: entices more teams to gamble on 3rd.  If your O had an unfavorable strong wind (i.e. like the GC) and you were in the green zone, Making the opponent start on the 10 might be a better choice than going for 3 and they get to start on the 40.  Maybe...

But as a trick to improve O, the new rule makes sense.  They always show those stats that TDs are directly proportional to series starting point.

[TecnoGenius]

15 yard coffin corner: Forgot to discuss this one... this is a big change.  A 15 yard target in the air is going to be much harder to hit.  Even Meddy might have a hard time doing this consistently.  It's going to take some real skill and practice by the punters for teams to have confidence to even try.  I bet many won't.

So, will this really help generate more O / points?  If the kicker misses short (between the 15's) then ya, this helps the O.  Is it a 15 yard penalty or 10?  But kickers will probably err on the side of the EZ, meaning there will be more singles scored.  Doesn't a single on a punt bring it out to the 25??  How is that going to help O's?  So many already hate the single on a punt, and this seems like it'll increase singles.

Now, if teams basically abandon the coffin attempt, then yes, this may improve O if the returners can make hay.  We'll have to see.

[Blue In BC]

I think the intent on a punt single would be the same as a missed FG. Ball will come out to the 40 yard line.

[TBURGESS]

Wildcat formation describes a formation for the offense in football in which the ball is snapped not to the quarterback but directly to a player of another position lined up at the quarterback position. (In most systems, this is a running back, but some playbooks have the wide receiver, fullback, or tight end taking the snap.) The Wildcat features an unbalanced offensive line and looks to the defense like a sweep behind zone blocking. A player moves across the formation prior to the snap. However, once this player crosses the position of the running back who will receive the snap, the play develops unlike the sweep.


In my example, you could classify a player expected to be a RB as a QB. The new rule allows 2 QB's on the field at the same time. Further if the # 1 QB goes down the # 2 QB enters to play QB, however the rule doesn't state you HAVE to have 2 QB's on the field at one time. It only states you can have 2 QB's on the field at one time. A RB designated as a QB would still be on the field. He could also take a direct snap and / or throw a pass.

Canadian QB's do NOT TAKE a NI spot. As a starter they count against the 7 starters. Imports are restricted up to and including DI's. QB's are still a separate classification.

A team with 2 Canadian QB's would have 16 starting imports and 4 DI's = 20. A team with 2 import QB's would have 17 starting imports, 1 back up QB and 4 DI's = 22 Now if the # 2 Canadian QB is actually designated as a receiver, he could /  would in fact just be counted in the total count of NI's. That said you can roster more than the minimum requirement.

That's the loophole. The exclusion of QB's in the total context of the roster but counted in the ratio if they are starters. I spelt it out as clearly as I could.

Of the 46 players named to the roster, each team may dress an active roster of 45 players, broken down as follows:

    Maximum of 2 QBs (no designation)
    Maximum of 20 American players (4 of which must be identified as designated Americans)
    Minimum of 21 National players
    Minimum of 2 Global players
...
Of the 24 starters on a team, a minimum of seven starters will be nationals players. When applied to a starting roster of a team it breaks down as follows (when using the minimum number of national players):

    1 QB
    16 American players
    7 starting national players

Article 5 ? Designated Quarterback

Prior to the game, a team is required to designate two players who shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the Quarterback position exclusively. Not more than one such player may be in the game at any time and neither of them can enter the game as a member of Team B.
PENALTY: L25 PLS DR or L25 PBD or option.

NOTE: For the purposes of this Article 5, the duties of the Quarterback position may include punting, place kicking and kicking off.

NOTE: A team is required to have one designated quarterback or kicker on the field for each of its offensive plays.

If the starting QB is a NI, then he is one of the 7 starting NI's, which would mean a 17th American starter. To me, that's taking up 1 NI spot.

If both QB's are Canadian, one would be a starter the other just a QB because they are still outside of the ratio rules.

Calling QB2 a RB and a RB QB2 doesn't change the number of starting NI's (7), but I now understand how it creates an extra DI.

If teams do that, then they might as well put QB's in the same ratio as everyone else, like I've been saying all off season.

Lastly, can we bring Streveler back as RB/QB2. He's worth even more since the rule change.

[The Fresh Prince Of Belair, MB]

Uh, I watch every CFL game, always, and I have never seen a QB do this.  Is this a thing??  They sure fake-throw a lot, but I've never seen a fake slide or dive.  Is this open to interpretation?  Potential quagmire.

This guy ruined it for everyone:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bb0n4pNwBw
Banned in the NCAA too.

[Blue In BC]

If the starting QB is a NI, then he is one of the 7 starting NI's, which would mean a 17th American starter. To me, that's taking up 1 NI spot.

If both QB's are Canadian, one would be a starter the other just a QB because they are still outside of the ratio rules.

Calling QB2 a RB and a RB QB2 doesn't change the number of starting NI's (7), but I now understand how it creates an extra DI.

If teams do that, then they might as well put QB's in the same ratio as everyone else, like I've been saying all off season.

Lastly, can we bring Streveler back as RB/QB2. He's worth even more since the rule change.

An import QB is one of the 17 import starters. So having a Canadian QB doesn't change the number of import starters. It only changes where they line up. So no, it doesn't take up a NI spot specifically. The balance is still the same.

Technically I think the " extra " import wouldn't be an extra DI. He'd be a non starting import that could rotate in at any time for another import.

Putting the QB's in the same ratio has been discussed a lot in other strings and I have stood against that idea. At least unless there is further clarification.

My point was that you need to accommodate how that is implemented in the total ratio. Most teams will have 2 import QB's. Does that mean we add 2 imports to the total allowed on the roster?

For a team like the Lions with 2 potential Canadian QB's they'd be allowed to add 2 more imports which would be non starting. However that would be a little like giving them 2 additional DI's.

If you do that, it directly reduces the roster by 2 Canadians since the current ratio has a separate classification for QB's inside the ratio.

Obviously only a few teams are going to have a Canadian QB let alone 2.

[Blue In BC]

Tburgess: You quoted this. I noticed it states minimum 2 global players. In 2021 teams had the option of a 2nd global or a Canadian. We had a mixed bag where some teams used 2 globals most games and others like the Bombers used only 1 most games. Is this NEW? Even the word minimum is suspicious. I see that info copied directly from Google today.

Of the 46 players named to the roster, each team may dress an active roster of 45 players, broken down as follows:

    Maximum of 2 QBs (no designation)
    Maximum of 20 American players (4 of which must be identified as designated Americans)
    Minimum of 21 National players
    Minimum of 2 Global players


I still don't understand why teams can't dress the 46th player. In theory he'd have to be a Canadian to meet the ratio. But he travels with the team to road games and he gets full salary.

Another option is that if the player is an import, he could dress but could only play if another import is removed permanently from that game. That would be necessary to meet the the ratio issue.

Example: In 2021 let's say Hardrick was questionable to start or play an entire game. The 46th player could have been an import OL activated from the PR. If Hardrick goes down, then a choice is made to start that extra import OL and remove Hardrick from participating again in that game.

That seems a bit more of a slippery slope. I'd just prefer making the # 46 player a Canadian and having him actually on the game day roster and playing as needed. That would be a non issue on the ratio and give another Canadian a direct chance to get some playing time.

[TBURGESS]

An import QB is one of the 17 import starters. So having a Canadian QB doesn't change the number of import starters. It only changes where they line up. So no, it doesn't take up a NI spot. The balance is still the same.

Technically I think the " extra " import wouldn't be an extra DI. He'd be a non starting import that could rotate in at any time for another import.

Putting the QB's in the same ratio has been discussed a lot in other strings and I have stood against that idea. At least unless there is further clarification.

My point was that you need to accommodate how that is implemented in the total ratio. Most teams will have 2 import QB's. Does that mean we add 2 imports to the total allowed on the roster?

For a team like the Lions with 2 potential Canadian QB's they'd be allowed to add 2 more imports which would be non starting. However that would be a little like giving them 2 additional DI's.

If you do that, it directly reduces the roster by 2 Canadians since the current ratio has a separate classification for QB's inside the ratio.

Obviously only a few teams are going to have a Canadian QB let alone 2.

Didn't they change the rule a year or two ago to allow a Canadian QB to be designated as a NI? That would make him one of the 7 NI starters.

A DI is an Import who can come in for any starting Import but can't start. That's what you'd be 'creating'.

BC could have two additional DI's. They pay for them with their 2 NI QB's.

Calling a Canuck a Canuck doesn't reduce the number of Canadian's on the roster. It makes all Canadian's the same ratio wise.

I think the 46th player should be on the game day roster and should be a Canadian, but that change wasn't made.

[Blue In BC]

Didn't they change the rule a year or two ago to allow a Canadian QB to be designated as a NI? That would make him one of the 7 NI starters.

A DI is an Import who can come in for any starting Import but can't start. That's what you'd be 'creating'.

BC could have two additional DI's. They pay for them with their 2 NI QB's.

Calling a Canuck a Canuck doesn't reduce the number of Canadian's on the roster. It makes all Canadian's the same ratio wise.

Nope and nope.  The change made was to allow a starting Canadian QB to be included in the starting 7 but not part of the 21 on the roster. Even your quote shows 2 QB's no designation + 21 Canadians.

The minimum number of Canadians is 21. Canadian QB's are not currently part of that count whether he is a starter or not. In the case of the Lions, they will end up with 23 Canadians instead of 21.

I think you're getting lost in the specific interpretation of the QB designation. Technically you're correct that the number of imports would be a constant in your example. It does reduce the number of Canadians in total under the current QB designation which I feel is the current ratio intent.

[TBURGESS]

Nope and nope.  The change made was to allow a starting Canadian QB to be included in the starting 7 but not part of the 21 on the roster. Even your quote shows 2 QB's no designation + 21 Canadians.

The minimum number of Canadians is 21. Canadian QB's are not currently part of that count whether he is a starter or not. In the case of the Lions, they will end up with 23 Canadians instead of 21.

I think you're getting lost in the specific interpretation of the QB designation. Technically you're correct that the number of imports would be a constant in your example. It does reduce the number of Canadians in total under the current QB designation which I feel is the current ratio intent.

As I understand it:

There are a maximum of 20 American players + 2 QB's.

If 2 IMP QB's, then 22 IMP. (Maximized # of IMP)
If 1 NI & 1 IMP QB,  then 21 IMP.
If 2 NI QB, then 20 IMP.
If QB1 = NI, then he is one of the mandatory starting 7 NI's. (Note: This doesn't increase the number of starting IMP's)

Therefore each NI QB increases the number of Canadian's on the team.

Designating an IMP QB as any other IMP spot & visa versa doesn't change anything ratio wise.

Designating a backup NI QB as any other IMP spot & visa versa maximizes the number of IMP's on the roster (22 or 21 depending on if the starting QB is a IMP or NI). It doesn't change the number of starting IMP's, so the spot would be a backup IMP that isn't a DI cuz rules say 4 DI's, but he'd still have to come on for an IMP cuz rules say min 7 starting NI's.

[Blue In BC]

As I understand it:

There are a maximum of 20 American players + 2 QB's.

If 2 IMP QB's, then 22 IMP. (Maximized # of IMP)
If 1 NI & 1 IMP QB,  then 21 IMP.
If 2 NI QB, then 20 IMP.
If QB1 = NI, then he is one of the mandatory starting 7 NI's. (Note: This doesn't increase the number of starting IMP's)

Therefore each NI QB increases the number of Canadian's on the team.

Designating an IMP QB as any other IMP spot & visa versa doesn't change anything ratio wise.

Designating a backup NI QB as any other IMP spot & visa versa maximizes the number of IMP's on the roster (22 or 21 depending on if the starting QB is a IMP or NI). It doesn't change the number of starting IMP's, so the spot would be a backup IMP that isn't a DI cuz rules say 4 DI's, but he'd still have to come on for an IMP cuz rules say min 7 starting NI's.

Sounds right. And yes each NI QB increases the number of Canadians on the roster.

If the maximum changes per your description I'd accept QB's being counted into the overall roster ratio. However we don't know that would be the case. As I said QB's are normally imports. A decision could be made to increase the maximum number of imports to 22 and go from there whether the extra 2 were QB's or otherwise.

Your description still disseminates QB's as either Imports or Canadians.

Can't have it both ways. Either Imports are imports whether they are QB's or other. Or we have this variable variable maximum that still considers whether they are QB's or not. That's what we have now. Bombers will have 22 imports when you consider they have 2 import QB's. Lions will end up with only 20 because they have 2 Canadian QB's.

That's the issue and it's a circular argument.

You didn't mention the 2 global player minimum I asked about?

I wonder what would happen with a Global QB. In theory he can only replace an import. If he's on a team with a starting Canadian QB that becomes an issue.

[TBURGESS]

Sounds right. And yes each NI QB increases the number of Canadians on the roster.

If the maximum changes per your description I'd accept QB's being counted into the overall roster ratio. However we don't know that would be the case. As I said QB's are normally imports. A decision could be made to increase the maximum number of imports to 22 and go from there whether the extra 2 were QB's or otherwise.

Your description still disseminates QB's as either Imports or Canadians.

Can't have it both ways. Either Imports are imports whether they are QB's or other. Or we have this variable variable maximum that still considers whether they are QB's or not. That's what we have now. Bombers will have 22 imports when you consider they have 2 import QB's. Lions will end up with only 20 because they have 2 Canadian QB's.

That's the issue and it's a circular argument.

You didn't mention the 2 global player minimum I asked about?

I wonder what would happen with a Global QB. In theory he can only replace an import. If he's on a team with a starting Canadian QB that becomes an issue.

According to: https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/ it's the way the rules are today & the Maximum hasn't been changed.

NI QB's are considered QB's all the time and NI's if they start.  That's not having things both ways or a circular argument. It's just the way it is and a poor rule IMO.

My way would be better and easier to understand:

Max 22 IMP, Min 21 NI, Min 1 Global, no special QB ratio rules.
Starters: Max 17 IMP's, Min 7 NI's

+2 imports because most teams carry 2 import QB's.
+1 starting imports because most teams start an import QB.
+1 DI who isn't really a DI for each roster'd NI QB, which, as you pointed out, is what could happen with the current rules anyway.
No need to designate a QB who isn't a QB to take advantage of an NI QB.

Globals don't matter in the context of this conversation. There are a minimum number of globals (1 or 2 depending on where you look). If we found a global QB, they'd be one of the two QB's & you could designate them as something else to maximize the number of imports the same way that you'd do it for an NI QB.

[Blue In BC]

Back to the actual rules changed. Most seem to make sense as an effort to improve the field position for the offence. We'll see how that changes how strategy is changed during games.

Kickers that can accurately place the ball on punts becomes even more important.  I like the general idea the returners may get better chances to open it up so to speak. The 15 yard penalty for no yards is going to create some space to ensure players don't get called.

There were never many times that happened in the first place but it also could improve safety for returners.

[TecnoGenius]

I think the intent on a punt single would be the same as a missed FG. Ball will come out to the 40 yard line.

That's a good point... if it's 40 as well, then singles will be very unattractive.  Going for the coffin now seems very, very risky.  Guess that's what they wanted, so makes sense.  Will anyone go for coffin anymore?

This guy ruined it for everyone:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bb0n4pNwBw

Jeez!!  Makes more sense now.  But, man, how are you going to judge that in realtime?  Dude only really dragged his leg a bit.  What if a QB gets called for this when they were just a bit sloppy with their running?

NAT QB loopholes: Keep in mind that if you roster a NAT QB now that he counts toward the 7 starters, if he get injured, you have to replace him with a NAT, or yank an IMP WR and put in a NAT there.  I guess that's why BC is going for 2 NAT QBs.  Really no different than us rostering NAT RBs behind AH.

[NewBlue]

This guy ruined it for everyone:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bb0n4pNwBw
Banned in the NCAA too.

Pickett stays in Pittsburgh as he just got picked by the Steelers.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

Not a fan of starting at the 40 YL....personally I agree with Trestman.   Leave the rules alone and focus on marketing strategies....

[ModAdmin]

First and Goal | Rule Changes

Just a guess here, but right about now offensive and defensive coordinators across the Canadian Football League are doing the mad-scientist thing to their playbooks. And special teams coordinators, too.

Earlier this week the league announced its 2022 rule changes as part of an effort to increase scoring and capitalize on the things that make the three-down game unique. The key changes will see the hashmarks moved closer together, kickoffs pushed back and all no-yards penalties - whether the ball bounces to the returner or is caught in the air - now covering 15 yards.

"I like the dynamics of all of it," said Blue Bombers defensive end Willie Jefferson this week. "It makes the league more fun. It is a scoring league, a passing league. Fans like touchdowns. We like touchdowns - when it?s from our guys only. We want our boys to score. And we'll still try to keep you out of our end zone as best we can and give our guys ample opportunities to get in the end zone.

"What I think is going to see happen is you're going to see a lot more three-receiver sets to the boundary side," he said. "The throws to the field side are closer now, so there will be more concepts in attacking the two men to the field (halfback and corner), whereas in the past the only time you were throwing to the two-man field side was when you are throwing in-breaking routes because it was too far to throw out there. There's going to be more opportunities for the field half and field corner to see a lot more action and a lot more noise out there."

The Blue Bombers pride themselves on discovering defenders with versatility to play multiple positions, especially in the secondary. Brandon Alexander is an example of that, as he has taken snaps at almost all five positions in the defensive backfield. That approach will come in handy with the impact the hashmarks move will have on defence.

"It definitely puts a lot more pressure on the defence with the hashmarks being moved inside," said Alexander. ?There won't be as much movement between the hashes and it could be that 'strong side and weak side' become obsolete and both sides will just have to know both sides.

"It levels the playing the field on both sides - offence and defence - on how far the throws are. It puts a lot of onus on the defence, for sure, and we're going to have to make a lot of adjustments. You can't really tell any more - as far as splits - where receivers are going to line up. At the end of the day, there's nothing we can really do about rule changes. We'll just keep playing football and find some way to manage that situation."

"The fans want touchdowns, our guys will give them touchdowns. But we want them to come from our team only."

Blue Bombers slotback Nic Demski offered an offensive take on the narrowing of the hashmarks, indicating the move could lead to a more balanced attack by offences on both sides of the field - just as the move was designed to do.

More on the players views on the rule changes...

https://www.bluebombers.com/2022/04/30/first-and-goal-rule-changes/

[TecnoGenius]

More on the players views on the rule changes...
https://www.bluebombers.com/2022/04/30/first-and-goal-rule-changes/

This link has an embedded video in point 1. 

"Just prior to the unveiling the fans in attendance were treated to 'Road to the Grey Cup: Back-to-Back' - the wonderful video put together by Riley Marra, the club's Senior Manager, Digital Media."

This vid is awesome.  If you haven't seen it, check it out.  Tons of great shots that were never aired on TSN.  Lots of Knuckles.  Lots of Bomber reactions/emotions.  The emotions right after winning are moving.

Just super.

[Pete]

Just looking at the rule changes after 2 weeks:
1. Moving hash marks has opened up the field (and exposed our weakness more at safety/
2. Having teams start at the 40 after  kicks to the endzone hasn't been good...several of new rules were aimed to make returns more exciting, but this rule  eager to give up single. Even if you get a good return like Grant had , he didn't make the 40.
3. 2 QBs on field so far a non factor

Rules they should have done:
1 Make delay of games a 10 yd penalty..it's painful to watch coaches like Dickenson do the fake gamble thing and slows down the game
2 Have command center more leeway to overturn bad and missed calls such as the obvious hit to the head on Schoen in game 1.

[Blue In BC]

Just looking at the rule changes after 2 weeks:
1. Moving hash marks has opened up the field (and exposed our weakness more at safety/
2. Having teams start at the 40 after  kicks to the endstone hasn't been good...several of new rules were aimed to make returns more exciting, but this rule  eager to give up single. Even if you get a good return like Grant had , he didn't make the 40.
3. 2 QBs on field so far a non factor

Rules they should have done:
1 Make delay of games a 10 yd penalty..it's painful to watch coaches like Dickenson do the fake gamble thing and slows down the game
2 Have command center more leeway to overturn bad and missed calls such as the obvious hit to the head on Schoen in game 1.

Most teams have returned to the 3 QB's on the game day roster.

I agree starting at the 40 yard line after FG's has not been good for the return game.

[TecnoGenius]

Just looking at the rule changes after 2 weeks:
1. Moving hash marks has opened up the field (and exposed our weakness more at safety/

And has it helped the kickers?  I think there are as many/more misses so far this season as (awful) 2021?  What has happened to the kick game in the CFL?!?!

2. Having teams start at the 40 after  kicks to the endzone hasn't been good...several of new rules were aimed to make returns more exciting, but this rule  eager to give up single. Even if you get a good return like Grant had , he didn't make the 40.

Noticed how more teams are going for it on 3rd down when they reach midfield?  CGY doing that a ton.  I'm screaming at them like "what are you thinking?".  Who does that?  I guess the new coffin rules entice them to just go for it?  It's like we're the NFL all of a sudden.  I just don't get it.

I'm glad MOS doesn't do that.

However... I think we seriously need to consider always going for 2 PAT.  If Leggs is going to miss half the PAT, the odds say we'll come out way ahead.  Yes, we'd have to tool and practice for 2 PAT as we basically never bother (and it showed last game).

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

And has it helped the kickers?  I think there are as many/more misses so far this season as (awful) 2021?  What has happened to the kick game in the CFL?!?!

Noticed how more teams are going for it on 3rd down when they reach midfield?  CGY doing that a ton.  I'm screaming at them like "what are you thinking?".  Who does that?  I guess the new coffin rules entice them to just go for it?  It's like we're the NFL all of a sudden.  I just don't get it.

I'm glad MOS doesn't do that.

However... I think we seriously need to consider always going for 2 PAT.  If Leggs is going to miss half the PAT, the odds say we'll come out way ahead.  Yes, we'd have to tool and practice for 2 PAT as we basically never bother (and it showed last game).

I think it makes the game more interesting, much more so than when converts were automatic.  Pushing it back to 32 yds. allows for wind and weather to influence the kick, as it probably did in Ottawa and almost always does in windy stadiums like Hamilton.

[TecnoGenius]

I think it makes the game more interesting, much more so than when converts were automatic.  Pushing it back to 32 yds. allows for wind and weather to influence the kick, as it probably did in Ottawa and almost always does in windy stadiums like Hamilton.

Since the 32y rule change like 5 years ago, the success rate in all but '21 and '22 was very, very high, and not just for our Money Medlock.  Stats Junkie can get them for us, I'm sure 

It was a rare day 1PAT were missed in '17 and '18.  Maybe one every couple/few weeks?  Now we're getting a missed 1PAT several times a week!!  And missed FGs from the 20 regularly.  It may spice up the games, but it's actually pretty pathetic.

[Stats Junkie]

The CFL goal in moving the convert scrimmage to the 25 yard line was 85%

2015 - 85.4
2016 - 90.7
2017 - 89.9
2018 - 93.0
2019 - 93.4
2021 - 91.8
2022 - 88.9

Field goal rates over the same years
2015 - 81.9
2016 - 82.7
2017 - 84.0
2018 - 88.3
2019 - 84.3
2021 - 79.8
2022 - 85.7

[Pete]

i think our field goal kickers lowered the 21 rate all by themselves

[TecnoGenius]

The CFL goal in moving the convert scrimmage to the 25 yard line was 85%

2018 - 93.0
2019 - 93.4
2021 - 91.8
2022 - 88.9

That's Junkie!  You are da man!!  It's like I have a magic stats fairy: I just mention a stats thing and poof, next day Junkie posts the stats.  I have no idea how you come up with this stuff so fast, you must have some major data storage and distillation going on on your computer.

So my hunch PAT (and kicking in general) has been going down hill lately is true.  I guess plenty of time for the league K's to improve their PATs this season, but I wouldn't be money they do!

Pete: haha, ya, Ali and that Japanese GLOB in BC for a while may have been repsonsible for almost all of that 2021 sub-80% FG rate.  BC fired that GLOB super fast, what was our excuse?  2022 looks to be a similar adventure for WPG kicking... sigh.