Additional rule changes for 2010 season

[TurfToe]

From the same announcement about OT, the following was also mentioned...

The Board also approved three other rules committee recommendations that:

* Will allow a team that gives up a field goal (during regulation time) the option of scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off.
* Will ensure there is no penalty for pass interference applied if a forward pass is deemed uncatchable.
* Will, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, result in a penalty of five instead of fifteen yards.

[pizmo]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

From the same announcement about OT, the following was also mentioned...

The Board also approved three other rules committee recommendations that:

* Will allow a team that gives up a field goal (during regulation time) the option of scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off.
* Will ensure there is no penalty for pass interference applied if a forward pass is deemed uncatchable.
* Will, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, result in a penalty of five instead of fifteen yards.

I thought this was already in the rules. How does this 'new' rule ensure anything?

[TurfToe]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

I thought this was already in the rules. How does this 'new' rule ensure anything?

IIRC they removed the 'uncatchable' part a few years back.

[EskiPhenom]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

I'm not a fan of the OT tweak at all. Change for the sake of change, and 'requiring' a two-point attempt reeks of the XFL.

Also not happy about the first additional change. If a team is down by nine or ten with little time left but in field goal range on third down, it would make sense to boot for three then go for an onside kick. This rule removes that option, for no particular reason.

Two other two rules make complete sense. Never should have gone away from 'uncatchable' in the first place.

[56Parkies]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

I'm not a fan of the OT tweak at all. Change for the sake of change, and 'requiring' a two-point attempt reeks of the XFL.

Agreed. Seems "gimmicky" to me.

Also not happy about the first additional change. If a team is down by nine or ten with little time left but in field goal range on third down, it would make sense to boot for three then go for an onside kick. This rule removes that option, for no particular reason.

This was the rule for every season EXCEPT last year, so they're just going back to the rule that was changed last year.

In your scenario, you go for the 7 points, then the onside kick and the field goal. Just changes the order.

[Childress]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

* Will, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, result in a penalty of five instead of fifteen yards.

I don't like this one, because it will result in players running down field and jumping on the ball before the returner can get to it. It will eliminate returns. A five yard penalty is nothing on a special team. If they would have said a five yard penalty would be applied if it hit a player trying to get out of the way, I'd be okay with that.

I don't want to see an NFL style return game up here.

[Numberz]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

I don't like this one, because it will result in players running down field and jumping on the ball before the returner can get to it. It will eliminate returns. A five yard penalty is nothing on a special team. If they would have said a five yard penalty would be applied if it hit a player trying to get out of the way, I'd be okay with that.

I don't want to see an NFL style return game up here.

My interpretation was that the rule covers short kicks where the ball ends up bouncing and hitting a player who is not attempting to 'down' the ball or enter the 5 yard zone. I would say that if a player jumps on the ball or enters the 5 yard zone, then it would still be a 15 yard penalty.

....and if a cover man can get to the ball before the returner has a chance to get the ball, then that returner should be cut immediately. Only way that the cover man can get to it first is if it's a short punt.....and even if my first point is incorrect, then the only way a cover man gets to it first is if the returned lets it go, and then we get that situation where he stands over the ball and tries to get someone to jump into the 5 yard zone or just tries to kill time. Even then, I'll invite the change.

This rule change won't affect much.

[Muley69]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

From the same announcement about OT, the following was also mentioned...

The Board also approved three other rules committee recommendations that:

* Will allow a team that gives up a field goal (during regulation time) the option of scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off.
* Will ensure there is no penalty for pass interference applied if a forward pass is deemed uncatchable.
* Will, when a ball is punted, hits the ground and hits a player from the covering team, result in a penalty of five instead of fifteen yards.

Huh?

So they are completely reversing the rule change from the '09 year?

[eskimoses]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

Rule changes...... BA HUMBUG!!!
Just get the refs heads out of their collective a$$e$ this year and call a consistent game. Last year was just.................... fugly!!!!!!!!!!!

[Party Time]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

Huh?

So they are completely reversing the rule change from the '09 year?

Yeah, I think I read somewhere that is was due to too many injuries on special teams...

[21tailback]

Re: Additional rule changes for 2010 season

Hey folks, been away for a bit so what a better way to return than to address the rule changes....LOL

For the 2-point convert rule in O.T. I don't see what purpose this serves other than being more exciting. Kind of a stupid little rule actually. There haven't been that many OT games in the CFL so the change in my opinion is changing a rule just because they can.

A team scrimmaging from its 35-yard line instead of receiving a kick-off after a field goal had been a rule before but since there was a steadying decline in kick/punt returns, they opted to replace the field position rule and made it mandatroy to return kickoffs. The reason for that was a steadying decline in bigger returns on kickoffs/punts. Since the league changed the rules on punting out of bounds, they probably felt return yards on returns have increased again therefore a the option of possesion on the 35yrad line is a good rule change.

Uncatchable ball pass interference penalties was a no brainer. It took them long enough to change this.

Changing the penalty from 15 yards to 5 yards on covering players who get hit with a bounce back is a little more acceptable. BUT, if the ball hits them and they are in the 5 yard area of the returner, THEN the penalty should be 15 yards. What happens if a punter shanks a kick and it bounces backwards hitting the punt coverage team? How can they penalize a team for a bad kick? Thats when this rule doesn't make sense. It's a rare occurance but it does happen.

Anyone else agree/disagree?