CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE KEEPS BUSY TALKING RULES
Amid pandemic, league, teams, union reps to meet Thursday via conference call
It’s certainly not business as usual at the Canadian Football League, given the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impact on this season.
But some league functions are proceeding as normally as possible. The rules committee, for instance, will meet by conference call on Thursday to discuss some relatively minor tweaks, but will not hold any votes.
The committee is comprised of a representative from all nine teams, the CFL’s associate vice-president of officiating Darren Hackwood, an official and two CFL Players Association members.
“Eventually we will vote, but this week it’s more about making sure we’re all on the same page about what we will be voting on, because we haven’t had that time to really hash things out as a group,” said Hackwood.
He broke down some potential rule changes on Tuesday in a discussion with Postmedia.
THE CARD
“The big one for us and it might not seem overly big to everyone else, but we have this thing called the card,” Hackwood began. “Teams are allowed to put eligibly numbered players in non-eligible positions on punts and field goals. They do that because they want to deploy different players with different abilities to go cover a punt or a kick.
“But what happens is, that card is kind of convoluted for everybody. If you’re listed on the card, and to really get into the rule might take more than 10 minutes, but the (short) version is if you’re on the card and somebody else is on the card, and one of those players lines up in a non-eligible position, then everybody on the card is not eligible, regardless of where you line up.
“So we had I think four or five plays last year where teams ran fake punts and threw passes and they were all called back because there was an eligibility issue on the card. In all those plays, the person who caught the pass was lined up in an eligible position, but they became ineligible because of the card rule.”
ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION
“You can’t leave the field and come back in and continue to participate in the play. That’s a penalty,” said Hackwood. “But there are different variations of it.
“We’re talking about a situation where somebody steps out of bounds, comes back in, is 40 yards away from the play, and isn’t really engaged in the play. We don’t really want to have to call that.
“Number 1, it’s really difficult for us to see because we’re focusing on stuff that is impacting the play, not somebody out of the play.
Number 2, it doesn’t really have an impact on the play, so we’re trying to see if there is a way for us to quantify whether there is impact. And if there is no impact, we will not call it.
“The other part of the rule is, if a receiver steps out of bounds, comes back in and catches a pass, right now that’s an illegal participation penalty. In other leagues, they just rule that an incomplete pass.
“So we’re talking about going down that path because it really penalizes the offence. Number 1, you’re not getting the catch and number 2 it’s a 10-yard penalty.”
Eventually we will vote, but this week it’s more about making sure we’re all on the same page about what we will be voting on.
ROUGHING THE PASSER
“We’re looking at the standard. Two years ago, if you remember, we had some high-profile (missed calls). We changed the rule so the command centre can get involved and we added the 25-yard penalty.
“So where does that pendulum sit right now? Did we go too far the other way? Are we calling things that aren’t actually penalties?”
Hackwood said the rules committee convened in January in Collingwood, Ont., to watch a video that compiled all roughing the passer calls from the 2019 season.
They discussed the calls and are trying to drill down to ensure the standard is fair and enforceable.
“We’re not talking about the blows above the shoulder that are clear penalties,” said Hackwood. “It’s more about the timing. Is that late? Because we are still down the path of wanting to protect the quarterback, but at the same time we want to make sure what we’re calling is correct. So we’re just looking at that standard.”