Jim Mullin
CFL.ca
There is belief amongst those who hold the Canadian game close that it is the superior brand of gridiron available anywhere. A subjective take for sure, but many in the Home and Native certainly know of the entertainment value provided over the years.
However, there’s been a big mistake made by many of those who operate and support the game. The evolution of the game in some areas has been slow, and in other departments it has been detrimental to complementing the offensive strengths of the Canadian game.
Many think the rules of the game are sacrosanct and beyond revision.
I’m here to tell you that a great game evolves, and there are a few areas where the CFL has their tires spinning in the mud.
So here is the first of five ways to change the game for the better. Are you folks in the rules committee paying attention?
Get the conceded safety touch out of the game once and for all.
Yes, the CFL decided at the behest of their fans to move the kickoff after a safety from the 35 to the 25.
The deterrent hasn’t worked.
Case in point: The BC Lions gave up four safeties, and forced four safeties in 2010. That number was actually up from three and two respectively in 2009. That’s a 60 per cent increase of watching the athletic talents of Paul McCallum or an opposing kicker run figure eights in an end zone, wasting valuable time and stealing opportunities from the offence.
Is there any thrill from watching a punter waddle around the end zone like a wounded duck or take a knee leading to another two minutes to get the kickoff unit onto the field?
Of course not. It is a wasted play. It is anti-entertainment. This practice must stop immediately.
There is the misconception that the safety puts points on the board. In reality, it takes points – more exciting ones – off of it. The Edmonton Eskimos of 2010 provide the proof.
The Esks gave up a CFL record 14 safeties in 2010, up from seven in 2009 and six in 2008. When they chose to get the ball away inside the 20, they punted seven times. The result? The opposition’s defensive effort rewarded their offence with a short field. The average series start after a punt was at midfield. The Esks surrendered four TDs, one single, and forced two turnovers.
After a safety, the opposition scrimmaged on the Edmonton side of the 55 only once. Two kickoffs were returned for touchdowns.
Those 29 points scored by the opponent’s offence in seven possessions were more compelling to watch than the 28 points scored in twice as many possessions via the conceded safety.
In a sample of games going back to the midway point of the 2007 season involving the Eskimos and their opponents there were 133 combined points off drives (minus singles) after a punt from inside the 20, while there were only 88 combined points scored after a safety.
The safety should be worthy of a celebration for the defence, not pin the tail on the punter.
Make it worth three points and the action vacuum will stop.
Nowhere on the Dead Sea Scrolls that is the CFL Rule Book does it say that a safety touch should be valued at two points for all eternity. It’s a football rule, and is not immutable.
A three-point safety would achieve a number of objectives.
- It would place the offence in scoring position right away thanks to the defensive effort.
- It would replace safeties with touchdowns and field goals.
- It would reward the defence for hemming an offence in deep.
- It would remove all of the incentive to have your punter lamely play keep away for a dozen seconds.
- It would speed the game up by eliminating a kickoff.
- Most importantly, it would place the offence in scoring position right away thanks to the defensive effort.
There are other alternatives if you don’t like the idea of making the safety a three point play. The kick off could be at the last line of scrimmage after giving up two points.
The league could also go to the other extreme of making any ball surrendered in the end zone into a touchdown. Do you think that might create more of sense of urgency with a punter than the status quo?
It is time for the coaches who guide the rules committee to improve the entertainment level of the game, not enable defensive escape routes which add little value.
