Talk:Canadian football

An indoor version of Canadian football for the Canadian market has been proposed for 2005. It will be different than Arena football in that the rebound nets will be out of play and that there will be only three downs, as in outdoor Candian football.

Rlquall 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Time Count Variation

It is a little confusing to say that the time between plays is 45 seconds in U.S. football and 20 in Canadian. Firstly, the 45 second count is employed only in the NFL, not other versions. Secondly, this count is from the time at which the previous play actually ends, not when the ball is marked ready for another play. If the ball has been "dead" and the clock stopped (i.e., incomplete pass, out of bounds, etc.) the NFL play clock starts at 30 seconds, not 45. In other U.S. football (high school and collegiate), the clock is 25 seconds from the time the ball being marked ready for play, only five seconds longer. Perhaps this entire discussion is too long and too akward to be included in the CFL article, but as it stands now it is somewhat misleading.

Rlquall 14:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inter-league play

Also, by the same agreement, both sides play under Canadian rules when the Canadian team has the ball and under American rules when the US team has the ball.

Is this correct? By my reading, this implies that the rules change an impressive number of times -during the game-. Perhaps the author means "when the Canadian/US team is at home?"

I was wondering the same thing. I would think that it would be unfair (although I'm not sure to what side) to have different rules for each team. - sik0fewl 08:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

rouge

Does the writer have any evidence of negative scores in early Canadian football? I thought the word "rouge" comes from a red flag the refs used to have.

rouge again (please explain)

I don't really follow the thing about a single point when a missed field goal goes out of bounds. Is this saying that you're required to return a missed field goal or give up a point? Can the kicker score a point just by kicking the ball out the back of the end zone, even if it's not between the posts? I'm watching the Grey Cup now and don't really understand everything. --Trovatore 23:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea behind the single point (rouge is an archaism in Canadian football nowadays - broadcasters generally use the single) is that someone (there is no requirement in either Canadian or American football that a kicker or punter has to kick the ball, after all) kicks the ball, and one of several things will happen:

• a successful field goal attempt - that's three points
• ball doesn't make it to the end zone - that's a really crappy football play
• kick is blocked and all hell breaks loose
• a kicking team member recovers the ball - unlikely
• ball goes out of bounds at the end zone - a single
• ball stays in end zone and someone has to return it - it's a single if the returner does not make it out of the end zone.

Hope that clears things up. kelvSYC 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So on the last play of the game, at the opponents' 20, score tied, the kicker can win the game just by kicking the ball hard and not sweating accuracy at all? Actually from the way you phrase it, it sounds like he can win the game just by punting through the end zone. Is that really right? --Trovatore 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes

Having said that, in such a situation a field goal is easier to make... kelvSYC 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking you could punt it in the air through the end zone—surely that's easier than a field goal. But by coincidence I was talking about this with someone today, and he said it had to touch the ground and then go out the back of the end zone. Is that so? If so, maybe something should be said about it in the article, because I didn't get that from what I read. --Trovatore 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A kick that crosses the dead line or a side-line-in-goal without touching the ground or a player still scores one point (except kickoffs, where a player much touch the ball before a single can be scored). But in the situation you describe, a field goal is usually attempted. This may be because the field goal formation gives better protection to the kicker than the punt formation when all 12 defensive players are trying to block the kick. In a normal punt, only a handful of defenders seriously try to rush the punter, with the rest falling back to help with the return. But with no punt return possible, everybody would be rushing the punter. Indefatigable 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. --Trovatore 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Four downs in Quebec

The French version of this article says there are four downs in amateur Canadian football as played in Quebec. My translation:

In Quebec, high school and collegiate football is different from university and professional football. In effect, the rules are different. Teams have four downs instead of the three in Canadian football and there are 12 players on the field instead of the eleven of American football. The field is the same length as in Canadian football (i.e., 110 yards).

Is this verifiable? Indefatigable 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some local amateur leagues choose to play 4 downs, the theory being that in developmental leagues, skills are more readily exercised using 4 downs because of the difficulties in sustaining a drive with three downs for less-than-skilled players. Otherwise, those leagues play Canadian rules. My recommendation is to insert a passage that in some parts of Canada, local organizers have chosen to play Canadian rules but with 4 downs in order to maximize the playing/development opportunities for young players.

position descriptions

the description for "safety" doesn't really match current tactics. Safety has evolved into a DB/LB hybrid, particularly at the CFL level.

the "strong" and "weak side" linebacker nomenclature isn't close to universal - perhaps the simpler "outside linebacker" would suffice for purposes of this article.

Football Needs You

Hello,

You don't know me but i'm a user formely known as User:Jebus Christ. I was blocked some time ago because wikipedia didn't like my username. I've only just now created my current username.

Some of you may be aware that the Football article has been overtaken by a fraternity of Australian Rules supporters. This fraternity includes at least one administrator that i'm aware of. His name is Snottygobble.

Regardless of what you may think of the current vote going on in that article, it is blatantly obvious that the article has a major overrepresentation from Australian Rules fans. The Football article needs more input from people with interests such as yours. This should even out the content a little resulting in an article written from a global perspective (as opposed to the southern australian perspective).

With regards to the current vote, whether you agree or not with the proposal, there are definitely some very twisted tactics being used. Currently, almost every person who has voted differently to that the AFL fraternity has been accused of being a sockpuppet of the person who initiated the vote. Through pure frustration, several users made the same accusation of some of the AFL fraternity. Immediately those people were blocked for 'making sockpuppet accursations in bad faith' by administrator and Aussie Rules fraternity member User:Snottygobble.

I'm not here asking anyone to partake in the vote. What i'd like to see though is more input from people outside of the Assie Rules Fraternity.

Thanks in advance,

Jimididit 13:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)