In principle you are correct. Unlike with an unplayable ball, whatever the trajectory in the goal area, a team has failed to defend fully the entire goal area.
But it’s a circular conversation we have had for years at the old place until arriving here, as we gather together now to hearken fondly to such a rule with historic roots in football, which is still present especially in modern Aussie Rules.
The argument i’ve been hearing for years is it is rewarding failure for missing the FG. Just figured it should be turned back on them for failing to deal with the kick when possible.
So Flutie says that we are trying to Americanize the game. He isn’t in favor of that. Bit surprised given his relationship with the Bills and MLSE. He does seem to be ok with the field shrinking due to compatibility issues.
Th field absolutely needed to shrink for just that reason. The length was a real issue. That has now been addressed and the new field will be WAY more compatible with soccer and track and field setups now. Long overdue.
Not to mention, fans in the endzones will be much closer to where the action is on the field and will make for both a better TV & stadium experience.
Fans in the endzone of existing buildings will be five yards further away from endzone action. They will be ten yards closer to the other side of mid field. Assuming my math is good. Totally agree with the compatibility issue.
The stadiums will have to be altered. That is relatively inexpensive fix.
Its also been previously discussed the likelihood these would be premium seats.
With respect to Flutie, I watched this interview excerpt at what looked like some sort of sports legends convention, he clearly had not yet heard of the changes nor had time to digest before eliciting a response.
His brows furrowed and he said it sounds like they’re Americanizing a bit and that’s too bad because we have a good game. His next thought went to field size for expansion. The social media machine then immediately went to work with headlines saying “Flutie Against New Rules..”
Well, yes he expressed skepticism when put on the spot. But I’m not 100% sure he’d be a public champion of rule preservation given time to think.
Just think, in less than three months, we can argue about the “dribble kick” too!
Has he had time enough to think it over and state a retraction yet?
No. Nor should he have to.
I still think he just said what he thought on the spot not having heard or having time to actually think at length about it.
I wouldn’t expect him to publicly elaborate on it unless asked. Like I said I don’t think he’s a crusader for or against the changes. Its probably not that important to him in the grand scheme of things.
Either way it’s easy to speculate about what he might have been thinking. I would rather hear it from him mind you.
I can see his point
“When you shorten the end zone, it’s actually going to lessen the amount of touchdowns,”
Might be true. But by moving the goal posts to the back of the end zone could increase the number of touchdown runs (up the middle). Hard to say if it increases overall TDs until we see it in action.
Well duh, five fewer yards will be a hinderance.
But taking an obstacle out of the way will remove a hindrance.
I’ll go with the latter.
want more tds?
if they would add another down then teams would get more chances at tds. problem solved 
i’ll see myself out lol
Certainly.
I was just remarking, after having seen the quoted interview from Flutie himself at a Superbowl-week convention, that his impressions of the rule changes were made on the spot and on the fly. The whole exchange is over in about 40 seconds:
Doug Flutie Superbowl 60 on CFL Rule Changes (06:00 mark approx)
He heard the details from the interviewer and his brows furrowed and he gave what seemed like a first impression, “I don’t like it.” which was fair enough.
I just think 3 downs is one of those things that makes the CFL more than the spring leagues. 4 downs would give us longer drives and more drives converted for scores. However, at least for me, that’s not what makes the CFL my comfort food.
3 downs make individual plays matter more. You either move down the field quickly or you kick. And yes, 3 downs make for more kicking but kicking matters in Canadian football and more kicks are obviously returned which is entertainment unto itself. The ball moves up and down the field more fluidly. There are more drives.
4 downs, where offenses are clicking and defenses are struggling might not have much or any punting. But those drives chew up 6, 7, 8, 9 minutes of clock. You have a game that takes 3 and a half hours to draw out 12 drives. Many 1st and 10s in the first 2/3rds of the field are throw-away plays. That’s not compelling for me even if the score is 42-35 at the end of the day. I don’t like basketball for the same reason.
Maybe market data says otherwise for the broader sports consumer but those are my feelings on the matter.
Make our games the same and we’d be competing for exactly the same types of players. I prefer that we can shop the thousands of players whose skills might be better suited to our game.
Ya that’s another plus. We get a unique aesthetic to gameplay that is in no way gimmicky. Plus that gameplay gives a certain edge on player recruitment that’s more than the amount of money on the table because of its uniqueness.