With regards to the changes to the actual field planned for 2027 to be clear, the first sentence as you wrote it is correct. The second sentence is not true. There will still be long field goals that go wide that are returned, even though perhaps there will not be as many, which was already the case as of 2025.
1 Like
Hopefully, they don’t adopt the Dynamic Kickoff.
I’d rather see them do what the UFL did in 2024 and kick off from the 20-yard line. That way it’s still 80 yards to the endzone.
When I was evaluating FG returners this year, I decided any missed field goal return of over 50 yards was going to be considered a “big play”.
Out of the 51 missed field goal returns during the regular season, I have it recorded that 10 were over 50 yards, which works out to be around 20%
I remember this discussion on the old forums. I combed through the data that I collected during the ‘24 and ‘25 seasons, and I think I found that out of all the missed field goals over the 2 seasons, only 4 were short, and only 3 were returned.
I don’t have the exact data anymore, but I predicted something like a 98% reduction in missed field goal returns, which is unfortunate.
7 Likes
As I said, that is what some people are saying. I think that is unproven and amounts to a conspiracy theory. It is often accompanied by predictions of switching to 4 downs in the future. The commissioner has made clear his thought process and I have no reason to doubt him or call him a liar. The fundamentals of our game that make it Canadian and different from American football remain.
There is of course an ongoing and perhaps never ending argument as to whether the rule changes are good for the game, but that is different from whether they are meant to Americanize the game, for which there is no evidence. The CFL has adopted American rules in the past such as the forward pass from the NFL and the two point convert from college. US football has used Canadian rules as well. It’s about what is best for the game and I have no problem with the changes, which notably could be tweaked as necessary. I mean how can anyone be opposed to a non-discretionary timing system like every other sport in the world or the benches being moved to opposite sides of the field?
I don’t know any detail regarding the surveys and stats used to justify the changes. Perhaps you can ask the CFL or perhaps they will provide more detailed information on their own at some point. I’m not sure it matters. If consultations had taken place clearly there would have been no consensus ever and that’s not how you run a business. As Steve Jobs said: It’s not the customer’s job to know what they want.
5 Likes
Yes just ask any Rider fan about the passes that hit the goal posts… stupid goal posts in the field of play I hate them😁
5 Likes
En raccourcissant le terrain à 100 verges, en rallongeant le temps entre les essais à 35 secondes, en déplaçant les poteaux au fond de la zone des buts et en rapetissant la zone des buts à 15 verges, en modifiant la règle du simple, difficile de croire que le but de ces changements est autre chose que de se rapprocher du football américain tant les parallèles sont nombreux.
P.T. Barnum parlait des américains, et nous ne le sommes pas. Je n’achète pas du tout le discours de Johnston à l’effet que ce n’est pas là le but de l’opération. C’est un discours à la Trump (affirmer une chose alors que la réalité est son contraire) et ça fait que je n’ai aucune confiance en lui pour conserver le caractère original du football canadien. Je pense qu’à terme, la ligue va se mordre les doigts d’avoir fait cette américanisation.
Les ligues professionnelles de développement aux États-Unis ont toutes échoué. Je suis ouvert aux changements, mais pas de là à dénaturer l’identité du football canadien. Si la LCF veut devenir ce genre de ligue (on peut voir ça venir), elle subira le même sort. Pour moi, c’est du “Think big, ‘stie!” de tata. Je vais attendre de voir le produit avant d’acheter des billets en 2026.
3 Likes
You are entitled to your opinion, but as I said, I don’t think it was done to Americanize the game, but rather to improve it. I can certainly see how some changes are controversial for some, but I don’t think they’re really that bad
The play clock was bush and had to go, especially in the age of gambling. No single human should decide how long a game is. Even soccer got rid of their “mystery time” a few years back, which was the closest thing to the CFL play clock in any other sport. Game flow will be much improved as we already know how such a clock works from the NFL. The benches have to be changed as a result of the play clock changes and gives us the added bonus of there being less likelihood of hostilities spilling over on the sideline. This is my favourite change by far and I have been screaming for it for years. I don’t think too many people are opposed to this.
The end zone reduction is also a no brainer. Having different size end zones was also bush and gave an unfair advantage to the home team. This along with losing 10 yards absolutely no one will miss may be the most important changes as the reduced size of the field makes the CFL much more expansion friendly. Forward thinking.
Most seem to support the changes to the rouge. There will no longer be a possibility of the Grey Cup being won on a shanked field goal, which would make the CFL an international laughing stock on Sportscenters around the world.
The most controversial change appears to be moving the goalposts. That will no doubt reduce missed FG returns which many are complaining about. I don’t see this as such a big deal. There are an average of 2-3 missed FG’s returned for a TD each year and last year there was one. If I watch every game hoping for a missed FG return I’m going to be pretty bored and disappointed. Many players have spoken out in support of moving the goalposts and it should more than offset the end zone size reduction. Time will tell how that one works out, but I like it. It’s more aesthetically pleasing as well. I don’t think the NHL would consider putting a pole in the ice just inside the blue line in line with the net.
The NFL and CFL have about the same amount of scoring as shown in the previous forum, but the CFL has a higher percentage of field goals and one of the stated reasons for the changes is increasing TD’s and decreasing FG’s, making the game less of a kicking contest. I’m all for that although I understand that some fans prefer kicking.
I don’t consider the changes to have touched the essence of the game. There are still 3 downs, the much wider field which is far more important than length, the rouge, the waggle/unlimited motion, the 5 yard halo on punts and the one yard off the ball rule. Word is they may even retain the last 3 minutes of carnival time, although I hope they don’t.
The game will still look like the CFL and look nothing like the NFL.
5 Likes
No problems with the play clock, rouge and bench changes. The rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree (or something like that)
3 Likes
Once you realize that you only need to add a stripe down each side of the field and down each end to make this a four down field it becomes more possible, less paranoid and just that easy. It could be considered a frog in a pot of heating water move.
2 Likes
Perhaps, but we did see tons of long returns with the potential to score. They don’t actually have to score to make it exciting. Didn’t the Bombers also give up one off to close the half?
1 Like
To my mind it will look like a CFL game played on an NFL field.
It will look morning like an NFL field on TV because the width of the field is staying the same and that’s a huge difference between the two. The larger endzone will also make it look nothing like a NFL game. I admit the posts being gone will look weird but I think it will just look different, not like the NFL. The NFL you can see the goal line, back of the endzone and posts all in one shot. Won’t happen here.
3 Likes
I didn’t grow up watching the Canadian game regularly but when I started watching it, I liked the differences except for the goal post at the front of the end zone. That always struck me as infringing on play.
1 Like
In all your time watching, how many times have you seen the goalposts interfere with a play (aside from FGs)? I’ve watched my entire life and reckon I could count them on 1 hand.
There’s likely been more, but the point is they’re pretty rare. I don’t recall seeing any last season.
2 Likes
I think it has more to do with the optics so it’s more palatable to the American viewers
2 Likes
whether people think it’s americanization or not i do not care.
i cannot wait for the changes and it’s about time they made them.
6 Likes
All the time because QBs throw the ball to the sides to avoid them.
5 Likes
I think you’re thinking of the ball hitting the goalposts. Arguably they interfere on almost every play in that area, whether it’s for a QB throwing to the area, a receiver running, a kick return, a punt from the end zone or a QB dropping back from deep in their own end. The ball doesn’t have to hit the goalposts for them to interfere with the play.
6 Likes
Here’s a what if suggestion. What if any passing play where the ball hits the posts is immediately called dead and the down is re-played with the time being reset? It doesn’t matter if your going for a TD or your scrimmaging from your own one yard line, hit the post assembly, it’s a do over.
They only exception might be its obvious the QB intentionally throws it into any part of the post assembly to avoid pressure, a sack or great defensive coverage. This would also I clue the larger support post.
In this case, the defending team has the option to let the play stand with the loss of down or say a 10 yard offensive penalty with down over.
I know the biggest downside to this is having the refs determin the QBs intent.
Creative but personally I am not one for judgement calls, options and further complications to an already complicated game.
The goal posts are part of the field and a valid part of any play in my philosophy. If I recall correctly, the ball stays live after a doink in rugby which is random and cool 
I used to think the goal posts belong on the goal line in all football 
as American football is until 2027, the only code to have it on the dead ball line. But that said, only rugby union/league and the gridiron codes have a dead ball line so, its just as well that for many footballs like Gaelic, soccer and Australian football, the goal line is also the end of the field. So we can just as well have our goal posts at the end of the field.
But now that they’re going to be out of the way why don’t we have live doinks? A little chaos on a missed FG or insanely errant pass is good for the heart 
6 Likes
I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a staunch traditionalist. Yes, goalposts are one of the challenging aspects of our game, like having only 3 downs instead of 4. But our game’s been played this way for decades with few complaints until now.
I’m not an NFL fan, but for those who are I can understand your approval of the upcoming CFL changes. But if the welcome Johnson received at the Grey Cup is any indication, I think there are a great many traditionalist who disapprove of them, and that could ultimately hurt the league’s bottom line.
Personally, I’m hoping teams press the league during their annual winter meetings, and ask for reconsideration of some of these changes.
3 Likes