It’s been a few weeks since CFL Commissioner Stewart Johnson announced some major changes to several long-standing CFL rules.
As I contemplate these changes, I feel compelled to offer a perspective that is born from more than 55 years of following the league not only as a fan, but as someone who had the chance to live out his dream of playing in the CFL for 11 seasons, followed by more than a decade of radio broadcasting in Ottawa.
When professional sports leagues introduce significant rule changes, there are usually two primary criteria:
- Consensus for change is usually based on a broad trend that all stakeholders have recognized will improve the game to some degree.
- A specific incident or event that highlights the need for change, often from a competitive perspective.
Some recent (and not so recent) examples include:
- Prior to the 2005–2006 season, the NHL removed the red line for the purpose of allowing two-point passes. This rule change was part of a broader effort to increase scoring and improve the flow of play following the 2004–05 lockout, which resulted in the cancellation of the entire season.
- In 2023, Major League Baseball introduced the pitch clock to improve the overall pace of the game. The average length of MLB games reached three hours and 10 minutes in 2021. The average length of a game dropped to two hours and 38 minutes in the first three years with the new rule.
- As many playoff and Super Bowl games resulted in only one team having possession of the ball after overtime wins, the NFL modified both its regular season and playoff rules to allow each team to have possession of the ball at least once.
Using the above criteria as a roadmap, the rationale for these CFLs changes., As the announcement approaches, I’m feeling uneasy. Let’s tackle some of the major rule changes first.
Using the rubric above, my biggest concern is not that the rules are all a bad idea, but instead I am asking what is the perceived problem they are trying to fix, and have all possible outcomes been considered?
The move to a 35-second play clock is a great example. The CFL has not generally struggled with pace of play or long games (in real time). While the premise of taking some control of the game out of the hands of the lead referee is sound and will result in a more consistent pace of play, to date the league has either not communicated, or (more worryingly) not considered, how this rule change might impact the best part of a CFL game – the final three minutes of each half.
In today’s CFL, the clock stops after each play to reset the ball and move the chains, and teams have only one timeout inside the three-minute warning of the fourth quarter, with multiple possessions by each team being the norm, resulting in dramatic comebacks and spectacular finishes. Unless there is a plan to modify the timeout rules, the offense’s ability to catch up with a lead will undoubtedly reduce the drama of many close CFL games.
The modification of the Rouge Rule is another example. I’ll ask again – what major league-wide problem is this rule change going to fix? In the league’s announcement, it was quoted that “No one wants to see any game (not to mention the Gray Cup) decided by a punt or field goal that goes out of the end zone.” I can only think of one instance in the last 10 years where a game was actually decided this way, so we’re not talking about the NFL overtime rule here.
However, overall, I think the change is largely justified and I think a little modification gets a lot of people across the board. Rouge is still in the game but with limitations.
A more surprising change is to move the goalposts to the back of the end zone. Once again, the motivation for this change appears to have no basis in factual reality.
There was much discussion about trading field goals for touchdowns and a number (seemingly plucked out of thin air) citing a potential increase to 60 touchdowns per season. However, with the highest score in 20 years, is this really a problem that is hampering the league or fans’ enjoyment of the game?
The premise is that teams will prefer to gamble on third down in the opposing field rather than attempt extremely long field goals, which will lead to more touchdowns. I suggest that this premise is actually quite flawed. Even with a successful third-down conversion, an offense is guaranteed only one additional set of downs. As they approach the opponent’s end zone and face a late third down, it looks like they’re going to kick a field goal anyway.
While more third-down gambling will result in some additional touchdowns, which I’m all for, it doesn’t logically or automatically translate into the significant increase that the commissioner is suggesting. Additionally, the idea that there is any kind of growing discontent among players, coaches and fans regarding the goalposts on the goal line seems far-fetched. Yes, there are occasions when passes hit the crossbar or overhead but, again, is it wide enough to warrant a conversion?
Finally, the most serious change to all the rules – reducing the field of play from 110 yards to 100 yards. Unlike other rule changes, each of which had at least one defensible rationale, this one makes no sense.
When the commissioner was asked about the reason, he simply cited the need for the offense to travel ten yards less to score a touchdown. By that logic, why doesn’t the league pass a rule giving the ball to the offensive line at the opposing 30-yard line after a field goal? Is there really a growing sense of dissatisfaction among all CFL stakeholders that giving offenses an easier path to success will somehow improve our game? Doesn’t the defense have the right to express its views?
With slightly smaller end zones, the CFL field would be reduced by 10 yards (eliminating the problem of asymmetric end zone configurations in Toronto and Montreal), so why the additional subtraction from 110 to 100?
This change, more than any other, troubles me as a CFL fan. The 110-yard field has never been an issue, not even with CFL opponents – so why the desire to change it?
The timing of the announcement also seems suspicious.
As mentioned, the 2025 CFL season has seen an increase in scoring so far – the most in more than 20 years – a historic increase in quarterback completion percentage, and an increase in explosive plays and touchdowns from offensive and special teams. Furthermore, the playoff race has been quite exciting and many teams are still competing for playoff places and position.
Instead of ensuring an exciting on-field product that gets the attention of players, coaches, fans and media, the CFL commissioner turned the discussion toward major rule changes that won’t go into effect until the 2026 season (and others we won’t see until 2027). For a league that has historically struggled to grow its television audience and get butts in seats, this seems quite counterintuitive.
Why so early? Couldn’t these announcements have waited until after the Gray Cup in early December, when there are far fewer CFL headlines? Shouldn’t the CFL be focused on the final weeks of the regular season, the playoffs, and the Gray Cup instead of somewhat existential discussions over the new rules and their potential impact (good or bad) on our league?
To summarize, we have a game with an on-field product that is trending for higher scores, more competitive results, and, despite its warts, remains as unique and quirky as it has been for more than 100 years.
These rule changes appear to have been made unnecessarily hastily and have no direct connection to “fixing” any broader problems. Most troubling is that they may inadvertently destroy the quality and competitiveness of our game, and ultimately disenfranchise a section of its very loyal fan base.
Time will tell, and I’m hoping for the best, but I don’t think I’m alone in asking my questions.
