Extraordinary game, was able to see it live in Vancouver.

Won in "double" overtime by Edmonton, 38-35 over Montreal....any thoughts on the Canuck version of OT vs. NFL style?

A friend in LA mentioned that it's similar to US college....zat so?

what type of OT do you guys use up there?

What's a Gray Cup? And have you tried some silver polish on it? :D

it is a big grey cup :). Goes to the team that wins the 12 man a side game we call Canadian football. The first governor general was smart enough to give a cup for that truly great Canadian game called hackey (realizing that bloodshed is necessary for any great sport). The second got to give a cup for Canadian football. Better than the "sporting" choices what the current one is left with - giving a cup for professional hot dog eating or turkey eating. The Barf Cup doesn't quite have the same ring as the Stanley or the Grey Cup. :)

OT used resembles US college I think. Both teams start on the 35 yard line and each get an offensive possession. Whoever has the most points at the end of each pair of posseessions wins. During the regular season, OT stops at 2 offensive possessions for each tem. I believe in Conference and the Grey Cup, they just keep going until a winner is determined.

Seriously, it is a good way to determine a winner (and it was an amazing game even though the meltdown Lions didn't make it). I loathe the NFL rule - you might as well award the victory to the winner of the coin flip.

I would have liked to have seen it, but it wasn't televised in my area, as far as I know. They ran some CFL games during July and August, which I enjoyed watching. (Much more emphasis on offense and scoring, and that extra yard in the neutral zone appears to really contribute to that.)

We did get to see highlights, though.

Not true, from and old artilce published in 2003:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ram...php?p=87&cat=1

Remember, there’s nothing inherently advantageous to getting the ball first in sudden-death overtime. This weekend, for example, two of three teams that lost the toss ended up winning the game. But, although the margin is small, there is a definite advantage to winning the toss. Going into this season, there had been 342 overtime games in NFL history. Of those games, 177 times (51.8%) the team that won the toss won the game, 149 times (43.6%) the team that lost the toss won the game, and 16 games (4.7%) ended tied.

I caught the last few minutes of the 4th quarter and the entire overtime on HDNet. It was definitely a strange experience. Multiple men in motion, moving forward at the snap, only 3 downs, a _huge_ endzone, and the goal posts on the goalline.

Not to mention mechanics. In the overtime I saw one official on the sidelines in the middle of the endzone. I'm not exactly sure what the mechanics are, but I thought he'd be either at the goalline or the endline. Also, on a goalline play, the umpire (if that's what he is called) was lined up nearly on the goalline, outside the defensive end. He signalled touchdown himself. Also the signals used for penalties are different. I think I remember the signal for pass interference looking like our illegal motion.

And a couple more minor differences. The R wears a black hat with white piping, and the other wear white hats with black piping. And their flags look more orange than yellow.

Sounds like a high school game with some of the crews I have seen in other parts of the state. :(
One thing about statistics. The 51.8% of the OTs that were won by the team winning the toss, does that include games where the team winning the toss won after both teams had a possession?

Well Suudy, welcome to the Canadian game, eh? It's the same but very different to be sure. A previous poster mentioned the neutral zone causing more open play, but IMHO, I think its the motion, wider field (65yrds) and especially the three downs that make it more wide open. I've always thought the NFL game would be better if those great athletes had more room to move around in.

In terms of mechanics, you are correct in noticing the Umpire makes the call on the goal line, and I believe your outside guys do that. I prefer our mechanic as it allows a much closer view on wether or not the ball breaks the plane, but perhaps there's a reason for your way down south. We are taught, when working "the pit", to line up just outside the DE's butt on the wideside and take a step into the line at snap and that should leave you right on the line...in practise.

Finally with regard to the hats and the flags, Rumour has it that the CFL guys will be changing to your hat patten (which, strangely enough, is ours at the Cdn. Amateur level as well) and using yellow flags next year, but I can't confirm that.

I'd forgotten about the wider NZ. Is it a rule that they are a yard off the ball? When I was in college, Oregon came to town and ran a defense that had the D-line a yard off the ball. I remember reading that their new D-coordinator was from the CFL. In the end I think they gave it up because it was a yard of momentum the offense could get.

That includes all overtime games in the history of the NFL, so YES.

342 games:

177 wins by teams winning the toss (51.8%)
149 wins by teams losing the toss (43.6%)
16 ties ( 4.7%)

I know this totals 100.1%, but that is a product of rounding the decimals.

The NZ is very much a rule up north. Nobody may encroach within the yard before the ball is snapped.

Beyond that, I think scrimmage rules (with regard to the NZ) are pretty much the same on both sides of the 49th. If Oline moves before snap its a whistle and Procedure call, if the Dline jumps but gets back before snap without breaking the Oline plane, no whistle.

It does get a bit juicy when the Dline comes before the snap and the Olineman pulls up in response. We usually tag the Oline with procedure if they're across from each other, but some in our association disagree and its usually worth a couple of hours of drunken back and forth at pay night....beats talking about the upcoming election I guess...

Canadian Philosophy
 

You might want to double check your philosophy on that one.

Your thoughts??

Well my math tells me that when there is only one possession that the coin toss winner wins the game 100% of the time . So 48.2% of all games were not won by the coin toss winner. Probability would also say that not all of the 177 wins by the coin toss winner happened on the first possession. It is my guess that the game ended after only one possession more than 12 times so the numbers say that if the coin toss winner does not score on their first possession they are probably not going to win the game.

The interpretation we use in Ontario is:
1. If the DL is in the neutral zone and the OL opposite him moves as a result, then it is offside on the D only. The philosophy is that the players need to be able to defend themselves from possible imminent contact where the defender has already progressed beyond where they should be at the snap (i.e. 1 yard away.)
2. If the DL is in the neutral zone and another OL moves then it is procedure on the O only. The D cannot be called for offside in the NZ until the ball is snapped so they are not guilty of anything if we have procedure before the snap (with the exception of 1 above).

Of course this interpretation changes from time to time. We used to call #2 as a dual offsetting foul.

One of the big reasons that the Canadian game cannot use the NFL sudden death style of OT is that we allow one point for kicks that enter and do not come back out of the end zone. So the coin flip winner would win far more often than 51%!

The Canadian overtime rules used to be very strange. We would play a "mini-game" with two 10 minute halves. This meant that each team would receive at least one kick-off. I coached in one of those where we were tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. At the end of the mini-game, the score was: you guessed it 1-0!

Not sure who this writer is, but I thought this article might interest those who have been reading this thread. As a bonus, he makes an interesting comment on instant replay, or lack thereof in the CFL....

King Kaufman's Sports Daily

The Grey Cup: If only NFL players played by CFL rules. That goes for refs too.

Dec. 1, 2005 | Am I the only sports columnist in the United States who gets publicly chided for not talking about the Grey Cup?

I can hear the hard drives whirring in your heads, American sports fans, as you flip through your mental files trying to remember which of those cups the rest of the world is always battling over the Grey Cup is. Is that rugby? Soccer? Cricket? Golf? Or are we just talking about protective equipment for Vinny Testaverde?

I'm going to talk about the Canadian Football League championship game now, three days late, not because it was such an amazing game -- the Edmonton Eskimos beat the Montreal Alouettes 38-35 in double overtime, meaning two possessions for each team in the college-style format -- or because the halftime show by the Black Eyed Peas was more entertaining than anything we can hope for at the next Super Bowl from the Rolling Stones, who are more like the Strained Peas.

I want to talk about the best thing I saw: The officiating.

Stay with me on this, my fellow Americans, I'm going to be talking about the NFL.

Maybe it's because I write about the CFL from time to time and have even confessed to having a favorite -- 'scuse me: favourite -- team, the British Columbia Lions, who got bounced in the Western final this year by the Esks, darn it. But one letter writer gave me grief for ignoring Sunday's Grey Cup game.

I'd meant to watch it Sunday, but I got caught up in family holiday stuff and the NFL and didn't get the chance. I finally watched a tape of the second half and overtime Wednesday -- pilot error on the DVR scotched the first half for me -- and it was no less exciting because I knew the final score.

An unscientific poll on the CFL's Web site asked if this was the most exciting Grey Cup game ever, and the answer, by 79-21 percent, was yes.

Take that with a grain of salt. This was the 94th Grey Cup. Keeping in mind the demographics of the Internet, how many of the people voting do you suppose have been alive for even a third of them? I mean, come on, no love for Edmonton beating Montreal 26-25 in 1954, the teams combining for over 1,000 yards and Red O'Quinn catching 13 passes for 316?

Red O'Quinn, people!

It's easy to find a summary of the rules differences between Canadian and American football, but the obvious ones on first glance are that the field's bigger, there's a 12th player on the field for each team, all of the offensive backs can be moving toward the line of scrimmage at the snap, and there are only three downs, not four.

I haven't watched a lot of the CFL in recent years, but I'm familiar enough with the game -- which, other than the vastly inferior athletes, is a more entertaining one than the NFL version -- that after about two plays I felt comfortable. Just another CFL game. There go all six receivers, racing toward the line of scrimmage at the snap.

What really struck me, though, coming back to live CFL action for the first time in a few years, was the officiating. The CFL doesn't have instant replay, and the zebras, therefore, actually officiate.

It was jarring to see the game run in the way the NFL was run in my youth. A play would happen and the nearest official would immediately make a call. The whistle would actually get blown within a minute of the ballcarrier hitting the ground.

The officials were decisive and confident. It was even more refreshing than seeing a touchback called a rouge and being worth one point.

Instant replay has turned NFL officials into timid middle managers, constantly looking over their shoulders at the replay booth.

Ever notice the length of time between the end of a play in the NFL and the whistle? The official story of NFL officials is that they have to see the ball in the possession of the tackled runner before they can blow the whistle, because they don't want to blow dead a fumble.

That's fine, but how many times have you seen a ballcarrier tackled in the open field, the ball clearly visible in his clutches, and there's enough time before the whistle for you to think, "Where's the whistle?" This happens about five times a quarter for me.

And then there's the now-near-universal gambit of not making any call on a close play, such as whether a ballcarrier has made it into the end zone or a receiver has caught a pass with both feet inbounds. More than once this year alone, after an apparent touchdown, I've seen players already trotting off the field and heard the TV announcer say something like, "We still don't have a signal from the refs."

Nothing like that in the CFL. Play, whistle. Bang, like that. I love it. Do CFL officials blow calls? Of course they do. More than NFL officials? No idea, but I bet they do. It's a good trade.

The NFL is the best football in the world simply because the athletes are so mind-bogglingly good. That's the trump card. The greatest players in the CFL are at best role players in the NFL.

Doug Flutie is a Hall of Fame legend in Canada. In the NFL he's mostly been a highly intriguing backup and spot starter. He's had some nice games and a couple of nice years south of the border. North of it he's Johnny Unitas, Joe Montana and Dan Marino rolled into one. And his brother -- remember him? -- is Jerry Rice.

I've long said I'd love to see NFL players playing with CFL rules, with the bigger field, and especially the bigger end zones, and the fewer downs, which mean a more wide-open game. Now I've got a new item on my hopeless wish list: I'd love to see NFL players playing with CFL officials.

awesome story! Thanks!!!!

I was talking to some CFL officials the other night, and according to them, they will be going to the "normal" hat pattern, and a few other possible uniform modifications.


Great game the Grey Cup, but I think the Vanier Cup was even better.

When you say the normal hat pattern, are you refering to what we wear in amateur or to the US NFL style? What are the other changes that you have heard? Needless to say I am interested as it might affect the amateur game in Canada. I need to make sure that I have the proper inventory.

Many thanks.

Normal Canadian Amateur Hat Pattern

I doubt any of the changes will filter down to the amateur game. I like the uniform the way it is.

A possible alteration to the CFL uniform is a black stripe down the seem on the side, and maybe the re-introduction of the gold flag.

Hat pattern is no problem. Black stripe, something like the hockey refs?

As for gold flags, we already produce them for lacrosse. I have sent an email to the CFL for some info as well.

Thanks for your help.

Good luck with the basketball season.