It's been a few weeks since CFL Commissioner Stuart Johnston announced some major changes to several long-standing CFL rules.
In reflecting on these changes, I felt compelled to offer a perspective based on more than 55 years of observing the league, not just as a fan, but as someone who was able to live out his dream of playing in the CFL for 11 seasons, followed by over a decade of broadcasting in Ottawa.
When professional sports leagues make significant rule changes, there are usually two main criteria:
- Consensus on a change, usually based on a widespread trend that all stakeholders have identified that will improve the game in some noticeable way.
- A specific event or incident that highlights the need for change, often from a competitive perspective.
Some recent (and not so recent) examples include:
- Ahead of the 2005–06 season, the NHL removed the red line to allow two-line passing. This rule change was part of a wider effort to increase scoring and improve the flow of the game following the 2004–05 lockout which led to the cancellation of the entire season.
- In 2023, Major League Baseball introduced pitch clocks to improve the overall speed of the game. The average length of MLB games peaked at three hours and 10 minutes in 2021. In the first three years of the new rule, the average length of games dropped to two hours and 38 minutes.
- After several playoff and Super Bowl games resulted in overtime victories with only one team in possession, the NFL changed both the regular season and playoff rules to allow each team to have at least one possession.
Using the above criteria as a roadmap, the rationale for these CFL changes can be found., along with the timing of the announcement, makes me feel uneasy. Let's first look at some key rule changes.
Using the rubric above, my biggest concern is not that all rules are bad ideas, but instead I wonder what supposed problem they are trying to solve, and have all potential outcomes been addressed?
A great example is the move to a 35 second game clock. The CFL generally does not have problems with the speed of play or the length of games (in real time). While the idea of shifting some control of the game out of the referee's hands is a sound one and would likely lead to a more consistent pace of play, to date the league has either not communicated or (more worryingly) failed to consider how this rule change could impact the best part of CFL play – the final three minutes of each half.
In today's CFL, with the clock stopped after every play to reset the ball and move the chains and teams only have one timeout within the three-minute warning of the fourth quarter, multiple possessions by each team are the norm, leading to dramatic comebacks and fantastic finishes. Unless there is a plan to change the timeout rules, the ability of the offense with the advantage to ruin the clock will undoubtedly minimize the drama of many close CFL games.
Another example is the change in the blush rule. I'd like to ask again: What widespread problem in the league is this rule change supposed to solve? The league's announcement stated that “no one wants any game (let alone a Gray Cup) decided on a punt or a field goal that goes out of the end zone.” I can only think of one time in the last 10 years where a game was actually decided this way, so we're not talking about the NFL's overtime rule here.
Overall, though, I think the change is fairly fair and I think a little change goes a long way toward helping a lot of people. Blush is still in the game, but with limitations.
Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone is a more head-scratching change. Again, the impetus for these changes does not seem to have any basis in reality.
There was a lot of talk about trading field goals for touchdowns, and some numbers (seemingly pulled out of thin air) pointed to a potential 60-touchdown increase per season. However, with the result being a 20-year record, is this really an issue preventing the league or fans from enjoying the game?
The idea is that teams will choose to gamble on third down in opponent's territory rather than try to kick a field goal that is too long, which will result in more touchdowns. I suggest that this premise is actually quite flawed. Even with a successful third down conversion, the offense is only guaranteed one additional set of downs. As they approach the opponent's end zone and face subsequent third downs, it is likely that they will still kick a field goal.
While there will be some additional touchdowns as a result of more third down plays, which I fully support, it does not logically or automatically translate into the significant increase the commissioner is proposing. Additionally, the idea that there is growing dissatisfaction among players, coaches and fans with goal posts on the goal line seems far-fetched. Yes, there are times when passes hit the crossbar or the posts, but again, is this common enough to warrant a change?
Finally, the most annoying rule change is the reduction of the field of play from 110 yards to 100 yards. Unlike other rule changes, all of which had at least a reasonable justification, this one simply doesn't make sense.
When asked the reason, the commissioner simply cited violations that required one to travel ten yards less to score a touchdown. By that logic, why doesn't the league simply adopt a rule allowing offensive players to pass the ball on the opponent's 30-yard line after a field goal? Is there really a growing sense of dissatisfaction among all CFL stakeholders that giving hitters an easier path to success will somehow improve our game? Doesn't the defense have a say?
Slightly shorter end zones would reduce the CFL field by 10 yards (eliminating the problem of asymmetrical end zone configurations in Toronto and Montreal), so why the additional subtraction from 110 to 100?
This change, more than any other, irritates me as a CFL fan. The 110-yard field has never been a problem, even for CFL detractors – so why the desire to change it?
The timing of the announcement also seems questionable.
As noted, the 2025 CFL season to date has seen an increase in production – the highest in more than 20 years – a historic increase in quarterback completion percentage, and an increase in explosive plays and touchdowns from the offense and special teams. Additionally, the playoff race has been exciting with several teams still fighting for playoff spots and positions.
Instead of focusing the attention of players, coaches, fans and the media on the exciting product on the field, the CFL commissioner has shifted the discussion to major rule changes that won't go into effect until the 2026 season (and others that we won't see until 2027). For a league that has historically struggled with growing its television audience and gaining slots, this seems significantly counterproductive.
Why the rush? Could these announcements not have waited until after the Gray Cup in early December when CFL headlines are few and far between? Should the CFL not want the focus to be on the final weeks of the regular season, the playoffs and the Gray Cup rather than the somewhat existential discussions about the new rules and their potential impact (good or bad) on our league?
To sum it up, we have a game with a gaming product that is trending towards higher scores, more competitive results and, despite its shortcomings, continues to be as unique and quirky as it has been for over 100 years.
These rule changes seem unnecessarily hasty and have no direct connection to “fixing” any widespread problems. The worrying part is that they could inadvertently undermine the quality and competitiveness of our sport and ultimately disappoint some of its very loyal fans.
Time will tell and I hope for the best, but I don't think I'm alone in my questions.
