Talk:Canadian football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian sport WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	Canadian football Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian football, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Canadian football and the Canadian Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An indoor version of Canadian football for the Canadian market has been proposed for 2005. It will be different than Arena football in that the rebound nets will be out of play and that there will be only three downs, as in outdoor Candian football.

Rlquall 18:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That league, the NAFL, is dead, as it was poorly mismanaged, but the rules should IMO be used by the AFL.

Contents 1 Time Count Variation 2 Inter-league play 3 rouge 4 rouge again (please explain) 5 Four downs in Quebec 6 position descriptions 7 Picture 8 Wikipedia Project 9 Merge 10 CFD notice 11 NFL VS CFL

[edit] Time Count Variation

It is a little confusing to say that the time between plays is 45 seconds in U.S. football and 20 in Canadian. Firstly, the 45 second count is employed only in the NFL, not other versions. Secondly, this count is from the time at which the previous play actually ends, not when the ball is marked ready for another play. If the ball has been "dead" and the clock stopped (i.e., incomplete pass, out of bounds, etc.) the NFL play clock starts at 30 seconds, not 45. In other U.S. football (high school and collegiate), the clock is 25 seconds from the time the ball being marked ready for play, only five seconds longer. Perhaps this entire discussion is too long and too akward to be included in the CFL article, but as it stands now it is somewhat misleading.

Rlquall 14:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Inter-league play

Also, by the same agreement, both sides play under Canadian rules when the Canadian team has the ball and under American rules when the US team has the ball.

Is this correct? By my reading, this implies that the rules change an impressive number of times -during the game-. Perhaps the author means "when the Canadian/US team is at home?"

I was wondering the same thing. I would think that it would be unfair (although I'm not sure to what side) to have different rules for each team. - sik0fewl 08:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is the home team--not the team controlling the ball. this is implied but is not very confusing. infact, the other way would be practially impossible, as the field dimensions would need to be changed in between plays. •USER•ADAM THE ATOM•TALK• 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rouge

Does the writer have any evidence of negative scores in early Canadian football? I thought the word "rouge" comes from a red flag the refs used to have.

I'm certain "rouge" term coming from a negative score is completely incorrect and I'm removing that from the article. I have heard that it comes from a red flag as well but I don't think that there is any proof that it comes from that either. As I recall, the derivation of the term is somewhat of a mystery. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I hear the term "rouge" almost as often as "single" so I don't think it's archaic at all. In fact, as pointed out, it is still the official term for the single point. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rouge again (please explain)

I don't really follow the thing about a single point when a missed field goal goes out of bounds. Is this saying that you're required to return a missed field goal or give up a point? Can the kicker score a point just by kicking the ball out the back of the end zone, even if it's not between the posts? I'm watching the Grey Cup now and don't really understand everything. --Trovatore 23:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea behind the single point (rouge is an archaism in Canadian football nowadays - broadcasters generally use the single) is that someone (there is no requirement in either Canadian or American football that a kicker or punter has to kick the ball, after all) kicks the ball, and one of several things will happen:

• a successful field goal attempt - that's three points
• ball doesn't make it to the end zone - that's a really crappy football play
• kick is blocked and all hell breaks loose
• a kicking team member recovers the ball - unlikely
• ball goes out of bounds at the end zone - a single
• ball stays in end zone and someone has to return it - it's a single if the returner does not make it out of the end zone.

Hope that clears things up. kelvSYC 05:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So on the last play of the game, at the opponents' 20, score tied, the kicker can win the game just by kicking the ball hard and not sweating accuracy at all? Actually from the way you phrase it, it sounds like he can win the game just by punting through the end zone. Is that really right? --Trovatore 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes

Having said that, in such a situation a field goal is easier to make... kelvSYC 03:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was thinking you could punt it in the air through the end zone—surely that's easier than a field goal. But by coincidence I was talking about this with someone today, and he said it had to touch the ground and then go out the back of the end zone. Is that so? If so, maybe something should be said about it in the article, because I didn't get that from what I read. --Trovatore 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A kick that crosses the dead line or a side-line-in-goal without touching the ground or a player still scores one point (except kickoffs, where a player much touch the ball before a single can be scored). But in the situation you describe, a field goal is usually attempted. This may be because the field goal formation gives better protection to the kicker than the punt formation when all 12 defensive players are trying to block the kick. In a normal punt, only a handful of defenders seriously try to rush the punter, with the rest falling back to help with the return. But with no punt return possible, everybody would be rushing the punter. Indefatigable 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. --Trovatore 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that punting it OB for the single from 20 or 30 yards isn't always a sure thing (in one game beteew BC and Saskatchewan, the game went into OT, the Riders failed on their attempt to score a TD, so all BC had to do was score 1 point to win the game, and instead of using two downs to get closer, HC Wally Bruno decided to punt the ball OB for the single, but the play failed as the returner was able to get the ball out of the end zone, Riders later won the game on a TD (2006 season)), and it's always better to go for 3 more points than 1, cuz you never know what will happen next in Canadian Football (like Miti Stegail's last second TD against Edmonton in 06)

[edit] Four downs in Quebec

The French version of this article says there are four downs in amateur Canadian football as played in Quebec. My translation:

In Quebec, high school and collegiate football is different from university and professional football. In effect, the rules are different. Teams have four downs instead of the three in Canadian football and there are 12 players on the field instead of the eleven of American football. The field is the same length as in Canadian football (i.e., 110 yards).

Is this verifiable? Indefatigable 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Some local amateur leagues choose to play 4 downs, the theory being that in developmental leagues, skills are more readily exercised using 4 downs because of the difficulties in sustaining a drive with three downs for less-than-skilled players. Otherwise, those leagues play Canadian rules. My recommendation is to insert a passage that in some parts of Canada, local organizers have chosen to play Canadian rules but with 4 downs in order to maximize the playing/development opportunities for young players.

I agree Canking 00:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] position descriptions

the description for "safety" doesn't really match current tactics. Safety has evolved into a DB/LB hybrid, particularly at the CFL level.

the "strong" and "weak side" linebacker nomenclature isn't close to universal - perhaps the simpler "outside linebacker" would suffice for purposes of this article.

[edit] Picture

Anyone got another picture of canadian football? Or is it just like American as far as uniform and ball and all... I actually did not read most of the article--not much time! :) --posted by cprussin when he was not logged in. :).

I just added a few pics. More would always be welcome. heqs 18:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Project

The American Football page has a box at the top stating "this project is part of the Wikipedia American Football" project. Should the same type of thing not be listed here for Wikipedia Canadian Football? Canking 11:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Should this be merged with American Football since they are virtually the same thing? Armyrifle 23:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There are significant differences between the two games even today, and they have very different histories. Also, the Canadian information would be swamped by the American information if the articles were merged. Also they are fairly large articles separately. --Rbraunwa 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a troll, Armyrifle9, so I'll just quietly agree with Rbraunwa. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

it would be like merging the Rugby League and Rugby Union articles, American and Canadian GI are almost basically two different sports

[edit] CFD notice

See related discussion on categories here and here. heqs ·:. —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL VS CFL

As NFL is internationaly more well known perhaps a section comparing CFL and NFL would help to explain the differences to ppl, myslef for example, who know NFL but not CFL. Just a suggestion brob (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you referring to the rules of the games, rules differences are covered at Comparison of Canadian and American football. Otherwise just read the Canadian Football League and National Football League articles. - BillCJ (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)