Details of CFL rules committee's proposed changes alleviate some of the concerns

The changes the CFL's rules committee was reportedly looking at this week's each had upsides and downsides, but the committee's actual recommendations to the league's board of governors have sorted out some of the potential issues. None of these rules are in place yet, as the board will review them later this spring and decide what to adopt (and the committee purposefully left at least one potential change, on another convert option, up to the discretion of the board), but now we have a fuller sense of what exactly is on the table. Here's a look at each change they're proposing, in order from easiest to accept to toughest.

Making offensive pass interference reviewable: This wasn't really reported in advance, but it's a smart change to push for and one that should be an easy fix. The league's move last year to make defensive pass interference challengeable by coaches and reviewable by video was a smart one, and it generally worked out well, but there was one obvious loophole in it; calls (or non-calls) of offensive pass interference weren't included. There doesn't seem to be any reason not to have them subject to review too.

Removing coaches' ability to call for a measurement: About the only ones who won't like this are coaches. Calling for a measurement in short yardage is too often used as a stall tactic, and making that a referee's discretion call should speed up the game significantly without dire consequences.

Changing timing for high-tempo offences: This change was perhaps the most worrying as initially floated in media reports, as it sounded like it would be combined with a longer playclock and would be a change that would happen for all plays. While that would increase the effectiveness of hurry-up offences and speed up games, it would be hard on teams that don't want to go no-huddle, and it would potentially screw up the CFL's great end-game situations, making it easier for leading teams to kill the clock. The actual proposed version of the rule is much more limited and much better; it's not changing the playclock, and it's not starting the playclock earlier for all plays, but rather only when teams indicate to the referee they want to use a high-tempo offence. That allows the offence to decide what speed they want to go at, paving the way for some hurry-up offences but not obliterating traditional ones, and it shouldn't affect the end game.

Amending punts and kicks: This is another change that seems to have come out better in the final version than in the initial reports. The idea of eliminating no yards penalties on punts and kicks that bounce had some merit from a sense of decreasing flags, but also potentially made returners more vulnerable to big hits. The version actually proposed is keeping the no-yards penalty, but allowing it to be tacked on at the end of a return rather than used instead, forcing teams to be more leery of a no-yards violation and thus protecting returners and allowing bigger returns. The committee is also proposing not allowing the five interior offensive linemen on the kicking team to head downfield before the ball's kicked, which should lower illegal blocking penalties and no yards penalties while still allowing for good punt coverage.

Altering pass coverage rules: This is getting a lot of attention, and it could have significant implications for the game. Again, what the committee's actually proposed is less drastic than some of the initial discussions; they're now talking about a change that "would allow a defensive player to contact a receiver that is in front of him within five yards of the line of scrimmage, but would not allow either player to create or initiate contact that impedes or redirects an opponent beyond five yards." Thus, within five yards, contact would be as we typically expect, allowing for bump-and-run coverage. However, some contact is still permitted beyond five yards, including handfighting. This would likely mean that both receivers and defensive backs would benefit more from speed and agility than sheer toughness. Whether it's worth trying to open up the game this way to correct one poor offensive year is a worthwhile subject of debate, but the proposed change doesn't go as far as some had feared.

Changing the converts: Of all the rule changes, this one would make the CFL game look the most different from its current form. The committee is proposing that one-point conversion kicks be taken from the 32-yard-line instead of the 12-yard-line, making them less automatic (99.4 per cent were successful in 2014) and offering the chance for a return of a missed convert for two points. They're also suggesting that two-point conversion attempts be moved up to the three-yard line from the five; only 23 two-point conversions were attempted in 2014, and only 30 per cent of those were successful. This change does eliminate the possiblity of a fake, which is unfortunate, and it would look very different (and would alter kicker scoring subsantially), but it has some significant benefits in terms of promoting more two-point conversions. The committee has also offered an option to the governors of also presenting a three-point option teams could choose from the 10-yard line. While that's vastly different from what we've seen in football, it doesn't sound unbalanced, and it could help create more thrilling late comebacks.

All in all, the changes the committee's proposed seem generally helpful. They may not all go through, with the conversion changes and the pass coverage differences likely to receive substantial debate, and they're certain to annoy traditionalists. These appear generally well-thought-out with an eye to the long term rather than just a quick reaction to a down year, though, and they may help the CFL game become even better. We'll see what the board of governors thinks.