Duke Ellingson: incoming CFL rule changes questionable at best

Photo courtesy: Bob Butrym/RFB Sport Photography
It’s been a couple of weeks since CFL commissioner Stewart Johnston announced some major changes to several long-standing CFL rules.

As I pondered these changes, I felt compelled to offer a perspective that is borne out of more than 55 years of following the league as not just a fan, but as one who got 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:

A consensus for change, usually based on a pervasive trend that all stakeholders have identified that will improve the game in some discernible fashion.
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 2005-2006 season, the NHL removed the red line for the purpose of allowing two-line passes. This rule change was part of a broader effort to increase scoring and improve the flow of the game following the 2004–05 lockout, which resulted in the cancellation of the entire season.
In 2023, Major League Baseball introduced the pitch clock in order to improve the overall speed of the game. The average length of MLB games peaked at three hours and 10 minutes in 2021. The first three years with the new rule reduced the average game length to two hours and 38 minutes.
After several playoff and Super Bowl games resulted in overtime victories that saw only one team possess the ball, the NFL modified both its regular-season and playoff rule to allow each team to have at least one possession.

Using the above criteria as a roadmap, the rationale for these CFL changes, along with the timing of the announcement, leaves me feeling unsettled. Let’s tackle some of the key rule changes first.

Using the rubric above, my biggest concern isn’t that the rules are all bad ideas, but instead I’m left asking what is the perceived problem they are trying to fix, and have all the potential outcomes been considered?

The move to a 35-second play clock is a great example. The CFL has not typically struggled with pace of play or prolonged games (in real time). While the premise of taking some of the control of game play out of the head referee’s hands is sound and will likely result in a more consistent pace of play, to date the league has either not communicated, or (more concerningly) not contemplated how this rule change may affect the best part of the CFL game — the last three minutes of each half.

In today’s CFL, with the clock stopping after each play to reset the ball and move the chains, and teams only having one timeout inside the three-minute warning of the fourth quarter, multiple possessions by each team are the norm, resulting in dramatic comebacks and fantastic finishes. Unless there’s a plan to modify the timeout rules, the ability of an offence with the lead to bleed the clock will undoubtedly minimize the drama of many close CFL games.

The modification of the rouge rule is another example. I would ask again — what pervasive league-wide problem is this rule change supposed to fix? In the league announcement, it was cited that “no one wants to see any game (not to mention a Grey Cup) decided by a punt or field goal that goes out of the end zone.” I can only think of only one instance in the last 10 years where a game was actually decided in this fashion, so we’re not exactly talking about the NFL overtime rule here.

Overall, however, I think the change is fair enough and I happen to think the slight modification meets a lot of people halfway. The rouge is still in play but with limitations.

Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone is a more head-scratching change. Once again, the impetus for this change does not appear to have any basis in factual reality.

There was a lot of talk about trading field goals for touchdowns and a number (seemingly pulled out of thin air) citing a potential increase of 60 touchdowns per season. However, with scoring at a 20-year high, is this really a problem that’s plaguing the league or fan enjoyment of the game?

The premise is that teams will choose to gamble on third down in opposing territory rather than try an excessively long field goal, leading to more touchdowns. I suggest that this premise actually quite flawed. Even with a successful third-down conversion, an offence is only guaranteed one additional set of downs. As they near the opponent’s end zone and face subsequent third down(s), it seems likely they’ll end up kicking a field goal anyway.

While there will be some additional touchdowns as a result of more third-down gambles, which I’m all for, it does not logically or automatically translate to the significant increase the commissioner is suggesting. Additionally, the idea that there is some kind of growing dissatisfaction among players, coaches, and fans with the goalposts at the goal line seems far-fetched. Yes, there are occasions when passes hit the crossbar or the uprights but, again, is this pervasive enough to warrant a change?

Finally, the most aggravating rule change of all — reducing the field of play from 110 yards to 100 yards. Unlike the other rule changes, which each had at least a defensible rationale, this one simply makes no sense.

When asked about the reason, the commissioner simply cited offences needing to travel ten fewer yards to score a touchdown. By that logic, why doesn’t the league just pass a rule giving the offence the ball at the opposition 30-yard line following a field goal? Is there really a growing sense of dissatisfaction among all CFL stakeholders that offering offences an easier path to success will somehow improve our game? Do defences not get a say?

With the slightly shorter end zones, the CFL field will be reduced by 10 yards (eliminating the issue of Toronto and Montreal having asymmetrical end zone configurations), so why the additional subtraction from 110 to 100?

This change, more than any other, galls me as a CFL fan. The 110-yard field has never been an issue, not even with 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 been marked by an increase in scoring — the highest in more than 20 years — an historic increase in quarterback completion percentage, and a rise in explosive plays and touchdowns from offences and special teams. In addition, the playoff race has been compelling with several teams still jockeying for playoff spots and positioning.

Rather than ensuring the focus of players, coaches, fans, and media is the exciting on-field product, the CFL commissioner diverted the discussion toward major rule changes that won’t come into play until the 2026 season (and others which we will not see until 2027). For a league that historically struggles with growing their television audience and getting butts in seats, this seems significantly counterproductive.

Why the rush? Could these announcements have not waited until after the Grey 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 Grey Cup rather than on the somewhat existential discussions on 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 to higher scores, more competitive outcomes, and, despite its warts, continues to be as unique and quirky as it has been for more than 100 years.

These rule changes seem needlessly rushed and do not seem to have a direct link to “fixing” any pervasive problems. Most troublesome is that they may unintentionally erode the quality and competitiveness of our sport, and ultimately disenchant a segment 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.