Talk:Comparison of American and Canadian football

message: This was broken out as a separate article because the original Canadian football article was becoming so long.  Rlquall 03:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The article says
: Other than conversions, there is no single-point score in American football
There is, however, a one-point safety, at least in NCAA football.  See, for example, .  I suppose the text in the article covers this case (as the safety was scored on a conversion attempt), but I think the text is misleading.  I don't understand the NCAA rule well enough to characterize it for the article, but perhaps someone with more knowledge can. Molinari 23:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one-point scores in American football are all conversions: a touchdown during a conversion attempt is worth two points, while a field goal or safety is worth one. So, as of 2005, the only way for a football game to end 1-0 in the US is for it to be a forfeit. (As of...2003 I think was the last time, a high school game under Georgia's state-specific rules could end 1-0 through the old "penetration" overtime system, but that's another matter entirely.) C.Fred 02:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One point plays in American football 

message: From the "Team size" section of the article: "on the defensive end of the ball, two safeties are employed instead of one."
The suggestion that American football employs only one safety is wrong. American football features two safeties (free safety and strong safety) in the base defense (usually 4 linemen, 3 linebackers, 2 cornerbacks, and 2 safeties).
Something else I read somewhere there is often an extra linebacker in Canadian football (4-4?), or something called a "defensive halfback". We don't have defensive halfbacks in American football.
Perhaps someone familiar with Canadian football can fix this. (Or I can do it sometime when I have time to research it.) - gohlkus 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team size 

message: Is it necessary to have metric conversions?  Distances in both North American football codes are measured in yards, not metres. Iceberg3k 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. They're in as a courtesy to international readers or Canadians unfamiliar with imperial measurement. At least in defining the dimensions of the field and goals, they should be present. —C.Fred (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The XX-yard line is an example where metric should not be used. 216.179.123.102 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: After re-reading the article, there are some excessive conversions. I would say, in the definitions of the field and the ball, use them. Since the rest of the measurements are by rule (e.g. 15 yard penalties), do not convert. —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric 

message: This part is sort of unclear to me:
"Kicker advancing the ball
The Canadian kicker, or a player behind the kicker when he kicks the ball, may recover his own kick and advance with the ball. American kickers are not allowed to do so, except on a kick-off, when the kicker and anyone behind him (i.e., the entire team, lest they be off-side), are eligible to recover the ball, so long as it has progressed at least ten yards down the field; hence the "onside kick" play. Canadian football extends this principle to all kicks, including those downfield."
Does this mean on kickoffs or punts? Because if it's punts, then most of the players would be in front of the punter, right?
--Awiseman 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I think it's just a round-about way of saying on-side players may recover a kick.  DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: True. Teams may leave a (usually very speedy) man in the backfield to recover a kick, but this is usually when a quick-kick is run as a trick play to gain yardage. But yes, everybody on a kickoff is onside—unless they're offside at the kick, of the 5-yard penalty variety. On punts, generally only the punter is onside. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still pretty confusing however, could one of you two rewrite it? I don't want to do it and mess it up further. --Awiseman 18:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I broke it out into four paragraphs: all kicks in Canada, kickoffs in the US, scrimmage kicks in the US, and all blocked scrimmage kicks. This hopefully makes it clearer and easier to follow. —C.Fred (talk) 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicker advancing the ball 

message: The second paragraph starts Football was introduced to North America...
Was this Rugby (as the above paragraph implies), Soccer, or another form? Ubermonkey 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it was rugby but the rules were pretty loose in those days and evolved into North American football gradually.  Canadian football was, in fact, called rugby football into the 1950s. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the evolution is beyond the scope of this article, I have made the word "introduced" in the above quote as a link to History of American football. That gives the reader quick access to the history. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I was thinking that this would look cleaner in a table, and various forms of north american football could be added (i.e. NCAA ruleset, NFL ruleset, XFL ruleset,Arena Football .....) Duke toaster 19:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, a lot of this lends itself to narrative form, and multiple columns would look ugly. By contrast, I think a table would be appropriate in American football rules when discussing penalties and yardage, but that's another matter entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Duke toaster that a table would be cleaner but I also agree with C.Fred that it may be too difficult to make clean and clear in a table. See  for an example. Perhaps a briefer version could be made in a table with just the highlights after all the narrative explanations. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this be put in a table? 

message: Football articles are rough for US/Canada border stories, because offen[cs]e, defen[ce], and cent[er|re] are important to the terminology. I know for first reference the last, it's done as center (centre in Canada). We interchange throughout the article, though, with the first two. What should the convention be? Since it's used in generic usage to cover both, we can't go by the code being discussed all the time. It's a minor issue, but it's something a reader would notice, especially if we want someday to make a featured article out of this. I'm also on the fence about which dialect to use (but leaning Canadian). Does anybody have a compelling reason to use one or the other? —C.Fred (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll disclose my bias for Canadian spelling first but, nevertheless, make a plea for it.  Articles on American things can be reasonably expected to be spelled American.  This particular article is on an inherently international interest and, therefore, should be spelled in the international English.  Only the United States changed "centre" to "center", while the rest of the English-speaking world has maintained the original. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialect choice 

message: I just read the Gridiron football page, wich is little more than a glorified DAB page with no sources. Merging the article with something else has been discussed, but no concensus was reached. One user mentioned redirect that page to North American football, but there is no such page. THis got me thinking that perhaps we could merge Gridiron football  and this page, and move the result to North American football. This page already includes a short history of both variants, and could be expanded some more. THe differences section is probably fine as-is. One alternative is just to move the history section to North American football, merging it with Gridiron football, and leaving the differences section here. Comments? - BillCJ 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible retooling and move

message: Quote: "Following a successful field goal, in Canadian rules, the team scored upon has the option of receiving a kickoff, kicking off from its 35-yard line, or scrimmaging at its own 35-yard line. In American football, there is a kickoff by the scoring team after every score, with the exception of safeties (see below). The option for the scored-upon team to kick off after a touchdown exists in American amateur football, but it is very rarely exercised."
I recall watching a CFL game on US television, when Willie Wood (former NFL star) was coaching a CFL team: it must have been Toronto in 1980 or 1981.  Very late in the game, the opposing team had just scored to draw within a touchdown of the Argos, and the broadcasters were telling of how an onside kick was forthcoming and how good this team was at executing said play.  
Wood's response was to exercise the option to have his team kick off instead (the kickoff was from the 45-yard line in those days), and this worked to stifle the opponents' comeback attempt. He gave them the ball, but on his own terms.
I have never seen an NFL or NCAA team elect to do this, and wondered if it is common in the CFL. WHPratt (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules now do not allow for the scored-upon team to kick after a touchdown, and they may only elect to kick after a field goal before the three minute warning in the fourth quarter. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule creates unusual strategy 

message: "In 2009, the CFL changed the latter option to be a kick-off from their own 25-yard line."
It would seem that this was in response to too many teams opting for an intentional safety rather than risk a punt near their own goal area -- there were three in quick succession by one team in a Grey Cup game a couple of years ago.  If so, this should be mentioned. (It doesn't seem to have worked.  In the few CFL games I've seen this year, the safety seems almost automatic.  They should have required a kickoff from the 10-yard line.  Or, perhaps, award four points for a safety.) WHPratt (talk) 04:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The TSN announcers seem to agree about why the rule was changed. I'm not sure this is the article for the analysis of why the change was made, though; the CFL's article would probably be the place to include TSN's and/or CFL's observations about why the rule was changed and what the results have been. That said, a comparison of the rates of conceding a safety between the CFL and NFL would be within the realm of this article, provided it's not original research. (Safeties are much rarer in the US; safeties are conceded typically late in a game with an odd margin between the teams.) —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the reasoning for the rule change does not belong in this comparison article. This article by Glen Suitor does, however, analyse why the rule change would make a difference in the strategy and this CFL release credits the fans desire to reduce the number of teams "taking a knee" and wanting more punt return possibilities. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't have any statistics but it's clear to me that there have been several instances this year where the team would have given up a safety last year but this year did not. In fact, I've seen few safeties given when there was a choice. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Hey, how come the punter always runs around with the ball until they chase him out the back of the endzone?  I can see using up the clock if you're leading late in the game, but doing it in the first quarter just looks silly. WHPratt (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  safeties 

message: Danged if I can remember where I read it, but for some reason I was under the impression that Canadian football did not all the free substitution that is common in American football.  Instead, I thought that each team was limited to something like three substitutions after each play.  This limited the use of specialists and favored the development of more well rounded players.  For example, a player might be a tackle on offense and then play as a defensive end.
However, I can't find any cites, so I must be dreaming.  Does Canadian football have any rules like this?  Did such a rule ever exist?  Is there or was there some other league that had a rule like this?
Just curious.  Thanks.  Steven Marzolian (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rules of that nature haven't been in effect since...since football in the US limited substitution. Off the top of my head, there are three substitution differences in CFL: an injured player is out for three plays; the referee will stop the clock before third down when wholesale special-teams substitutions occur; and when the offence breaks the huddle, no further substitutions are allowed by either team (the linesman and line judge extend their arms horizontally - "the gates" - to note that substitutions must stop). —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  C.Fred is right. It is true, however, that there is less specialisation and many players play on special teams as well but that's because of the limited roster of 42 players dressed for the game. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There also used to be rules regarding "import" (i.e., non-Canadian) players, such as: a team could alternate two imported quarterbacks and only use up one of their import slots, but couldn't put both of them on the field at the same time, things like that.  Maybe some are still in force.WHPratt (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the limits on import players are still in place. Quarterbacks don't count as import/non-import. A CFL team may have up to three quarterbacks on their roster, who may not lineup on defence. A key rule change this year relaxes the rules on where the QB can line up on offence. Before this year, he had to be in position to receive the snap. With this year's change, a team can run the "wildcat" formation with a runningback set to receive the snap and the designated quarterback at receiver/slot. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substitution rules 

message: This article is biased towards Canadian football. 128.211.198.168 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The article is titled "Comparison of American and Canadian football" implying that comparisons are being made of the slight differences between American vs. Canadian games. Many of the articles compare Canadian vs. American games. Shouldn't the comparisons list the American stats first and compare them to the Canadian stats as the title implies ? UrbanNerd (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The title presents the two in alphabetical order; that's a WP:Article titles convention. I think the comparisons list Canadian first on the assumption* that readers are more familiar with the American standards, so the Canadian terms are the more "interesting" and are thus listed first. * And yes, I know what happens when you assume. I don't think it's a problem to have the title read as A and C and the comparisons all in C vs. A order. —C.Fred (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian first 

message: The article has a diagram for each type of football. The diagram for the American football field is an overhead diagram that clearly shows the dimensions and markings on the field. The diagram for the Canadian football field is some sort of isometric diagram with a corner at the top. This latter diagram would work better if it was replaced with a diagram in the same top-down format as the diagram for the American football field, so as to facilitate comparisons between the two. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family:monospace; color:#008800; background-color:#ffffcc; border:1px solid #ff4444;"> B.D.Mills </SPAN> (T, C) 06:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with the need, but it wouild have to be created. There are other images of the CFL field that are overheads, :File:Terrain football canadien.png and :File:Terrain football canadien2.png, but they've been removed several times as "innacurate". However, no one ever bothers explain why they're wrong. Ideally, I'd like to see two diagrams (1 US, 1 Can) created on the same scale, so that when they're stacked, they make an easy comparison. It should be pretty simple to make for someone who knows how to do it, it's just finding that person that's willing and able to do it. - BilCat (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearer diagram for Canadian football field is needed 

message: The "Open-field kick" section says that in American football, it is illegal to kick the ball from beyond the line of scrimmage.  This isn't true.  Drop-kicks are legal from anywhere on the field.  Technically, if the clock is about to run out and the player with the ball at somepoint downfield from the line of scrimmage feels they won't be able to score a touchdown, they can attempt to drop kick the ball for a field goal.  Hasn't happened in a whole lot of years, but to my knowledge, it's still legal (except in the NFL)...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.212.7 (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's illegal in high school: any kick (punt, drop kick, or place kick) from beyond the line of scrimmage or after change of possession is illegal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Return kicks and kicks from beyond the line of scrimmage are also illegal in college. So that makes them pretty much illegal in American football. —C.Fred (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Open-field kick:  What about drop kicks?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Comparison of American and Canadian football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060628211436/http://www.ncaa.org:80/releases/rules/2003021801ru.htm to http://www.ncaa.org/releases/rules/2003021801ru.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Comparison of American and Canadian football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511072051/http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rule_Book_2011.pdf to http://www.cfl.ca/uploads/assets/CFL/PDF_Docs/CFL_Rule_Book_2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719172954/http://www.cfl.ca:80/page/game_rule_2009 to http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_2009
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150104163054/http://www.cfl.ca/page/stats_indrec_rushing to http://www.cfl.ca/page/stats_indrec_rushing
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of American and Canadian football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Border%2Bstands%2Bguard%2BLions/1882995/story.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_2009
*Added  tag to http://cfl.ca/noleadissafe
*Added  tag to http://wilson-sports.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wilson_sports.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=ffUQvlwh&p_lva=&p_faqid=36&p_created=982774271&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTIzJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9Zm9vdGJhbGwgZGltZW5zaW9ucyZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPTMmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9fmFueX4mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9fmFueX4mcF9zb3J0X2J5PWRmbHQmcF9wYWdlPTI%2A&p_li=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515152323/http://www.cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1 to http://cfl.ca/page/game_rule_rule1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105203148/http://www.13thman.com/cflvsnfl.html to http://www.13thman.com/cflvsnfl.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a dispute on the percentage difference of field area between American and Canadian football, so here's my take on it. If I remember how to do a percentage difference correctly, it goes like this:
If the basis for comparison is the American field: (9750 yd2 − 6400 yd2)/6400 yd2 = 52%. The Canadian field is 52% bigger than the American one.
If the basis for comparison is the Canadian field: (6400 yd2 − 9750 yd2)/9750 yd2 = −34%. The American field is 34% smaller than the Canadian one. Indefatigable (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage difference 

message: I checked the CFL rulebook. Just like the NFL, contact on an eligible receiver by the defence is only allowed within five yards of the line of scrimmage. Beyond that, it's illegal contact, a 10-yard penalty from the previous spot. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking receivers 

message: The text says that there are no stripes on the American ball yet the picture shows stripes. I think the text is correct so it seems that a more accurate picture is required. Newwhist (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture is accurate; the ball pictured is for amateur football, not NFL. The NFL is the only level of American football with no stripes on the balls; there are stripes on two of the four panels of an NCAA or high school ball. —C.Fred (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. Noted and understood. Nevertheless, the caption could be worded for greater clarity on the distinction, otherwise, what is the point of the pictures? Would not 'similarity' of the two balls be the point to be be made in the caption?  Newwhist (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ball