This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canadian football This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canadian football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canadian football and the Canadian Football League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Canadian footballWikipedia:WikiProject Canadian footballTemplate:WikiProject Canadian footballCanadian football articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. American football This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Canada: Sport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

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)

Because this is now its own article, some of the terminology must be altered from Canadian to universal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogfat (talk • contribs) 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have noticed recently that some terminology for at least players who first played football in the United States, but then moved to Canada and played in the CFL are now being called gridiron football players. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to call them American-Canadian football players or if they started playing football in Canada and went to the NFL or an American college, be called Canadian-American football players? I first noticed this in the Recent Additions column on the Wikipedia English main page, where 3 such players were all being called gridiron football players. Gridiron is a term used outside North America and the gridiron system for football was abandoned by the 1920s. EagleTech199 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a point. I pulled up three articles on cross-border QBs: Warren Moon, Vince Ferragamo, and Doug Flutie. Flutie's lead flowed well, that he's a former player of American football and Canadian football.

That said, I wouldn't use the hyphenated style, because that makes readers think nationality rather than two varieties of the sport. —C.Fred (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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, [1]. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

The XX-yard line is an example where metric should not be used. 216.179.123.102 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

so can the quarterback kick to the WR instead of throw if he wants to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.248.219 (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Not sure who thinks statistics for players who played in both leagues are "combined". The NFL, and more specifically, the NFL Hall of Fame Committee, does not recognize stats from the CFL, while they do recognize stats from the AAFC and the AFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.196.111 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 [2] 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I've watched pretty much every CFL game from about 2000 onwards and have never seen this. It's certainly not common, I didn't even know it existed. Maybe it was removed since you saw it. SteveLalancette (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2021 (EST)

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)Reply[reply]

"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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I'm guilty of generalizing from a small sample. But it is very rare in the NFL. Almost always very late in the game, and with a six-point lead (which isn't all that much better than a four point lead).WHPratt (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Quote: "In Canadian football any kick that goes into the end zone is a live ball, except for a successful field goal or if the goalposts are hit while the ball is in flight."

This point (or rather, lack of a point) was driven home in a game I saw just last weekend. A team trailing by one point attempted a field goal with seconds left. The kick hit the goal post and bounced back. Had the kicker missed badly, I presume he'd have scored a single and tied the game (unless the opponents managed to bring the ball out past the goal line). He was too close for his own good.WHPratt (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw that game and remember thinking "Just don't hit the upright" before he kicked. Of course, his cause wasn't helped that they committed a time-count foul - 10 yards in the last 3 minutes of the half - while lining up for the kick.

I've also seen games end the other way. Tie game, time running out. Offence lines up for a field goal. Defence rushes 10 but puts their punter and field-goal kicker deep in the end zone, so that if the kick is wide, they can return kick it out of the end zone and not give up the single. The field goal attempt is wide but goes just over the punter's outstretched hands for the game-winning single point. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-( Just can't stop making me re-live that can you. Perfect kick from 47 yards but it was after the 20 second clock had run out so re-do from 57. Medlock has a monstrous foot and I'm thinking possible win but at least a tie but ... http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/scores/gamelog/?id=873637 :-( DoubleBlue (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to think who the winning team was in the game I recounted. It was either Toronto or Hamilton against Winnipeg, since I'm pretty sure the ball went over Bob Cameron. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope you don't mind my moving the margin back for this . . .

I managed to find a short write-up of "Canada's first All-Star football game" in The New York Times of December 4, 1955. It was apparently staged for charity (children's hospitals.) Those interested should be able to locate the microfilm at their public libraries. It's on page S1, presumably the front of the Sports section. Perhaps Canadian papers had more detailed coverage. If someone wants to rework this into one of the other articles, be my guest -- this is my own summary, and not verbatim. It must have been quite a show.

The December 3 game (a week after the Grey Cup contest) was played on Toronto mud (it was raining) before 15,083 spectators.

The West squad took a 5-0 lead on a second-quarter touchdown by Gordon Sturtridge (of Saskatchewan). Sturtridge knocked the ball loose as quarterback Sam Etchverry tried to pass out of his own end zone, and then recovered the ball himself. Jackie Parker's extra point attempt was blocked. (That's correct: a Canadian touchdown was worth five points during the 1950s.) A single, on a Bob Heydenfeldt (Edmonton) kick early in the fourth quarter made it 6-0.

The East tied the game at 6-6 about the nine-minute mark on a pass from Tom Dublinski (Toronto) to Hal Patterson (Montreal). Patterson also scored the extra point because kicker Tom Tracy suffered a high snap, but caught it and managed to complete a pass.

With less than a minute to play, the West tried for a minimalist win. Heydenfelt punted into the East end zone, where Cam Fraser fielded the ball and punted it back – to Heydenfeldt, who got off yet another kick. However, the play ended with the ball at the East's 40 yard line after a no-yards penalty.

Dublinski completed a 42-yard pass to Al Pfeifer (also of Toronto). This permitted Fraser to make a last-second kick, which Jackie Parker kicked back as time ran out. Because Parker had been roughed, the West got another play, but chose to fall on the ball.

Sturtridge almost scored another defensive touchdown an amazing play. The East was within a yard of a touchdown when Sturtridge broke up a pitchout, and dribbled the ball the length of the field. However, Hal Waggoner (Hamilton) caught up to him and recovered at the other one-yard line. WHPratt (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is biased towards Canadian football. 128.211.198.168 (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How so? —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the article has used a hodpodge mix of styles for far too long, I'd like to recomend that one style be chosen and used consistently.

I find it odd that an article comparing American football, which is both played and watched by far more people than the other variant, must use the language variant of the game played and watched by less people. Also, given that, as a generalization, Canadians know more about America and Ammerican football than the reverse, it is far more likely that more Amercians would com to this article to learn the dfferences than Canadians. Therefore, I recommend the article be standardized on the US variant of English. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where's a case where the article uses American style, other than in directly describing the American term where both are presented (center/centre)? If anything, your edits have introduced a mixture more than they've eliminated a mixture. And finally, what's a compelling case under WP:ENGVAR to change? —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gave you my reasonings, which you haven't addressed. This will continue to be an issue as long as the variant of English used is that of a minority of the readers here. You can use ENGVAR to stonewall that if you wish, simply because the article was once part of the CFL article, but the problem will continue. You can try to adapt to the majority of readers, or you hold rigidly to a guideline, for whatever reasons. - BilCat (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is, the article is the comparison of American and Canadian football, so national ties are not inherently stronger on either side of the border. The likelihood of American readers isn't a valid rationale for the change; by sheer numbers, it's more likely that American readers will read any subject on Wikipedia. That's why the MOS says to prefer a national variety when there is a strong national tie if one exists, and if not, to retain the existing variety. As I said before, the article is in Canadian English and has been since 2006. With no strong tie and no evidence of mixed dialect, the MOS says to leave it as be. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no "hodgepodge"; it is in Canadian English and has been so since the beginning. Your theories of who would read the article are interesting but only a theory. I could argue that it is more likely that people will read this article are Canadians who are far more likely to see both sports. It doesn't really matter though because the relevant guideline is WP:ENGVAR which says not to have lame arguments to change the spelling an article is written in. If you cannot handle the Canadian spelling, shield your eyes, brace your limbs, or avoid these sort of articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, what if paragraphs and sentences use the spelling that is indigenous to the country whose game is being described? That is, the paragraph that describes primarily the Canadian game uses "centre" and "colour", while the paragraph that describes primarily the American game uses "center" and "color". If a paragraph covers both, then sentences are split? Not entirely satisfactory, I would agree.

Perhaps it could be driven by context, bearing in mind that most Canadians are functional with American spelling as long as the context is clear. "The trophy case is in the center of the center." in the US, and "The trophy case is in the center of the centre." in Canada. Based on that, use American spelling throughout the article (yes, I'm a Canuck and I'm usually a stickler for using my native land's spelling rules) for the most part, except the proper names of Canadian places (e.g. the Air Canada Centre). GBC (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really a workable solution. At least you didn't throw out stupid insults like the previous poster. I'm sorry I missed the oppurtunity to give a civility warning! - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should not the article state the differences in marking of yards? I never watch the game as it is of no interest to me, but I'm taking a writer's interest in it to be able to utilize references more properly. I understand that in the Canadian game, the highest value (55 yards) is in the center, while in the American game, my understanding is that the highest value (50 yards) is at the goal lines. GBC (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, both fields have the highest value at midfield. The typical field is numbered every 10 yards. The Canadian field does add a mark at midfield, usually a C rather than the number 55. Net result is, looking every 5 yards, the fields are numbered like this. (Goal lines and midfield are bolded only for visual reference.)

    American: G   .  10   .  20   .  30   .  40   .  50   .  40   .  30   .  20   .  10   .   G
    Canadian: G   .  10   .  20   .  30   .  40   .  50   C  50   .  40   .  30   .  20   .  10   .   G

In all cases, the number is the distance to the nearest goal line. (Compare that with rugby union, where the 22-metre lines are 22 m out from the goal lines, but the 10-metre lines are 10 m from the half-way line.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 06:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Even tho Canada is on the metric system, Canadian football uses yards, as does American football. So this article should be using yards, with parenthetical metric conversions for the international reader. There is really no reason for feet to be used, even when there is a fraction of a yard. There must be a standardized fraction system for yards?Donutcity (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's check a rulebook.

• "The game of football is played…on a rectangular field 360 by 160 feet" (2010 NFHS Football Rules, Rule 1-1-2).
• "The team in possession has a series…to advance…10 yards in advance of the spot where the series begins" (1-1-2).
• Rule 1-2-1 refers to a diagram that shows the goalposts 23'4" apart, with each upright 68'4" from the nearest sideline and at least 20' high. It shows each end zone 30 feet deep, with the field of play 300 feet long. It shows the hash marks 53'4" from the sidelines and the tops of the yard line numbers 9 yards from the sidelines. The restraining lines are indicated at 2 yards or more from the sideline, and 5 yards or more of space are recommended from the end line to the nearest obstruction behind it.
• "A series of "hash marks" should be 24 inches in length and 4 inches in width and shall be located 53 feet, 4 inches from and parallel with each sideline dividing the field of play longitudinally in thirds. The lines shall be marked so that each 5-yard line bisects the hash mark" (1-2-3e).
• "Nine-yard marks, 12 inches in length and 4 inches in width… The tops of [on-the-field] numbers shall be 9 yards from the sideline, should be 6 feet in height and 4 feet in width…" (1-2-3f).
• "Team boxes shall be marked on each side of the field outside the coaches' area between the 25-yard lines… The coaches' area is a minimum of a 2-yard belt between the front of the team box and the sideline…" (1-2-3g).
• "A soft, flexible pylon, which is 4 inches square, 18 inches high…shall be placed at the inside corner of each of the intersections of the sidelines with the goal lines and the end lines, as well as with each intersection of the hash marks extended and shall be placed either 3 feet beyond the end lines or on the end lines" (1-2-4).
• "The top of the crossbar shall be 10 feet above the ground" (1-2-5b).

So, while yards are used pretty much for every aspect of the game while it's under way, the field definitions, at least on the American side, are primarily in feet. —C.Fred (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comparison of American and Canadian football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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:

• 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 ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 ((dead link)) tag to http://cfl.ca/noleadissafe
• Added ((dead link)) 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@Newwhist: 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]