Expanded coach's challenge a big debate for CFL To challenge, or not to challenge? That is the question. Rules committee meetings in the CFL start on Wednesday, and the number one item on the agenda is regarding a coach's ability to challenge a call made by the on-field official. TSN's Glen Suitor explains what's at stake.

Glen Suitor CFL on TSN Analyst Follow|Archive

To challenge, or not to challenge? That is the question.

Rules committee meetings in the CFL start today, and the number one item on the agenda is regarding a coach's ability to challenge a call made by the on-field official. Currently, coaches are only allowed to challenge one judgment call, and that call is defensive pass interference. It was instituted prior to the 2014 season, and it didn't take long to see the impact of the change. If you watched the Grey Cup last year, you know how important that rule change was, when a challenge by Edmonton's head coach Chris Jones of defensive pass interference became, arguably, the game’s biggest play.

Two years ago at this time there was quite a debate going on as to whether or not giving a coach the ability to challenge any judgment call made on the field was a good idea or a bad one. In the end, after hours of deliberation, the rules committee and the Board of Governors agreed that because defensive pass interference was a "point of foul" penalty, which could be a 30-50 yard penalty, they would vote yes and give coaches the chance to take another look and make sure a foul that is that punitive is the correct call. It was a bold move, and if you’re an Edmonton Eskimo fan, you are happy that Head of Officials Glen Johnson had the courage to push forward with something that had never been done before in football.

This year the coaches are looking to add more judgment calls to the list of penalties that can be challenged by the coach. There has been talk, although not official, that penalties like no yards, unnecessary roughness, and illegal contact should be added to the list of penalties that could potentially be challenged by the coaches on the sideline. If in fact that is true, the coaches that are behind the movement will argue that if the technology is available to get more calls on the field correct, why not use it? They will also shoot down the concern that the game will be extended by saying that the actual number of challenges won't change; all that changes is what penalties can be challenged. Both are valid points and the discussions in the rules committee meetings over the next few days should be very interesting.

On the one hand the coaches backing this very bold and aggressive change are right. The technology is there, so why not use it to get every call correct if possible? TSN CFL Insider Gary Lawless recently wrote that upwards of 170 calls on the field last year should not have been called. That is a concern, but is it really that many mistakes? One hundred and seventy calls over the course of a season amount to about two per game. While coaches will argue that one mistake is too many, according to Glen Johnson, the refs last year were correct 97 per cent of the time. Ninety-seven percent is very good, and likely better than any player or coach has ever achieved in a football game, certainly better than a certain colour analyst that used to play in Saskatchewan.

The question is, can perfection ever be attained? And while anyone involved in a competitive line of work like pro football should be striving for excellence, what ripple effect will expanding the type of penalties that coaches can challenge have on the game?

That is what will be discussed in this year’s rules committee meetings in Toronto. The football minds in the room are as good as the league has ever seen, and they will discuss and debate all angles of this proposal. Those angles that may not appear important now, but once all the members of the committee are face to face in the same room together, they may become more critical.

Questions will come up as the conversation digs deeper.

Questions like could a change like this lead to much more second guessing when it comes to Monday morning quarterbacks? In today's day and age of PVR's and Twitter, fans can replay every play on the field. If on a game-winning touchdown, a penalty occurred that wasn't called on the field, and wasn't challenged by the coach, a fan could spot it the day after and, well, the talk radio phone boards will light up with questions like, "why didn't the coach challenge the illegal contact that was clearly seen after the fact by the fans replaying the game?"

Could a change like this lead to more penalty flags?

Some will say that there is a penalty committed on every play. If that is true how many "big plays" will be taken off the board because coaches could challenge, search for, and find that illegal contact penalty away from the ball, or the punt cover players set foot inside the five-yard restraining zone?

Could a drastic change like this lead to the fans in the stands hesitating even more after a touchdown is scored? Currently, fans see the ball cross the goal line and give it a reluctant cheer, waiting for the review, because all scoring plays are reviewed. Will fans now assume that on key scoring plays the opposing coach will search for a penalty and then challenge the call because he may have found that penalty somewhere on the field?

As is true in most areas of life, right when you think you have the obvious answer to one question or issue, you find that answer has led to more questions.

It was a bold move when two years ago the committee voted to allow head coaches to challenge defensive pass interference. There were two main points made to sell that decision coming from the league office. One, it was different, and more punitive than any other call, because it is a point of foul penalty. And two, it was the toughest penalty in the game for the officials to make consistently. The Grey Cup game in Winnipeg proved that decision was the correct one, because in the end the refs got it right.

This new proposal could have the same effect and make a positive impact on the game. However before it is voted in, there are many questions to discuss and debate.