Blue Bombers Forum
August 08, 2020, 04:18:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: End of an Era  (Read 5426 times)
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2020, 07:44:17 PM »

No, because QB's are in their own category outside of the import, NI, Fake NI rules.

Maybe, maybe not. They changed the rule if an actual Canadian started he'd fall into 1 of 7 starters.

Not convinced this wouldn't hold true for fake Canadians with this other change from 2018.
Logged

No more excuses.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2020, 08:10:13 PM »

If you are starting 8 Canadians, then you can use a designated Nat Nat as a replacement for another Nat Nat or a Canadian... likewise 2 if you start 9 Canadians...

Would you please stop saying "Nat Nat"?
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
TBURGESS
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8074



« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2020, 08:34:25 PM »

Maybe, maybe not. They changed the rule if an actual Canadian started he'd fall into 1 of 7 starters.

Not convinced this wouldn't hold true for fake Canadians with this other change from 2018.
The first sentence covered inside the special QB's rules. Unless they add wording inside the QB rules, fake NI's won't be included.
Logged

Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 2019 Grey Cup Champs.
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2020, 02:31:48 PM »

The first sentence covered inside the special QB's rules. Unless they add wording inside the QB rules, fake NI's won't be included.

See quote below. It doesn't specify an exception for QB's. A QB can be one of the actual 7 Canadian starters. It's somewhat moot since odds are slim of seeing a Canadian starter. Although O'Conner might have started the last Argo game last year?

To say the least the rules are poorly worded and convoluted.


Quote
In the event of a game injury to any of the Clubs? ten (10) National Starters, the injured player(s) can be replaced by either a National or any other American on the roster who qualifies under the Amended definition of National.

So, we have exceptions for:

1. QB's and what they can do and can't do.

2. Import DI's which limits participation to rotating with other imports. That may not include replacing Nationalized imports? ( not 1005 sure of that ) but that's what it seems to indicate.

3. Global players. Free space on the bingo card at the moment.

4. Nationalized imports.

Clear as mud.
Logged

No more excuses.
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2020, 06:05:34 PM »

Would you please stop saying "Nat Nat"?

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
Donny C
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4138



« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2020, 07:00:14 PM »

It right in the new rule:

The Players identified as quarterbacks shall be permitted to alternate for each other during the game at the quarterback position exclusively and shall not be permitted to enter the game at another position, under any circumstances. For the purposes of this paragraph, the duties of the quarterback position may include punting, place kicking, kicking off or holding the ball for the kicker on a convert or field goal attempt.

The only way Streveler could come in is as the punter.



Just draw up some fake punt plays.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 24749


« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2020, 09:40:41 PM »

Just draw up some fake punt plays.

The rule still doesn't say a Nationalized import QB couldn't replace a Canadian QB that started the game and subsequently was injured. He'd still be a QB replacing a QB.
Logged

No more excuses.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #112 on: January 13, 2020, 10:10:46 AM »

said Walters. "Here's a what if: if we were to start Nick Hallett at safety and dress Brandon Alexander as a nationalized Canadian, what if Hallett was to get hurt in the warm up or on the first play of the game" Alexander would then go in and play the whole game. That's the interesting debate where the commissioner weighed in? there could be 'gamesmanship' and he warned us about that and how he would come down like the wrath of God if a team was caught doing that."[/b]

That's the exact scenario I feared.  Glad to see Walters is thinking about it.  I'm still not sure the wording allows what Walters suggests, though.  Wouldn't the 3 FAKENATs already be on the field?  You're allowed 3, and 3 must be onfield, right?  So how can one be on the bench waiting for Hallett to stub his toe?  Unless you're allowed to substitute any VETIMP for a NAT even if they aren't a designated FAKENAT?  If that's the case, then I guarantee you teams will abuse the heck out of this.  But that's not my read on it.

Ambrosie making threats to keep teams honest?  The only thing he can do is change the rule after teams abuse it.  What else is he going to do?  Make them go to bed without dinner?

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?

I already suggested a ton, we have to come up with something to call these guys!  AMERINAT, USANAT, USNAT, NATUSA, IMPNAT, FAKENAT, NON-NON-IMP?  Grin Grin

2. Import DI's which limits participation to rotating with other imports. That may not include replacing Nationalized imports? ( not 1005 sure of that ) but that's what it seems to indicate.

An IMP DI who qualified as FAKENAT might be able to come in to replace a NAT.  That's one of the questions... can any VETIMP replace a (real) NAT or can only one of the 3 designated FAKENATs replace a (real) NAT?

If the answer is the former, then this rule will 100% be abused to get crap starting-7 NATs off the field.

And if Ambrosie says the injury must be legit (like he'll be able to tell...), then sign the most beat-up injury-prone NAT who would otherwise be on the 6-game and start him every game and tell him to take big risks and hard hits.  Let him aggravate whatever his IR problem is and boom he's out and your cheap NAT gets replaced by a VETIMP (not even FAKENAT!).  Heck, the perfect guy would be a LB who is more concussion prone than Collaros and then just have him jump in the air and land on his head on play 1.  Repeat that every week on play 1.

Chris Jones is licking his chops as he eyes his return to the CFL!  Wink Cheesy
Logged

Never go full Rider!
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #113 on: January 13, 2020, 02:21:07 PM »

Sorry, I like Nat Nat better than Fake Nat.  Nat2?  Is that better?

I already suggested a ton, we have to come up with something to call these guys!  AMERINAT, USANAT, USNAT, NATUSA, IMPNAT, FAKENAT, NON-NON-IMP?  Grin Grin

I think it's simple, and as I've said earlier in this thread, it's the wording of this new rule that is stupid. The term I would use is "designated veteran". This new rule has absolutely nothing to do with fake Canadians other than Canadian players can fill in for the 3 designated veterans starting on the team.

The verbiage makes it sound like these guys are Nats, when really it's just a new designation altogether.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #114 on: January 13, 2020, 03:19:20 PM »

I think it's simple, and as I've said earlier in this thread, it's the wording of this new rule that is stupid. The term I would use is "designated veteran". This new rule has absolutely nothing to do with fake Canadians other than Canadian players can fill in for the 3 designated veterans starting on the team.

The verbiage makes it sound like these guys are Nats, when really it's just a new designation altogether.

The problem comes with the increase to 10 "National Starters" part of the situation.   The fact that you can designate players previously not Nationals to play in a "National Starters" position is the sticking point.  Being able to identify these Designated Nats separately becomes a nomenclature issue.

You could start 10 true Nationals, and designate 3 Int veterans to back up.  These designated veterans imports (DVI's - there's a good name) become Nat compatible in regards to starter/ on field ratio when it comes to substitution.  Which makes us want to use the word Nat or National, even though they are not. 
Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8219



« Reply #115 on: January 13, 2020, 04:07:12 PM »

The problem comes with the increase to 10 "National Starters" part of the situation.   The fact that you can designate players previously not Nationals to play in a "National Starters" position is the sticking point.  Being able to identify these Designated Nats separately becomes a nomenclature issue.

You could start 10 true Nationals, and designate 3 Int veterans to back up.  These designated veterans imports (DVI's - there's a good name) become Nat compatible in regards to starter/ on field ratio when it comes to substitution.  Which makes us want to use the word Nat or National, even though they are not. 

But there aren't 10 National starters and so the verbiage should not to relate to this. There are a minimum of 7 Nat starters, which has always been the case. The new rule adds that the team must now also field 3 "DVIs". The only way there are 10 National starters is if the team decides to field 3 EXTRA Nats in lieu of 3 "DVIs", since that is the loophole/alternative to having such players that fit that definition available.

These "3 extra Nats" are placeholders for DVIs, not the other way around.
Logged

107th Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2020, 06:37:05 AM »

I like DVI.  Except the CFL and football tends to prefer labels or acronyms you can just say out.  "WILL", "MIKE", NAT, IMP, NON-IMPORT, global, etc.

In that sense, if you want to make an acronym, it should something you can just blurt out, preferably in 1 syllable... and since the new CBA spells out Americans as Americans now that we have globals and can't just call them imports anymore, the new term should use "American".

How about DVA or DEVA (DEsignated Veteran American)?  Hehehe... the players are just going love that one  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Shocked Grin

Or, DAV or DAVE (Designated American VEteran)... that fits nicely with WILL, MIKE, SAM.  I like DAV/DAVE better!

When the CFL & players usurp my ideas, I want props!!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Free shawarmas for me!  Wink

While we're at it, gotta shorten "American" to replace IMP.  How about AME's?  (Say it "Amy", or heck just make it AMY.)  Again, a nice name-based one.  Too bad DEVA and AMY have female connotations...  Cheesy again, the players should have fun with it as long as they aren't on the receiving end.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
theaardvark
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29366



« Reply #117 on: January 14, 2020, 03:48:58 PM »

I like DVI.  Except the CFL and football tends to prefer labels or acronyms you can just say out.  "WILL", "MIKE", NAT, IMP, NON-IMPORT, global, etc.

In that sense, if you want to make an acronym, it should something you can just blurt out, preferably in 1 syllable... and since the new CBA spells out Americans as Americans now that we have globals and can't just call them imports anymore, the new term should use "American".

How about DVA or DEVA (DEsignated Veteran American)?  Hehehe... the players are just going love that one  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Shocked Grin

Or, DAV or DAVE (Designated American VEteran)... that fits nicely with WILL, MIKE, SAM.  I like DAV/DAVE better!

When the CFL & players usurp my ideas, I want props!!  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Free shawarmas for me!  Wink

While we're at it, gotta shorten "American" to replace IMP.  How about AME's?  (Say it "Amy", or heck just make it AMY.)  Again, a nice name-based one.  Too bad DEVA and AMY have female connotations...  Cheesy again, the players should have fun with it as long as they aren't on the receiving end.


Wouldn't a better single syllable moniker for Americans be Yanks? 

Logged

Unabashed positron.  Blue koolaid in my fridge.  I wear my blue sunglasses at night.  Homer, d'oh.
TecnoGenius
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4392


« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2020, 10:20:29 AM »

Wouldn't a better single syllable moniker for Americans be Yanks

The southerners won't like it!!  And for some reason now that I think about it, I'd bet >60% of the players come from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  The south just seems to churn out more players and love their football more.  I could be mistaken though!  Maybe 66 can tell us.
Logged

Never go full Rider!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!