Calling Mr. Rules Committee MOS!
I want to see the bizarre case of Kenny's GC non-catch be a completion. It shouldn't matter if your back heel comes down on the sideline as long as you get the normally-enough toe-tap down in-bounds.
Spot the outlier when it comes to sideline catches:
1. Tap your toe and then lift it up and body falls OOB: completion
2. Tap your toe and your heel comes down inbounds: completion
3. Drag your toe from inbounds to OOB and your body falls OOB: completion
4. Tap your toe and your heel comes down OOB: incomplete
It's frankly ridiculous, and the rule wording that causes it would be easily tweaked to make #4 a completion.
cant recall lawlers catch but i believe the rule is your first foot has to come down in bounds, the next foot doesn't matter , at least that's the amateur rule. Makes no sense in the pros if your first foot comes down in bounds and your second foot out of bounds is incomplete, that's the NFL rule that requires both feet in bounds and CFL is only one, but its got to be your first foot touching the ground.
Ugh is this guy seriously on this topic again
Quote from: bluengold204 on January 24, 2025, 05:37:55 AMUgh is this guy seriously on this topic again
He's just getting warmed up.
Quote from: Stretch on January 25, 2025, 03:19:39 AMHe's just getting warmed up.
New conspiracy and tin foil hats on order and arriving soon from Amazon. :) :)
Speaking of new hats...
I present ... Guardian 2.0
https://x.com/UNISWAG/status/1879594677789438108
Quote from: Waffler on January 25, 2025, 03:44:19 PMSpeaking of new hats...
I present ... Guardian 2.0
https://x.com/UNISWAG/status/1879594677789438108
Looks like a nice upgrade. I am noticing more players in the NFL wearing the G-cap in games lately..
Quote from: Pigskin on January 25, 2025, 03:54:42 PMLooks like a nice upgrade. I am noticing more players in the NFL wearing the G-cap in games lately..
It looks a lot better than the 1st one. I'm not fond of those so we'll see if these get more wide use. The bigger question is do they also improve the protection level from previous item?
best rule change i would like is to more heavily penalize teams that on third down try to draw the opposing team offside for the following reasons.
1. It's annoying and boring,
2 It rarely works
3. it slows down the game.
4. unsportsmanlike just like using voice inflections ie Either team shall be subject to penalty for attempting to draw an opponent offside if a player makes a motion or voices a signal that, in the judgment of the official, is intended to draw an opponent offside
Dickenson and Dinwiddie do this constantly and teams look foolish
Quote from: Pete on January 25, 2025, 05:14:21 PMbest rule change i would like is to more heavily penalize teams that on third down try to draw the opposing team offside for the following reasons.
1. It's annoying and boring,
2 It rarely works
3. it slows down the game.
4. unsportsmanlike just like using voice inflections ie Either team shall be subject to penalty for attempting to draw an opponent offside if a player makes a motion or voices a signal that, in the judgment of the official, is intended to draw an opponent offside
Dickenson and Dinwiddie do this constantly and teams look foolish
Teams have to burn a timeout when they don't draw the other team offside, so there is a consequence to this high school move. Seriously, you don't think everyone on the defense knows not to jump offside on a 3rd down gamble!!
Quote from: dd on January 26, 2025, 10:36:35 PMTeams have to burn a timeout when they don't draw the other team offside, so there is a consequence to this high school move. Seriously, you don't think everyone on the defense knows not to jump offside on a 3rd down gamble!!
No they don't; they usually run the offside trick and take a timecount. In a kicking situation it has zero cost because they do it when the extra 5Y wouldn't matter. In some cases they'd rather take the 5Y because their K or P is too close for optimal performance! (like a FG try from the 3YL)
Quote from: dd on January 24, 2025, 02:59:26 AMcant recall lawlers catch but i believe the rule is your first foot has to come down in bounds, the next foot doesn't matter , at least that's the amateur rule.
I'm talking the same foot, not different feet.
In every single case except one you are in-bounds if you tap your toe in bounds. The one exception is this strange case where the same foot's heel hits the rail afterwards.
Quote from: Pete on January 25, 2025, 05:14:21 PMbest rule change i would like is to more heavily penalize teams that on third down try to draw the opposing team offside for the following reasons.
I agree, except it's very hard to police. How do we know they were faking? What if a team does its normal pre-snap motion and then halts and runs out of time when they were really going to run a play?
Ya, ok, so that's rare and you can usually tell the difference. For instance: an insane gamble on 3rd down (like 3rd & 4 in FG range) is almost always a fake (unless you're Dave Dickenson). But it could still happen.
Now if the O gets up and relaxed with 1s left on the clock, that's usually the tell they are faking. But teams could just learn to keep faking through the clock. Or you could look for the goofy smiles instead of the normal timecount frustration. But they could fake that too.
I guess you could try to find a way to punish it just on 3rd down (when it's most used), but unless it's LoD/ToD I don't see how you could punish so it hurts. Moving them back (or forward, with team B choice?) 5 or 10 or 15 isn't really a problem most times.
The only option I can think of is a team gets only so many (1? 2?) timecounts on 3rd down per game? After they go over a timecount on 3rd down is LoD/ToD, or maybe they are moved to the C YL. How many timecounts did WFC take on 3rd down last season? I bet zero. So limiting the clown HCs to 1 mulligan would mean we only suffer through 1 a game; and probably 0 because they'd want to keep a real mulligan in their pocket.
And yes, we all know which HCs are clowns that try this nonsense every game. However, I think it was TOR who managed to actually get one of our guys O/S on it in the last 2 years (Wilson??) -- I'm still miffed at that one.
Quote from: Pete on January 25, 2025, 05:14:21 PMbest rule change i would like is to more heavily penalize teams that on third down try to draw the opposing team offside for the following reasons.
1. It's annoying and boring,
2 It rarely works
3. it slows down the game.
4. unsportsmanlike just like using voice inflections ie Either team shall be subject to penalty for attempting to draw an opponent offside if a player makes a motion or voices a signal that, in the judgment of the official, is intended to draw an opponent offside
Dickenson and Dinwiddie do this constantly and teams look foolish
I don't really see any reason to penalize this, tbh.
Quote from: Jesse on January 27, 2025, 11:02:38 AMI don't really see any reason to penalize this, tbh.
It does waste about 60 sec of TV time, and so "slows down the game" which is always the big complaint against the CFL/TSN, etc.
It also looks goofy and lame, with the O backing out of the fake with 3s left and everyone on O laughing, HC smirking, and the D pointing and yelling. It adds no value.
There are 3 stats that the CFL currently doesn't track that are under consideration. All three have been programmed into the Genius stats system but currently turned off.
1. Half Sacks - last tracked by the CFL in 1984, the half sack is once again being considered. A half sack would only be applied in situations where two players are equally deserving of a sack. I believe there is a very good chance we see this in 2025.
Note: the NFL rule book allows for a half sack to be awarded to 3 players if they all contributed to a sack. This will not be the case in the CFL
2. Tackle Assists - the CFL is considering tackle assist as a stat. A tackle assist would only be awarded in situations where 2 players are equally involved in a tackle. The draw back to this stat is that the Genius system was programmed for NCAA where tackle assists get full value as tackles. This stat would be more likely to be adopted if the system followed the NFL rules where tackle assists are a separate stat.
3. QB Pressures - QB Pressures was a CFL stat for one season (2017) then got killed after one week in 2018. With PFF providing this stat, there are requests for the CFL to follow suit. Due to some silly reasons (that I won't discuss here) I don't see this one happening soon.
Would like to see all of those included.
Personally have always wanted to see the CFL add more seconds between plays. Such as going to 25 seconds which gives teams a bit more opportunity to call audibles, have less appearances of disorganization and of course play calling from the OC
Not to mention the Defence using that extra few seconds
At the end of a game, the fans shouldn't be griping that they got extra cold due to added time possibly used
Quote from: Stats Junkie on February 02, 2025, 02:53:59 AM2. Tackle Assists - the CFL is considering tackle assist as a stat. A tackle assist would only be awarded in situations where 2 players are equally involved in a tackle. The draw back to this stat is that the Genius system was programmed for NCAA where tackle assists get full value as tackles. This stat would be more likely to be adopted if the system followed the NFL rules where tackle assists are a separate stat.
What would constitute an assist? Like being in the way / corralling a player back towards the final tackler? Or physically touching/slowing but not bringing down?
Quote from: Jockitch on February 02, 2025, 05:59:52 PMPersonally have always wanted to see the CFL add more seconds between plays. Such as going to 25 seconds which gives teams a bit more opportunity to call audibles, have less appearances of disorganization and of course play calling from the OC
Ya, but the CFL stops the clock much of the time already. If you watch the time between plays, there's really not much difference between NFL and CFL. We just achieve it differently.
If they added more time to our 20s playclock, it might result in crazy delays between plays compared to the NFL.
On a different note. Are we mistakenly going to use the stupid NFL kickoff rule.
Quote from: DM83 on February 05, 2025, 08:56:15 PMOn a different note. Are we mistakenly going to use the stupid NFL kickoff rule.
For the love of all that is holy I hope not! I'm seeing that for the first time as I tune into the NFL post-season (the only NFL I watch all year). It's horrible! Just as hokey and lame as the XFL or AAF or whatever league dreamed it up.
And it doesn't seem to be helping anyhow? I saw a blocker get blown up anyways, thought I don't remember the game.
Our KO returns really don't result in too many injuries. I think that huge blowup late '23 is the last big one.
No need for NFL KO rules. We have the halo. If anything, the NFL should adopt our KO rules rather than those USFL type ones.
The only rule I'd love to see changed is the onside kick rule. I love the USFL one, instead of an onside kick, you can take the ball 3rd and 15 at your 35(45). One shot at getting a penalty or making 15 yards. So much more fun than the on side kick, and much safer... and it frees the team up from practicing a stupid play that is rarely needed. Practicing a 3rd and 15 play instead of an onside kick play can be much more useful during the game.
Quote from: theaardvark on February 06, 2025, 03:57:09 PMThe only rule I'd love to see changed is the onside kick rule. I love the USFL one, instead of an onside kick, you can take the ball 3rd and 15 at your 35(45). One shot at getting a penalty or making 15 yards. So much more fun than the on side kick, and much safer... and it frees the team up from practicing a stupid play that is rarely needed. Practicing a 3rd and 15 play instead of an onside kick play can be much more useful during the game.
I like our OSK. I also like how teams are getting creative with the ground kicks.
I'm not sure anyone ever got hurt on our OSKs, except for maybe the guy going up for it and overextending. There is not enough time or space to get a full run going.
3rd & 15 is too easy. Remember when BLM was dominating in CGY? Ya, he'd convert 15 or 20 yards every single time against us. I don't want a team that is so dominant having a way to basically possess the ball forever.
With our existing OSK it doesn't matter how good a team is: there's a massive amount of luck involved... and the QB quality has nothing to do with it.
Tweek in the rules governing training camp rosters...
"Draft picks have always been considered non-counters for their first camp and that will continue, allowing Canadian rookies to develop without the pressure of being axed for numbers after a couple of days. However, teams were informed via a memo in November that players from previous draft classes who had been sent back to school to complete their U Sports eligibility would no longer be automatically granted this exempt status for a second training camp."
https://3downnation.com/2025/03/30/opinion-subtle-tweak-to-cfl-training-camp-roster-rules-could-mean-less-opportunities-for-canadian-development/
Quote from: ModAdmin on March 30, 2025, 04:33:12 PMTweek in the rules governing training camp rosters...
"Draft picks have always been considered non-counters for their first camp and that will continue, allowing Canadian rookies to develop without the pressure of being axed for numbers after a couple of days. However, teams were informed via a memo in November that players from previous draft classes who had been sent back to school to complete their U Sports eligibility would no longer be automatically granted this exempt status for a second training camp."
https://3downnation.com/2025/03/30/opinion-subtle-tweak-to-cfl-training-camp-roster-rules-could-mean-less-opportunities-for-canadian-development/
Wouldn't this also apply to global players? We'll have 2 that would have previously been non counters?
Quote from: Blue In BC on March 30, 2025, 05:17:22 PMWouldn't this also apply to global players? We'll have 2 that would have previously been non counters?
Are globals non-counters in the first place. Isn't there a minimum requirement, not the other way around?
Quote from: Jesse on April 02, 2025, 12:07:52 AMAre globals non-counters in the first place. Isn't there a minimum requirement, not the other way around?
"Each team may have a maximum of 45 players (min. 44), including three quarterbacks,
at least one global player, 21 national players including one nationalized American. Teams can dress a maximum of 19 Americans not including quarterbacks and the nationalized American.
https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/
Quote from: Jesse on April 02, 2025, 12:07:52 AMAre globals non-counters in the first place. Isn't there a minimum requirement, not the other way around?
As far as I know they are since they are drafted each year.
Interesting that having a NAT QB counts towards ratio for starters, but does not affect the DI's. Just because you have a NAT QB you don't get an additional INT elsewhere...
Quote from: theaardvark on February 06, 2025, 03:57:09 PMNo need for NFL KO rules. We have the halo. If anything, the NFL should adopt our KO rules rather than those USFL type ones.
No, on KO's there is no halo as it's a live football that anyone can recover.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 02, 2025, 04:19:53 PMInteresting that having a NAT QB counts towards ratio for starters, but does not affect the DI's. Just because you have a NAT QB you don't get an additional INT elsewhere...
It's not complicated. The number of imports including DI's is defined. QB's are a separate designation and you can have anything from 0 - 3 Canadian QB's on the roster. If one is starting it has no impact of the balance of imports that are non QB's, DI's or otherwise.
My point was:
If you start a NAT QB, you only need 6 NAT starters, so you can have 17 of your 19 INT's start, making it only 2 DIs on the roster, whereas if you start an INT QB, you need 7 NAT starters, so 16 of your 19 INTs on your AR start, and you have 3 DIs...
Quote from: theaardvark on April 02, 2025, 05:30:54 PMMy point was:
If you start a NAT QB, you only need 6 NAT starters, so you can have 17 of your 19 INT's start, making it only 2 DIs on the roster, whereas if you start an INT QB, you need 7 NAT starters, so 16 of your 19 INTs on your AR start, and you have 3 DIs...
There are always 4 DI's on the AR and it has zero to do with the nationality of the QB's. As mentioned QB's are a separate designation. You can have 1, 2, 3 or none if you choose to roster all Canadian QB's. In theory you could have 1 or more global QB's on the roster over and above the normal mandate.
In 2025 we had extra Canadians as starters. That meant aside from the 4 DI's we had some non starting imports that were used in rotation. It was difficult to determine which imports were the 4 DI's and which were non starters per se.
Regardless that's how the ratio works. If a team is only starting 7 Canadians and has all import QB's, then there are going to be 17 starters + 3 QB's + 4 DI's = 23
Now if your argument is that a team starting a Canadian QB should gain an extra import, that's a hard sell. It's a slippery slope if you include any Canadian QB as a justification for adding another import. That's why QB's are a separate designation.
Like I said it's not complicated.
Quote from: theaardvark on April 02, 2025, 05:30:54 PMMy point was:
If you start a NAT QB, you only need 6 NAT starters, so you can have 17 of your 19 INT's start, making it only 2 DIs on the roster[/b], whereas if you start an INT QB, you need 7 NAT starters, so 16 of your 19 INTs on your AR start, and you have 3 DIs...
You need
8 national starters one of which
can be a nationalized American (same team for 3 consecutive years or 5+ in the league).
Teams declare how many nationals are starting on offense and defense at the start of the game and that number needs to be maintained throughout the game. DIs are simply the remainder of the max 19 Americans that aren't starting on either side of the ball. They play special teams and can sub for other Americans.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 02, 2025, 05:57:17 PMYou need 8 national starters one of which can be a nationalized American (same team for 3 consecutive years or 5+ in the league)
Yeah but that's another useless rule and never clarified when depth charts are posted. There are lots of current Bombers like Nichols, Holm, Jefferson, Bryant,Lofton,Wilson, Parker etc that qualify. In most cases an in game injury, they would be replaced by a DI for an in game injury situation.
It's smoke and mirrors. All of them are starting in any case, so what does the 8th achieve?
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 02, 2025, 06:03:18 PMYeah but that's another useless rule and never clarified when depth charts are posted. There are lots of current Bombers like Nichols, Holm, Jefferson, Bryant,Lofton,Wilson, Parker etc that qualify. In most cases an in game injury, they would be replaced by a DI for an in game injury situation.
It's smoke and mirrors. All of them are starting in any case, so what does the 8th achieve?
A DI can
only replace an American. They cannot replace one of the eight nationals.
One Nationalized American player may be listed as
one of the eight National starters.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 02, 2025, 06:09:53 PMA DI can only replace an American. They cannot replace one of the eight nationals. One Nationalized American player may be listed as one of the eight National starters.
We know that. As I said there are a number of imports that qualify for that and it's never certain which is the one holding that designation in a given game.
In most instances ( except OL ) there is a DI that will replace that position.
So in theory, it would make sense to designate Bryant or Lofton as a Naturalized American since it's the only position where the in game injury replacement would be a Canadian back up player.
We'd have a DI to replace a receiver, DB, DL LB. In very rare situations we might rotate in a Canadian for a few series, but normally that won't happen.
As I said, what does that change? My answer is nothing.
Feel free to give me an example of where this would be used to create an advantage on the Bombers. This rule was created to extend careers of imports. I don't see that happening.
Who did we use that designation for in 2024 when we were starting 10 actual Canadians in most games.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 02, 2025, 07:48:08 PMWe know that. As I said there are a number of imports that qualify for that and it's never certain which is the one holding that designation in a given game.
In most instances ( except OL ) there is a DI that will replace that position.
So in theory, it would make sense to designate Bryant or Lofton as a Naturalized American since it's the only position where the in game injury replacement would be a Canadian back up player.
We'd have a DI to replace a receiver, DB, DL LB. In very rare situations we might rotate in a Canadian for a few series, but normally that won't happen.
As I said, what does that change? My answer is nothing.
Feel free to give me an example of where this would be used to create an advantage on the Bombers. This rule was created to extend careers of imports. I don't see that happening.
Who did we use that designation for in 2024 when we were starting 10 actual Canadians in most games.
A DI will replace whom? An American starter? Yes. A National? No. The Naturalized American rostered as one of the 8 Nationals? No.
How 'bout we change the rules to:
Canadian citizen = Canadian
Not Canadian citizen = NC (Non-Canadian)
Must have 7 starting Canadians
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 02, 2025, 07:54:40 PMA DI will replace whom? An American starter? Yes. A National? No. The Naturalized American rostered as one of the 8 Nationals? No.
I said exactly that. I asked for an example on the Bomber roster in 2024. I mentioned Bryant who would be replaced by a Canadian depth OL because we rarely retain an import OL as a DI. We may be forced at times to use one as a starter but that has been rare.
We wouldn't designate Holm or Nichols as the Naturalized American because we would have an import replacement as a DI.
Can you provide an example of how we used that classification and how it benefited the team?
Quote from: TBURGESS on April 02, 2025, 08:04:47 PMHow 'bout we change the rules to:
Canadian citizen = Canadian
Not Canadian citizen = NC (Non-Canadian)
Must have 7 starting Canadians
Yes and as I've suggested: we eliminate the global classification and convert those 2 DI spots in the normal sense. In the case of the Bombers that would be Sheehan and one other if we choose to do so. The expectation might be that an actual American beats out a global for the 2nd spot on the AR.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 02, 2025, 09:11:32 PMI said exactly that. I asked for an example on the Bomber roster in 2024. I mentioned Bryant who would be replaced by a Canadian depth OL because we rarely retain an import OL as a DI. We may be forced at times to use one as a starter but that has been rare.
We wouldn't designate Holm or Nichols as the Naturalized American because we would have an import replacement as a DI.
Can you provide an example of how we used that classification and how it benefited the team?
I'm not sure where you're getting tripped up here or what you're asking for exactly.
Theoretically, if Holm or Nichols were the Nationalized American and they got hurt they'd have to come off the field. We could then do a one for one replacement with a Canadian at halfback (probably not very likely) or, if you're looking at the Grey Cup roster for example, put Nick Taylor at half and bring on Hallett for Alexander.
I'm not saying this is what we did or that it's the correct deployment of talent under that circumstance but it's providing you an idea of what the rule is trying to do.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 02, 2025, 10:04:51 PMI'm not sure where you're getting tripped up here or what you're asking for exactly.
Theoretically, if Holm or Nichols were the Nationalized American and they got hurt they'd have to come off the field. We could then do a one for one replacement with a Canadian at halfback (probably not very likely) or, if you're looking at the Grey Cup roster for example, put Nick Taylor at half and bring on Hallett for Alexander.
I'm not saying this is what we did or that it's the correct deployment of talent under that circumstance but it's providing you an idea of what the rule is trying to do.
I'm saying that the only position I would suggest to be used for the Nationalized American would be our import OL'.s That because our in game replacement would be a Canadian.
Holm and Nichols shouldn't get that designation because in most instances we'd have another DB as a DI ( Bridges or Griffin ). We might have had Hallett or Kelly sub in for Alexander if he was injured, since Alexander could have held that designation.
I have no idea in any game who held that designation or how many players can have that designation.
So I was asking if you knew even in one game, who that was and what advantage it created? It's a serious question and I don't think we were even sure whether the Bombers bothered to use it since we were starting so many Canadians in 2024.
I picked Bryant because barring injury he's going to play 100% of the snaps. If has injured and needed to leave the game as happened in 2024 due to illness, he was replaced by a Canadian OL. Whether it was or wasn't Bryant nothing changed but an arbitrary designation.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 02, 2025, 11:40:28 PMI'm saying that the only position I would suggest to be used for the Nationalized American would be our import OL'.s That because our in game replacement would be a Canadian.
Holm and Nichols shouldn't get that designation because in most instances we'd have another DB as a DI ( Bridges or Griffin ). We might have had Hallett or Kelly sub in for Alexander if he was injured, since Alexander could have held that designation.
I have no idea in any game who held that designation or how many players can have that designation.
So I was asking if you knew even in one game, who that was and what advantage it created? It's a serious question and I don't think we were even sure whether the Bombers bothered to use it since we were starting so many Canadians in 2024.
I picked Bryant because barring injury he's going to play 100% of the snaps. If has injured and needed to leave the game as happened in 2024 due to illness, he was replaced by a Canadian OL. Whether it was or wasn't Bryant nothing changed but an arbitrary designation.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 02, 2025, 11:40:28 PMI'm saying that the only position I would suggest to be used for the Nationalized American would be our import OL'.s That because our in game replacement would be a Canadian.
Holm and Nichols shouldn't get that designation because in most instances we'd have another DB as a DI ( Bridges or Griffin ). We might have had Hallett or Kelly sub in for Alexander if he was injured, since Alexander could have held that designation.
I have no idea in any game who held that designation or how many players can have that designation.
So I was asking if you knew even in one game, who that was and what advantage it created? It's a serious question and I don't think we were even sure whether the Bombers bothered to use it since we were starting so many Canadians in 2024.
I picked Bryant because barring injury he's going to play 100% of the snaps. If has injured and needed to leave the game as happened in 2024 due to illness, he was replaced by a Canadian OL. Whether it was or wasn't Bryant nothing changed but an arbitrary designation.
Pretty sure Randolph replaced Bryant at LT when he went down, but maybe that's not what you're talking about.
BinBC is right. What he's trying to say is the NA is basically a no-op, a nothingburger, a sleight of hand to satisfy someone's pet ambition (Ambrosie or CFLPA, who knows).
It is so because there are basically a zillion players on every team that qualifies, because the qualification is basically every IMP you've had a (small) few years, or who's been in the league a while.
SB&G is right in pointing out that it does have one real-world effect: that normally normal-IMP spot that you used to be able to sub a DI in for is now one you must sub a NAT in for. This is a valid point.
But BinBC says that even that point is moot because teams will just pick a player as their NA who would normally have a NAT backup dressed anyhow. And his OL example is perfect (and probably the same on every team) because we start every dressed IMP OL every game, and only ever dress NAT OL as the (usually 2) backups/jumbo.
Ergo it's a big no-op. It effectively does and changes nothing. QED.
If I was cynical, I'd say maybe CFLPA wanted to throw vets a bone, but Ambrosie outsmarted them and gave them complicated sophistry that placated them in their minds, but changed nothing in reality.
Quote from: TBURGESS on April 02, 2025, 08:04:47 PMHow 'bout we change the rules to:
Canadian citizen = Canadian
Not Canadian citizen = NC (Non-Canadian)
Must have 7 starting Canadians
Haha, I'm with ya! Basically make it like it was for 10 years before Ambroise. Ah, to not have to memorize all of these overly-complex roster rules!
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 02:33:39 AMPretty sure Randolph replaced Bryant at LT when he went down, but maybe that's not what you're talking about.
But never in-game. Randolph was never dressed unless starting. The in-game replacements were always NATs (usually Neuf shuffling to OT). It was only in the next game Randolph was brought into the AR.
So for this discussion the Randolph-at-OT is moot.
(The dressed backups were always Eli, Wallace, except maybe when one of them was starting... FWIR we probably only dressed 1 backup then and brought in an extra FB?)
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 03, 2025, 09:37:56 AMBinBC is right. What he's trying to say is the NA is basically a no-op, a nothingburger, a sleight of hand to satisfy someone's pet ambition (Ambrosie or CFLPA, who knows).
It is so because there are basically a zillion players on every team that qualifies, because the qualification is basically every IMP you've had a (small) few years, or who's been in the league a while.
SB&G is right in pointing out that it does have one real-world effect: that normally normal-IMP spot that you used to be able to sub a DI in for is now one you must sub a NAT in for. This is a valid point.
But BinBC says that even that point is moot because teams will just pick a player as their NA who would normally have a NAT backup dressed anyhow. And his OL example is perfect (and probably the same on every team) because we start every dressed IMP OL every game, and only ever dress NAT OL as the (usually 2) backups/jumbo.
Ergo it's a big no-op. It effectively does and changes nothing. QED.
If I was cynical, I'd say maybe CFLPA wanted to throw vets a bone, but Ambrosie outsmarted them and gave them complicated sophistry that placated them in their minds, but changed nothing in reality.
The logic/reason behind the rule (if that's what you're asking) is not so much on the game day roster flexibility side. In the latest CBA, two things happened at once:
Naturalized Americans (which we were talking about) and Designated Naturalized Americans. Although they sound the same they came about very differently and serve completely different agendas.
The Naturalized American rule is mostly rooted in CBA negotiations (American players concern) to level the playing field for contracts between Nationals and long serving Americans. Nationals get a very real premium and Americans who play in the league for a long time wanted some of that too (and it's quite a reasonable request). Adding a National and then allowing it to be filled by an American whose spent quite a bit of time helping to build the league was give and take by the National players to allow the change. It's fulfilled by game day roster management but it's not solving a game day roster management issue. If you follow.
The Designated Naturalized American is very much an attempt to provide roster flexibility by directly allowing an American to eat into National playing time. It's done in a limited way, and was, I'm sure, a fairly contentious CFLPA/CFL negotiating point. I am sure the league wanted more flexibility but getting the rule in altogether was probably a good first step where they will seek to move the percentages over time - I would expect Nationals to continue to try and hold the line there but I think the league has long term visions.
Good now?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 03, 2025, 09:38:58 AMHaha, I'm with ya! Basically make it like it was for 10 years before Ambroise. Ah, to not have to memorize all of these overly-complex roster rules!
I am for anything that makes the rules simpler. A major obstacle to gaining new fans is that they don't understand the game. As the years go by the task of learning the game from scratch becomes more daunting.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 03, 2025, 02:07:56 PMThe logic/reason behind the rule (if that's what you're asking) is not so much on the game day roster flexibility side. In the latest CBA, two things happened at once:
Naturalized Americans (which we were talking about) and Designated Naturalized Americans. Although they sound the same they came about very differently and serve completely different agendas.
The Naturalized American rule is mostly rooted in CBA negotiations (American players concern) to level the playing field for contracts between Nationals and long serving Americans. Nationals get a very real premium and Americans who play in the league for a long time wanted some of that too (and it's quite a reasonable request). Adding a National and then allowing it to be filled by an American whose spent quite a bit of time helping to build the league was give and take by the National players to allow the change. It's fulfilled by game day roster management but it's not solving a game day roster management issue. If you follow.
The Designated Naturalized American is very much an attempt to provide roster flexibility by directly allowing an American to eat into National playing time. It's done in a limited way, and was, I'm sure, a fairly contentious CFLPA/CFL negotiating point. I am sure the league wanted more flexibility but getting the rule in altogether was probably a good first step where they will seek to move the percentages over time - I would expect Nationals to continue to try and hold the line there but I think the league has long term visions.
Good now?
Imports that have been in the league for a significant amount of time are already starting. You don't pay an import a lot of money and then bench and give him significantly less playing time.
I stand by the premise that there should only be 2 classifications. Canadian and not Canadian ( call them whatever but import works for me ). Everything else is tossed . Negotiate roster size or ratio changes but KISS should be the rule in CBA negotiations.
Nope not good now. I'm also not trying to be a poop disturber. It's too many efforts to add odd classifications and is anti Canadian ratio etc. It's bad business trying to hold onto older imports and paying them " well ".
Bighill might have been the example I would have used in 2025 if he had remained on the team. Obviously age, injury history, potential reduced role means a team moves on. A new import Jon Jones is added and will either be a starter or a DI for less money, but greater upside.
I'm not sure if Jones beats out Wilson for either of those spots with Ayers also in the mix. Also not sure how much Wilson will earn in 2025. However, the same issue I mentioned about Bighill might result in Wilson being released or traded. Wilson could fall into the NA category but IMO he either starts, is a normal DI or he's gone.
I'm still waiting to see if anybody can name either a NA or DA in any of our games and how that impacted the game etc etc.
You asked and were explained the why and the how. Continue on as you like.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 03, 2025, 03:46:21 PMYou asked and were explained the why and the how. Continue on as you like.
More importantly I asked about any example of implementation of the designations and how it applied and benefited the Bombers. I have found no evidence on our 2024 depth charts of either being used.
You haven't done that and neither has anyone else.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 03, 2025, 04:09:32 PMMore importantly I asked about any example of implementation of the designations and how it applied and benefited the Bombers. I have found no evidence on our 2024 depth charts of either being used.
You haven't done that and neither has anyone else.
I don't believe the Bombers have ever used it, but other teams have.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:24:05 PMI don't believe the Bombers have ever used it, but other teams have.
LOL. I think I knew that but that's the point of questioning BS designations that don't have a functional practical benefit.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 03, 2025, 09:41:51 AMBut never in-game. Randolph was never dressed unless starting. The in-game replacements were always NATs (usually Neuf shuffling to OT). It was only in the next game Randolph was brought into the AR.
So for this discussion the Randolph-at-OT is moot.
(The dressed backups were always Eli, Wallace, except maybe when one of them was starting... FWIR we probably only dressed 1 backup then and brought in an extra FB?)
Aug 23 game 12 against the Ti-Cats, Stanley goes down, Randolph takes his place in game and plays the next game as well. Neufeld hasn't shuffled to Tackle in over 4 years, Gray had more versatility as an injury replacement.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:31:18 PMAug 23 game 12 against the Ti-Cats, Stanley goes down, Randolph takes his place in game and plays the next game as well. Neufeld hasn't shuffled to Tackle in over 4 years, Gray had more versatility as an injury replacement.
Yes. However Neufeld missed the game due to injury and we needed to add an extra OL. That made Randolph a practical choice. As it turned out by coincidence Bryant needed to leave the game due to illness.
Randolph would have been a DI and Bryant would have been neither a NA or a DA.
The ratio had been flipped somewhat in that game. Bighill was out and Gauthier was listed starting at MLB.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 03, 2025, 04:38:15 PMYes. However Neufeld missed the game due to injury and we needed to add an extra OL. That made Randolph a practical choice. As it turned out by coincidence Bryant needed to leave the game due to illness.
Randolph would have been a DI and Bryant would have been neither a NA or a DA.
The ratio had been flipped somewhat in that game. Bighill was out and Gauthier was listed starting at MLB.
I was wondering about that, must have been the same game Eli filled in for Neufeld, so the ratio didn't change.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:44:02 PMI was wondering about that, must have been the same game Eli filled in for Neufeld, so the ratio didn't change.
I looked at some earlier depth charts. As we know they aren't entirely useful. Randolph had been on the roster for a few games because of the Neufeld injury. Figuring out how they worked the decisions on who were the DI's versus just extra non starting imports due starting more than 7 Canadians was vague at best.
I think at least 3 showed Randolph starting at RG in place of Neufeld then switching to LT when Bryant was out. That put Eli at RG for that game and Vanterpool added as a reserve. Wallace also missed 6 games, so there as a lot of shuffling on the OL for part of 2024.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 03, 2025, 05:40:58 PMI looked at some earlier depth charts. As we know they aren't entirely useful. Randolph had been on the roster for a few games because of the Neufeld injury. Figuring out how they worked the decisions on who were the DI's versus just extra non starting imports due starting more than 7 Canadians was vague at best.
I think at least 3 showed Randolph starting at RG in place of Neufeld then switching to LT when Bryant was out. That put Eli at RG for that game and Vanterpool added as a reserve. Wallace also missed 6 games, so there as a lot of shuffling on the OL for part of 2024.
You could be right, I seem to recall Randolph subbing for Neufeld ahead of Eli for a game or two and thinking they have little confidence in Eli's ability to pass protect. I think Wallace even stepped in for Eli when Randolph got moved to LT, that may have been the game Wallace was injured.
All Bomber games are on Waders27 YouTube channel if anyone wants to take the time to watch.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on April 03, 2025, 02:07:56 PMThe Naturalized American rule is mostly rooted in CBA negotiations (American players concern) to level the playing field for contracts between Nationals and long serving Americans. Nationals get a very real premium and Americans who play in the league for a long time wanted some of that too (and it's quite a reasonable request). Adding a National and then allowing it to be filled by an American whose spent quite a bit of time helping to build the league was give and take by the National players to allow the change. It's fulfilled by game day roster management but it's not solving a game day roster management issue. If you follow.
Ignore the DNAs for now, that's a whole other can of worms, and as you said, it's completely separate from the NA issue at hand.
So you've identified 1 other thing the NA rule changed, and it's a better point than the prior "needs a NAT to sub in for" one. And you're right, this one is an out-of-game roster/money thing.
But as I think about it, I think this aspect is also a no-op because there's no shortage of qualified IMPs to be NA. If like 1/3 of your starting Americans qualify, then there's no leverage by any single NA-able IMP to demand more money.
Was there any hint 1 vet on each team got more $ when the rule took effect? Or that it extended anyone's career (another possibility)?
If they really wanted to do that, they should have tweaked the rule to so many years-in-service that only 1-2 guys qualify on each team. Then they'd be in higher demand and possibly obtain more $ and longer shelf life.
Good discussion: it makes clear why the league/CFLPA did what they did, but also demonstrates the (posited) lack of de facto impact.
Quote from: Waffler on April 03, 2025, 02:41:33 PMI am for anything that makes the rules simpler. A major obstacle to gaining new fans is that they don't understand the game. As the years go by the task of learning the game from scratch becomes more daunting.
Took me at least 7 years of reading this forum every day to get to the level of having any hope whatsoever of understanding most of the rules. And that was mostly during a time when all the silly ratio/nationality things were much simpler!
And I must say, learning and grokking ratio rules is not fun, except maybe just the plain old 7-starters thing. At least learning the on-field rulebook has an aspect of "fun" to it.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 03, 2025, 03:20:58 PMI'm still waiting to see if anybody can name either a NA or DA in any of our games and how that impacted the game etc etc.
We used to list DNA on our public gameday chart. But we stopped like a year ago. Which is funny because by rule DNAs must be picked and listed.
I'm not sure I've ever seen NA listed. Heck, like you said, there were a ton of games last year we had no idea who the 4 DIs were!! That also is required to be shown by rule.
But as Junkie admonished me about, we're just plebes who cannot be privy to such secret information as the actual "real" roster handed to the league. We just get the drivel dribbled out by the team that they call a "chart" (the worst out of all 9 teams, BTW). We cannot know any designation details because reasons. They guard that info more than Pepsi does their syrup formula.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:24:05 PMI don't believe the Bombers have ever used it, but other teams have.
If you mean NA, we are "using it", by rule. Now being transparent about it, nah.
If you mean DNA, we are also "using it", by rule, and we even used to show it on the charts (like in its first year). If you mean "using it" as in giving IMPs more snaps: no, I'm not sure we've ever used it for even one snap. Hence why we "win" the extra DPs every year.
MOS and/or KW (don't remember which, probably MOS) has publicly stated they don't even think about it for in-game sub descisions.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:31:18 PMAug 23 game 12 against the Ti-Cats, Stanley goes down, Randolph takes his place in game and plays the next game as well. Neufeld hasn't shuffled to Tackle in over 4 years, Gray had more versatility as an injury replacement.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on April 03, 2025, 04:44:02 PMI was wondering about that, must have been the same game Eli filled in for Neufeld, so the ratio didn't change.
When we are starting our normally-rostered-desired-starters 3 NAT + 2 IMP OL, and doing our normal 2 NAT backup dress, then we never have a backup IMP dressed. Ever (well, not in the past few seasons).
If Randolph was dressed then that meant prior-week injuries had us short on OL. If we
started Eli or Wallace ahead of Randolph for a game then that was probably short-lived until we saw Randolph was a way better OG than either backup NAT. I remember the instant we put Randolph in Neuf's spot, our OL was legit stout for the first time all season.
I could have sworn Neuf swept out to OT once '24, but it may have been '23. Like I said, when your normal 5 start, you are putting Neuf out to OT ahead of either Eli or Wallace. Only Randolph has a hope at OT. I guess there's possible future hope for Wallace at OT, but my guess is only as a backup OT.
You guys are right that our OL had the worst string of injuries in '24, and the roster was often chaotic week to week and even in-game.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 04, 2025, 08:07:24 AMIgnore the DNAs for now, that's a whole other can of worms, and as you said, it's completely separate from the NA issue at hand.
So you've identified 1 other thing the NA rule changed, and it's a better point than the prior "needs a NAT to sub in for" one. And you're right, this one is an out-of-game roster/money thing.
But as I think about it, I think this aspect is also a no-op because there's no shortage of qualified IMPs to be NA. If like 1/3 of your starting Americans qualify, then there's no leverage by any single NA-able IMP to demand more money.
Was there any hint 1 vet on each team got more $ when the rule took effect? Or that it extended anyone's career (another possibility)?
If they really wanted to do that, they should have tweaked the rule to so many years-in-service that only 1-2 guys qualify on each team. Then they'd be in higher demand and possibly obtain more $ and longer shelf life.
Good discussion: it makes clear why the league/CFLPA did what they did, but also demonstrates the (posited) lack of de facto impact.
How could any of us possibly know? To answer the question of effectiveness you'd have to take all the Americans who would qualify, average out the salaries before and after and account for the SMS increase and compare. (You would also be wise to try and calculate if the American players are playing longer, thereby increasing career earnings). No one I know can do that because the information required isn't available.
RE: your suggestion on how it could have been done more effectively -- Keep in mind that Canadians outnumber Americans on the field and, crucially for this discussion, as votes in the CFLPA. I would guess the American players would have liked to increase their value even more (I certainly from a fairness point of view believe they deserve it), but I'm not sure how they could possibly get it through.
So many players sign 1 year contracts after their 1st deal and are potential free agents in the off season. In a general sense they are not taking a cut but earning more and potentially a lot more. I doubt these other designations are factors.
At some point the longer a player sticks with a team, the more likely he reaches an end of run with the team. Roster size, ratio and SMS spread across the roster means a team will move forward at some point. Younger players with less injury history are added every year replacing some good players that were deemed too expensive etc.
It's catch 22. Players don't want a reduced role that comes with a reduced salary. A few accept that but we can understand the business aspect of the team as well.
Usually marginal players. Is there anyone worth and extra thousand, more so than a cis canadian
Quote from: DM83 on April 04, 2025, 05:46:39 PMUsually marginal players. Is there anyone worth and extra thousand, more so than a cis canadian
Sometimes but DI's either move up or move out. Now a player can see on the PR and still be moving up in skill level and understanding of the CFL game. He may just be waiting for an injury to see the field as Randolph did in 2024.
He has the edge to stick but will he accept more time on the PR? It's not a given. He could get nicked in TC so lots of variables. That said, I liked what we saw from him and the coach may decide to go 3 import OL as has been discussed.
Quote from: Blue In BC on April 04, 2025, 06:30:02 PMRandolph did in 2024.
He has the edge to stick but will he accept more time on the PR? It's not a given. He could get nicked in TC so lots of variables. That said, I liked what we saw from him and the coach may decide to go 3 import OL as has been discussed.
Randolph is the perfect OL to have on your roster. (IMHO) He's clearly not ready to start at OT. But he's superb at OG. And when you price him compared to a very good NAT OG, he's quite affordable.
There is no market for IMP OG. Basically zero teams start one unless there is injury or really bad GM roster management. Thus he's safe on the PR.
Hence why I'm so high on the guy. He was as good as Neuf at RG. No one will poach him. If we have to we can move him onto/off of PR. And he's cheap. Oh ya, and maybe one day he'll be good enough to replace Big Stan or Lofton.
What's not to love? Wallace will have to make huge strides vs last season to have a chance at that LG spot.
Or our ratio situation has be to dire so that 3 IMP OL is not feasible. I doubt either will happen.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on April 05, 2025, 09:12:56 AMRandolph is the perfect OL to have on your roster. (IMHO) He's clearly not ready to start at OT. But he's superb at OG. And when you price him compared to a very good NAT OG, he's quite affordable.
There is no market for IMP OG. Basically zero teams start one unless there is injury or really bad GM roster management. Thus he's safe on the PR.
Hence why I'm so high on the guy. He was as good as Neuf at RG. No one will poach him. If we have to we can move him onto/off of PR. And he's cheap. Oh ya, and maybe one day he'll be good enough to replace Big Stan or Lofton.
What's not to love? Wallace will have to make huge strides vs last season to have a chance at that LG spot. Or our ratio situation has be to dire so that 3 IMP OL is not feasible. I doubt either will happen.
Randolph might agree to stay on the PR but that doesn't mean he will. He might perceive another team has less depth or a better chance of play off money. That's all subjective in a given players mind. He might choose to depart and get a shot at an NFL roster even if it's a PR.
I'm not sure if any other CFL team is likely to start an import OG.