Kyrie Wilson

[TecnoGenius]

If placing someone after the 15th game ONLY was applicable for two of nine teams in the league don't you think that would be mentioned?

It's the CFL.  They clearly have the least intelligent person in the room actually writing this final verbiage.  Then they clear up the ambiguities by issuing "clarification memos" to the teams that us plebes aren't allowed to see.

I don't think anyone can know whether your interpretation or mine is correct from the info we mere fans are provided.  You've made your case and it certainly is plausible, and I think mine is too.

We need a Coaches Show for KW...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's the CFL.  They clearly have the least intelligent person in the room actually writing this final verbiage.  Then they clear up the ambiguities by issuing "clarification memos" to the teams that us plebes aren't allowed to see.

I don't think anyone can know whether your interpretation or mine is correct from the info we mere fans are provided.  You've made your case and it certainly is plausible, and I think mine is too.

We need a Coaches Show for KW...

No we don't. You might want to consider a common sense show though.

For your scenario to be true you would have to believe that the league allows teams who make it to the Grey Cup to be the ONLY two teams in the league to offset shelter injuries sustained on week 15.

You have to further believe that conference final teams can do so on week 14. Semi final teams on week 13 and the three teams who didn't make it? Oh well, they only get relief from their injuries from week 12. You also have to believe that they left all this out from the actual rule because, why?

That makes no sense.

The other interpretation is taking the rule at face value which says teams can put players on the the 6-game after 15 games (but before their 16) This gives ALL 9 teams equal injury sheltering because playoff money is and always has been separate.

But yes, believe what you want, obviously.

[TecnoGenius]

For your scenario to be true you would have to believe that the league allows teams who make it to the Grey Cup to be the ONLY two teams in the league to offset shelter injuries sustained on week 15.

Why not?  6 teams make it into the playoff week 1.  4 into week 2.  2 in to the GC.  So almost every team gets to count that 1st playoff week, and about half the teams the 2nd week.

It provides an added incentive for teams to make it and go deep into the playoffs.  How would such an incentive be bad?

But the main thrust of my argument, and one you still haven't explained, is why would they bother wording it the way they did, then?  Why not just say "weeks" instead of "game" and "bye"? (1)

They even go further and explicitly state that regular season byes don't count as a game missed!  Why specify this at all unless you're trying to make clear that the playoff bye is a special case that is counted? (2)  By definition, only 2 teams will have a playoff bye.

And they use the verbiage "game served on the 6GIR".  Served.  How can a player be "serving" a game on the IR if his season is done and he's gone home?  Likewise: "considered a game played".  Played.  They seem to be going out of their way to indicate the 6GIR math isn't just counting "weeks you exist": it's counting actual games your team is playing, with one added exception for the two divisional winners so they don't get punished for having that first week bye.

Read it again:

No Player shall be eligible to be placed on the Six Game Injury List after his Member Club has played its 15th regular season game. Any Player who has been placed on the Six Game Injury List prior to the Member Club's 15th regular season game will be eligible to be extended on the Six Game Injury List for the remainder of the season without penalty. Playoff Games and the Playoff Bye will be considered a game served on the Six Game Injury List. A Bye in the regular season will not be considered a game played.

If you are 100% correct, they could (and should!) have written:

No Player shall be eligible to be placed on the Six Game Injury List after his Member Club has played its 15th regular season game. Any Player who has been placed on the Six Game Injury List prior to the Member Club's 15th regular season game will be eligible to be extended on the Six Game Injury List for the remainder of the season without penalty. Playoff weeks will be considered a game served on the Six Game Injury List for all teams. A Bye in the regular season will not be considered a game played.

Maybe they specify week 15 because mathematically even the GC-playing teams can't get SMS relief after that point.

Hey, I admitted your scenario could very well be true.  You don't think mine is remotely possible?

[TecnoGenius]

I read the entire section in the CBA

https://media.cfldb.ca/documents/cfl-cflpa-collective-agreement-2022.pdf
page 58

There is an interpretation where we can both be correct, and that fits the strange wording chosen:

- All teams get full 6GIR SMS relief if they put and leave a player on the 6GIR before week 16. (Your theory)  (The CBA section's first paragraph, which I hadn't read before, points to this.)

- For the purposes of players coming off the 6GIR, playoff games/byes do (and only!) count for teams still playing (which kind of goes without saying).  For instance, if their 6th game served is the WSF, then they can come back for the WDF.

I was thinking the whole paragraph had to be about SMS relief, but it may be that all that extra verbiage and detail is there only to address the issue of how the post-season counts for players coming off the 6GIR.  It's actually two issues being addressed in one section, with the points being conflated in that one quoted paragraph.

[theaardvark]

I think that to get the full 6 game $SMS releif, the team has to play 6 games while you are injured.  So, if that is 3 reg season games, a DSF or playoff bye (bye's count as games in the playoffs, but not reg season byes), a DF and the GC, you get the 3 game cheques for regular season play taken off your $SMS.

Hence why a player cannot be put on the 6 game after game 15.  16, 17, 18, DSF/bye, DF, GC makes 6 games the player misses.

Curious though if only the GC teams get the $SMS relief for players 6 gamed after game 14, or if it all teams are considered to have those three playoff games.

So, if you actually have to play post season games for a player to miss them, to get $SMS releif for:

Biggie and Neuf, we need to play the WDF or Bye

Woli - DF

Streve and Wilson - GC

OK, now I see the reason for the post season mention.

Any player on the 6 game IR before game 15 gets full $SMS protection, as long as they stay on the IR for 6 games, including the DSF/Bye, DF and GC.

So, we still get full $SMS relief on Biggie and Neuf if they play the DF and GC, but not if they play in the DSF.

We get relief on Woli even if he plays in the GC, but not if he plays in the DF

And we don't get relief on Streveler or Wilson if they play again this year.

And there you have it.

Simple.

[TecnoGenius]

We get relief on Woli even if he plays in the GC, but not if he plays in the DF

And we don't get relief on Streveler or Wilson if they play again this year.

Yes, I think that's it.

They really should hire better writers for these rules.  It could be laid out so much better and more clearly, with way less ambiguity.

[theaardvark]

Yes, I think that's it.

They really should hire better writers for these rules.  It could be laid out so much better and more clearly, with way less ambiguity.

The rules don't need better writers, but the media needs to have better communication of the rules, and not make us work so hard to understand what the rules mean.

Its why we have  "panel" before each game, its why we have Lapo breaking things down, its why 3DownNation exists for our cute little semi-pro league (I am, of course, joking about semi-pro). 

There should have been, somewhere in the media, the explanation I just wrote.

Maybe I should write a 3DownNation piece.  I'm sure John Hodge monitors this forum, he can pick it up and take credit if he likes.  What is interesting is that the Bombers have the perfect 6 game IR right now to explain the rule using real life examples.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's really not complicated if you read and apply common sense.  Probably in part why no one has bothered to write an article or commit airtime to discuss it. Anyone who wants to know can figure it out pretty quickly.

[theaardvark]

It's really not complicated if you read and apply common sense.  Probably in part why no one has bothered to write an article or commit airtime to discuss it. Anyone who wants to know can figure it out pretty quickly.

The members of this forum are quite well read, quite informed about the CFL and its rules, debate the $SMS intelligently (mostly) and yet how many pages/posts did it take to finally come up with the answer?

But yeah, you knew the answer and it was just too simple to bother wading in.

I do think, at this time of year, with the $SMS implications of extending players, guaranteed money, signing players off of couches or after NFL tries, that this is a very appropriate time to make a clear explanation of this rule.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The members of this forum are quite well read, quite informed about the CFL and its rules, debate the $SMS intelligently (mostly) and yet how many pages/posts did it take to finally come up with the answer?

But yeah, you knew the answer and it was just too simple to bother wading in.

I do think, at this time of year, with the $SMS implications of extending players, guaranteed money, signing players off of couches or after NFL tries, that this is a very appropriate time to make a clear explanation of this rule.

I have no idea how many pages it took you to come up with the answer. But the language in the CBA didn't change while you were discussing it. The copied definition is exactly the same now as it was before. A few of people decided to go around and around and around before re-reading it, I suppose.

[TecnoGenius]

The rules don't need better writers, but the media needs to have better communication of the rules, and not make us work so hard to understand what the rules mean.

The rules do need better writers.  The entire rule book, and now it appears the CBA, is very badly written.  Ambiguities abound.  Wording is substandard.  Stuff is tacked on left, right and center over the years.

If I was trying to write a computer program to such a specification, I'd take the language or API and throw it in the trash and look for something sane.

You should not need pronouncements from on high (from TSN or elsewhere) to properly interpret the rules.  It should be plain and clear from the text.

I consider the whole situation a big fail.  It's not just this one rule, this happens every few weeks as a novel situation forces us to parse yet another obscure rule, with the same type of discussions.

The final proof that the rules are badly written is that the CFL issues new "guidelines" one week this season that completely change the way reviews are done (especially DPI) completely altering the outcome of games (Alexander TD OOB run anyone? OTT/SSK never-ending game anyone?) without a single change to the written rules.

If the interpretation of the rules has such wide latitude that you can pull full 180's, then the rules, as written, are grossly inadequate.

[TecnoGenius]

I have no idea how many pages it took you to come up with the answer. But the language in the CBA didn't change while you were discussing it. The copied definition is exactly the same now as it was before. A few of people decided to go around and around and around before re-reading it, I suppose.

I never had a copy of the CBA, I was only arguing off the part you quoted, which I thought was the relevant part.  It's only after reading paragraph 1 (not quoted) that I was able to see what you were seeing.

Given only the information on this thread at the time, I maintain my original interpretation was sound.  Given the full page-long rule, I altered my view.  That's what discussions and posting further info is for.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Your original interpretation was not sound because it made no logical sense and was wrong.

[Jesse]

The rules do need better writers.  The entire rule book, and now it appears the CBA, is very badly written.  Ambiguities abound.  Wording is substandard.  Stuff is tacked on left, right and center over the years.

If I was trying to write a computer program to such a specification, I'd take the language or API and throw it in the trash and look for something sane.

You should not need pronouncements from on high (from TSN or elsewhere) to properly interpret the rules.  It should be plain and clear from the text.

I consider the whole situation a big fail.  It's not just this one rule, this happens every few weeks as a novel situation forces us to parse yet another obscure rule, with the same type of discussions.

The final proof that the rules are badly written is that the CFL issues new "guidelines" one week this season that completely change the way reviews are done (especially DPI) completely altering the outcome of games (Alexander TD OOB run anyone? OTT/SSK never-ending game anyone?) without a single change to the written rules.

If the interpretation of the rules has such wide latitude that you can pull full 180's, then the rules, as written, are grossly inadequate.

I don't think they need better writers per se. But as you admitted yourself, most fans don't know the CBA in it's entirety and make laughable statement based on small sections.

These rules all work together and some of the ambiguity you think you see is likely because you don't have the whole picture, including that many things are based on precedent which you also probably don't have a huge familiarity with.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't think they need better writers per se. But as you admitted yourself, most fans don't know the CBA in it's entirety and make laughable statement based on small sections.

I didn't have the CBA, but I have had the full rulebook for a couple of years now, and I consult it practically daily.  Yes, in this case it was critical to have the preamble to understand the intent of the subsections.

These rules all work together and some of the ambiguity you think you see is likely because you don't have the whole picture, including that many things are based on precedent which you also probably don't have a huge familiarity with.

I have around 10 years of historical understanding to work with.  Yes, clearly there are dozens more years history and precedent to learn.

But that actually proves my point: properly written rules don't require years of unwritten and obscure precedent and history to interpret.  They should just be there: plain to anyone sitting down and reading them for the first time.

I wonder if the NFL rulebooks are as much a mess as ours are...