CBA negotiations

[theaardvark]

Aards

- the player doesn't decide when to go in - can't penalize them. Period.
- the rules you're suggesting, fair or not, aren't really in line with how the league has done things. We never see them take that hard of a line so it's unreasonable to expect them to start - especially when they're the ones pushing for fakenats.
- The rules of the game are set - you can't change them for one team as a penalty.

Blue in BC

- Our team is a veteran one, we should expect to see a lot of turn over in the coming years.
- If they are with our team for 3 years, they ualify, doesn't matter when they join or no one would have any naturalized players until 3 years from now.
- I think we'll see FA priority change as we move forward. A lot of times, borderline vets would be cut in favour of a cheaper prospects, but now they have additional value.

Losing the ability to use a natnat is not penalizing a player, but rather penalizing a team.  It is an advantage.  It would be like losing a NAT starter and having to play a less talented NAT the next game. 

The use of 49% natnat snaps is a privilege.  Abuse it, you lose it.

[Jesse]

Losing the ability to use a natnat is not penalizing a player, but rather penalizing a team.  It is an advantage.  It would be like losing a NAT starter and having to play a less talented NAT the next game. 

The use of 49% natnat snaps is a privilege.  Abuse it, you lose it.

Benching a player for something they don't have control over is 100% penalizing the player. Yes, it also hurts the team.

Again, the CFL has never taken this kind of hard line - so suddenly expecting them to start is...silly.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Losing the ability to use a natnat is not penalizing a player, but rather penalizing a team.  It is an advantage.  It would be like losing a NAT starter and having to play a less talented NAT the next game. 

The use of 49% natnat snaps is a privilege.  Abuse it, you lose it.

This is one of those times where you think it's a good idea, but it's really not and doubling down won't help. Salaries are tied to performance and sometimes snaps played, other incentives hinge on being out there. If a team accidently went over the % the players will never be the ones accountable for that. And they shouldn't. Are players responsible now if teams misuse the DI or don't actually start 7 Canadians? Of course not. Won't happen with this new part of the roster rules either.

[Blue In BC]

Aards

- the player doesn't decide when to go in - can't penalize them. Period.
- the rules you're suggesting, fair or not, aren't really in line with how the league has done things. We never see them take that hard of a line so it's unreasonable to expect them to start - especially when they're the ones pushing for fakenats.
- The rules of the game are set - you can't change them for one team as a penalty.

Blue in BC

- Our team is a veteran one, we should expect to see a lot of turn over in the coming years.
- If they are with our team for 3 years, they ualify, doesn't matter when they join or no one would have any naturalized players until 3 years from now.
- I think we'll see FA priority change as we move forward. A lot of times, borderline vets would be cut in favour of a cheaper prospects, but now they have additional value.

I was just using the 2022 possible roster looking at how the new policy could be used. It will be complicated and I was using examples broadly how it could develop. The names will be fluid and were not specifically important. A kind of look at a transition plan for a current starter into a reduced role.

Obviously A. Harris is Canadian but the same questions were asked. Is he willing to take a reduced role with a lower pay check. Some vets will make that change and others will need to dragged off the field screaming.

D. Adams might have had the same questions put to him for example. He might still have a season or two starting in Ottawa or perhaps he should have taken on a back up role that would fit this new idea in 2023.

Ellingson would be the current equivalent in 2023 of a player that could become that naturalized American that sees less reps. In passing downs where a Canadian RB comes off, or an injury to a Canadian receiver and so on.

[theaardvark]

This is one of those times where you think it's a good idea, but it's really not and doubling down won't help. Salaries are tied to performance and sometimes snaps played, other incentives hinge on being out there. If a team accidently went over the % the players will never be the ones accountable for that. And they shouldn't. Are players responsible now if teams misuse the DI or don't actually start 7 Canadians? Of course not. Won't happen with this new part of the roster rules either.

A team "accidentally" going over the snaps will not be penalized.  If they repeat the accident, they get penalized.  If a player gets incentives based on natnat snaps, then he should make sure there is a rider that takes into account games where natnat snaps were lost due to coaching error.  Again, its not the player that is penalized, it is the right to designate a player as a natnat that is, it is a team penalty. 

If you have 6 players capable of being classed as a natnat, are the 4 that are not given the designation being penalized? 

I don't get how you think a specific player is penalized by a team forfeiting its privilege to utilize a natnat.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

A team "accidentally" going over the snaps will not be penalized.  If they repeat the accident, they get penalized.  If a player gets incentives based on natnat snaps, then he should make sure there is a rider that takes into account games where natnat snaps were lost due to coaching error.  Again, its not the player that is penalized, it is the right to designate a player as a natnat that is, it is a team penalty. 

If you have 6 players capable of being classed as a natnat, are the 4 that are not given the designation being penalized? 

I don't get how you think a specific player is penalized by a team forfeiting its privilege to utilize a natnat.

First of all, stop saying natnat. Secondly, I know you dont get it but it isn't going to change the fact that the penalty won't be "you cannot play a roster position that is agreed upon under the CBA"

It is not realistic nor a good idea. It will probably be policed like the SMS which is fines/draft picks.

[theaardvark]

First of all, stop saying natnat. Secondly, I know you dont get it but it isn't going to change the fact that the penalty won't be "you cannot play a roster position that is agreed upon under the CBA"

It is not realistic nor a good idea. It will probably be policed like the SMS which is fines/draft picks.

OK, give me a better term than natnat to use...

If the penalty is assessed as fines / DP's, then there will be no adherence to the rule.  No other in game infraction is adjudicated that way. especially one that will be monitored closely.  If there are no repercussions to the team play, then there will be rampant violations.  WBB will closely monitor their use and make sure not to "cheat", but do you think Jones will? 

Presently, if a DI plays for a NAT, the team gets a 25 yard penalty (if the refs notice).  In 2016, the Chris Jones led Riders were fined $15k for a violation of that rule when it was noticed weeks later https://3downnation.com/2016/08/05/cfl-right-punish-riders-skirting-ratio-rules/

Because this is a cumulative snaps rule, and until the game ends, you cannot ***** whether the team is in violation or not, a penalty would not be able to be assessed during the game.  But, the team breaking the rule has gained an advantage.  That advantage needs to be countered, not with a fine, because then you could effectively buy advantage, and not by DP's, because that would exacerbate the issue that the team has in not having sufficient NAT depth (like the Chris Jones led 2016 Riders).

Temporarily losing the advantage to abused seems, to me, to be the perfect penalty.  "You used too many natnat snaps last week, so this week, you get none".  And again, not for the first offense.  Scaling, 1st offense, warning, 2nd, 1 game suspension of the O/D (whichever was abused) natnat provision.  3rd offense, 2 games.  4th offense, you lose it altogether for the season, because you just don't want to use the exception as it was intended.

Appropriate and proportional penalty.

Until we know how the players will be designated as natnat, the argument that a player is being penalized for a coaches mistake is moot.  And, maybe, the natnat player should be monitoring how many snaps he has taken and how many his NAT counterpart have.  Not really a tough job...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Sigh.

[TBURGESS]

1. No in game penalty for going over 49%. That's completely unworkable. Example: 1st play, Yankee NI starts and is now over @ 50% of the snaps.
2. Each team will have to keep count of the snaps and how many went to Yankee NI's. Go over and risk an undefined penalty.
3. Giving the team that has the most NI snaps will reward the teams with the best NI's by giving them an extra 2nd round pick. Sounds backwards to me.
4. Turns out the negotiation problem was with the signing bonus, not the number of NI starters.

[Jesse]

1. No in game penalty for going over 49%. That's completely unworkable. Example: 1st play, Yankee NI starts and is now over @ 50% of the snaps.
2. Each team will have to keep count of the snaps and how many went to Yankee NI's. Go over and risk an undefined penalty.
3. Giving the team that has the most NI snaps will reward the teams with the best NI's by giving them an extra 2nd round pick. Sounds backwards to me.
4. Turns out the negotiation problem was with the signing bonus, not the number of NI starters.

Definitely how it seems

[TecnoGenius]

OK, give me a better term than natnat to use...

The problem with natnat is it could mean national-national, which is the opposite of what you intend: naturalized-national.

We had this thread back in '20 when the concept was first introduced... I like FAKENAT, because that's what they are.  Other ideas:
NATish
NATLITE
AMNAT (has a nice ring to it) (AM=American)

Gotta use NAT-something instead of NI-something for these FAKENATs because they can't be a NI-IMP.   

Maybe we should just call them:  49-PERCENTERs... or just 49ers.  Or Halfers?

I'm sure between us and the rabid fans on Riderfans we can come up with something.  Has to be short, has to roll off the tongue, has to be catchy.

[TecnoGenius]

3. Giving the team that has the most NI snaps will reward the teams with the best NI's by giving them an extra 2nd round pick. Sounds backwards to me.

Maybe.  But that's us, so I won't complain.

It does incentivize teams to play their NATs in NAT spots rather than ride the knife's edge of 49% with the FAKENATs.  Teams with good NATs can use the FAKENATs more as spellers or for special sets, rather than cheat-starters.

If you player your FAKENATs as spellers, you don't even need to track the %, and you'll probably win the extra DP.

P.S. Reading the actual CBA summary on twatter you'll find they are actually going to give the NATtiest TWO (2) teams an extra DP!  Not just 1 team.  2.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The extra NI draft pick if you play more NIs is kinda stupid but it is replacing the also stupid territorial exemption picks.

An extra draft pick and the end of the second round has never been of much value. It's safe to say I don't think teams are going to be rushing to start more Canadians just so they get the pick. Maybe the teams not making the playoffs in the last week or two maybe. But that's about the extent of it.

[Jesse]

The extra NI draft pick if you play more NIs is kinda stupid but it is replacing the also stupid territorial exemption picks.

An extra draft pick and the end of the second round has never been of much value. It's safe to say I don't think teams are going to be rushing to start more Canadians just so they get the pick. Maybe the teams not making the playoffs in the last week or two maybe. But that's about the extent of it.

I agree. Teams that try to use as little nats as possible aren?t going to find value in draft picks. It?s  kind of meaningless.

[TBURGESS]

My guess is the bottom 2 teams won't play any Yankee NI's in the last couple of games to get the draft picks. At least that's what I would do.