Official Game Day Thread - Edmonton at Winnipeg - July 20, 2023

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Is that really correct?  I thought the rule was "one starting NAT exits the field, another NAT has to come on"?  So that goes out the window when you start 8?  Do you have to declare 1 of the NATs as not having to follow that rule or can you play that with any of them?

Does the rule itself talk in terms of # of NATs onfield or on how a substitution has to take place?  Where is this stuff in the book?

Aardvark is incorrect. Prior to the game, teams must declare how many national starters are playing on offense and defense and that number cannot be deviated from (with the exception of designated Americans replacing Canadian for 23 plays).

[Blue In BC]

Aardvark is incorrect. Prior to the game, teams must declare how many national starters are playing on offense and defense and that number cannot be deviated from (with the exception of designated Americans replacing Canadian for 23 plays).

Also not totally correct.

Teams have to declare their 4 DI's. In the last game the Bombers would have had 1 import that wasn't a DI but wasn't starting. In theory Darby would have been the player to normally start but was moved to a back role. He could have come in to sub for Kramdi or in a 6 DB set.

The alternative was that Darby was a DI and McCrae was  the player not a DI. That would have allowed him to come in to replace Oliveria on some downs.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Also not totally correct.

Teams have to declare their 4 DI's. In the last game the Bombers would have had 1 import that wasn't a DI but wasn't starting. In theory Darby would have been the player to normally start but was moved to a back role. He could have come in to sub for Kramdi or in a 6 DB set.

The alternative was that Darby was a DI and McCrae was  the player not a DI. That would have allowed him to come in to replace Oliveria on some downs.

Also wrong. Here's the rule right from the league. If Darby is coming on for Kramdi, then, elsewhere and at the same time, an American must come off for a Canadian as well. Unless Darby and Kramdi have been designated for the 23 snaps.

National Players

A Club must start at least eight Nationals, however one of these Nationals may be a Nationalized American.  Prior to the game, each Club must identify how many National starters will be playing on offence and defence and that number cannot be deviated from.

https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/

[Blue In BC]

Also wrong. Here's the rule right from the league. If Darby is coming on for Kramdi, then, elsewhere and at the same time, an American must come off for a Canadian as well. Unless Darby and Kramdi have been designated for the 23 snaps.

https://www.cfl.ca/game-rule-ratio/

I don't know about that. Bombers aren't normally starting 8 Canadians and they aren't using the Nationalized American. That rule seemed to have gone the way of the Dodo.

Like I said, the constant is the need to declare 4 DI's and those player must replace another import. We still only had the same number of imports on the roster.

If we choose to start 9 or 10 Canadians we'd have more imports that weren't DI's as well.

Look at our last depth chart: Parker, Cole and Jackson were noted as DA's ( DI's ). McCrae and Darby had no notation but by definition one of them was.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I don't know about that. Bombers aren't normally starting 8 Canadians and they aren't using the Nationalized American. That rule seemed to have gone the way of the Dodo.

Like I said, the constant is the need to declare 4 DI's and those player must replace another import. We still only had the same number of imports on the roster.

If we choose to start 9 or 10 Canadians we'd have more imports that weren't DI's as well.

You don't understand.

1) The nationalized American rule is in effect, it's just not shown on the depth chart because a bunch of players qualify. 
2) That is not a constant. For example, on Thursday we only declared 3 DIs.
3) If we started 10 Canadians, we'd have to ensure 10 spots were always filled by a Canadian based on the team declared offense and defense mix before the game. That's a fact. Yes, we'd have more imports sitting around waiting to go in for another import, which is why we don't do that.

[Blue In BC]

You don't understand.

1) The nationalized American rule is in effect, it's just not shown on the depth chart because a bunch of players qualify. 
2) That is not a constant. For example, on Thursday we only declared 3 DIs.
3) If we started 10 Canadians, we'd have to ensure those 10 spots were always filled by a Canadian. That's a fact. Yes, we'd have more imports sitting around waiting to go in for another import, which is why we don't do that.

I disagree. Even O'Shea said he's not going to bother using that idea. The need to declare DI's has been in effect for many years.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I disagree. Even O'Shea said he's not going to bother using that idea. The need to declare DI's has been in effect for many years.

...Go to the depth chart of most recent game. We have THREE DIs listed. You can literally see it.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I disagree. Even O'Shea said he's not going to bother using that idea. The need to declare DI's has been in effect for many years.

O'Shea said that at the beginning of the year when the league wasn't sure if they were going to implement the changes this year. They did. The rules are posted at the link I provided. They changed some language to make it work. It's not 49/51% of snaps but 23 total. You can choose to not believe it if you want but you will be mistaken in doing so.

[Blue In BC]

...Go to the depth chart of most recent game. We have THREE DIs listed. You can literally see it.

I did and that's my point. One of the two players I mentioned was a non starting import. Go to the previous depth chart and when we were starting 7 Canadians. McCrae would have been a DI replacing Grant etc etc.

Who are our Nationalized Americans that are replacing a Canadian? Bryant, Hardrick, Bailey, Lawler or Alexander already are starters.  There is no workable solution on our roster for a practical implementation of that concept.

All of the imports we have that qualify are already starting.

Feel free to name ANY Nationalized American that has replace a Canadian in any game or any play?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I did and that's my point. One of the two players I mentioned was a non starting import. Go to the previous depth chart and when we were starting 7 Canadians. McCrae would have been a DI replacing Grant etc etc.

Who are our Nationalized Americans that are replacing a Canadian? Bryant, Hardrick, Bailey, Lawler or Alexander already are starters.  There is no workable solution on our roster for a practical implementation of that concept.

All of the imports we have that qualify are already starting.

Feel free to name ANY Nationalized American that has replace a Canadian in any game or any play?

That's not how it works. We thought it might in the off-season, but they have implemented it differently. Go to the Ottawa game depth chart. We need 8 Canadian spots one of which can be (is, in our case) a naturalized Canadian. In that game we declare:

6 spots on offense (Gray, Kolankowski, Neufeld, Wolitarsky, Oliveria, Demski) and 2 spots on defense (Thomas [Jeffcoat, Jefferson, Alexander]). Note that although I used the names of who in theory will start there, these can be ANYBODY who would qualify.

So in that game, on defense we need TWO nationals minimum at all times, one of which is (can be) a naturalized American and on offense we need 6 Canadians, at all times. The DA (DIs) in that game (as listed by the chart, anyway) were Haba, Castillo, Agudosi and Cole. They can come on for Americans. But every snap we need 6 on offense and 1+1 or 2 on defense. Always.

Got it?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I did and that's my point. One of the two players I mentioned was a non starting import. Go to the previous depth chart and when we were starting 7 Canadians. McCrae would have been a DI replacing Grant etc etc.

Who are our Nationalized Americans that are replacing a Canadian? Bryant, Hardrick, Bailey, Lawler or Alexander already are starters.  There is no workable solution on our roster for a practical implementation of that concept.

All of the imports we have that qualify are already starting.

Feel free to name ANY Nationalized American that has replace a Canadian in any game or any play?

From what I can see O'Shea is not making use of the rule change in it's subversive form but other teams such as Calgary and Hamilton are.  Hard to know which players are involved and when it is being employed when TSN chooses not to bother mentioning it anymore. 

Obviously these rules have made the ratio rules much more confusing for everyone, the league has to simplify them so the average fan understands what is happening with roster management quickly and easily.  It shouldn't be calculus.

[bunker]

From what I can see O'Shea is not making use of the rule change in it's subversive form but other teams such as Calgary and Hamilton are.  Hard to know which players are involved and when it is being employed when TSN chooses not to bother mentioning it anymore. 

Obviously these rules have made the ratio rules much more confusing for everyone, the league has to simplify them so the average fan understands what is happening with roster management quickly and easily.  It shouldn't be calculus.

Agree, the rules are a mess, way too complicated. They read like a Kafka novel.

[Blue In BC]

That's not how it works. We thought it might in the off-season, but they have implemented it differently. Go to the Ottawa game depth chart. We need 8 Canadian spots one of which can be (is, in our case) a naturalized Canadian. In that game we declare:

6 spots on offense (Gray, Kolankowski, Neufeld, Wolitarsky, Oliveria, Demski) and 2 spots on defense (Thomas [Jeffcoat, Jefferson, Alexander]). Note that although I used the names of who in theory will start there, these can be ANYBODY who would qualify.

So in that game, on defense we need TWO nationals minimum at all times, one of which is (can be) a naturalized American and on offense we need 6 Canadians, at all times. The DA (DIs) in that game (as listed by the chart, anyway) were Haba, Castillo, Agudosi and Cole. They can come on for Americans. But every snap we need 6 on offense and 1+1 or 2 on defense. Always.

Got it?

I got it but I don't think you do.

We have a team full of players that qualify as Nationalized Americans. The point is that they are already starting and at no point are they replacing any Canadian.

When Grant was on the roster, he would have qualified as the ONLY import without a full time starting role. He could have come in on offence replacing a Canadian receiver or RB. Now he only ever gets a couple of plays at the best of times.

If an import receiver gets injured, we'd almost certainly put BOO into replace him. When Grant does come on I think he might be in for an import receiver ( as a DI ). I don't think he comes in as a direct replacement for Oliveria which would be a real give away to the opponent. That said it's already a significant give away to the opponent that we're using him or faking to use him as a RB.

As was discussed often in TC and pre -season: A player like Lemon would qualify for a Nationalized American and would get significant rotation. That was the intent of the rule.

Bryant, Hardrick, Bailey, Lawler, Nichols, Alexander, Jeffcoat, Jefferson, Walker are already on the field all of the time. They are the primary starters and have never been a DI.  You can call them Nationalized but it is a status quo. They aren't going into the game to replace any Canadians.

I gave you the option of naming any import that this applies to and you didn't name one. Like I said, at best Grant might fit the bill on 1 or 2 plays a game.

At the moment with him on IR, I see no actual choices: Jackson, Cole, McCrae, Parker or Agudosi don't qualify.  They've been what we'd normally call DI's in games this year.

Darby was listed as a starter every game until this week. I suppose he " would qualify " but he's really just the non starting import for the that game. He may be back starting next week or another import DB and we'll be back to no Nationalized American that isn't the full time starter.

I'm still waiting for you to give an actual example of the team using this rule.

[theaardvark]

We started 8 NATS AND 1 GBL...  We are required to start 7 NATS, and Zero GLB.

Declaring how many NATs/GLBs you start on either side of the ball is done pre-game, so if you bring in an INT for a NAT, you have to bring in a NAT for an INT (McCrae in for Oliveira, Oleary Orange in for Bailey).

But if you declare you are starting 2 Nats on D and 5 on O, and you have 6 starting on O, then you can sub in McCrae for Oliveria without making the Bailey/OO move.

Not sure how Mauro starting as a GLB factors in, if you can sub in an INT for him without ratio issues....

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I got it but I don't think you do.

We have a team full of players that qualify as Nationalized Americans. The point is that they are already starting and at no point are they replacing any Canadian.

When Grant was on the roster, he would have qualified as the ONLY import without a full time starting role. He could have come in on offence replacing a Canadian receiver or RB. Now he only ever gets a couple of plays at the best of times.

If an import receiver gets injured, we'd almost certainly put BOO into replace him. When Grant does come on I think he might be in for an import receiver ( as a DI ). I don't think he comes in as a direct replacement for Oliveria which would be a real give away to the opponent. That said it's already a significant give away to the opponent that we're using him or faking to use him as a RB.

As was discussed often in TC and pre -season: A player like Lemon would qualify for a Nationalized American and would get significant rotation. That was the intent of the rule.

Bryant, Hardrick, Bailey, Lawler, Nichols, Alexander, Jeffcoat, Jefferson, Walker are already on the field all of the time. They are the primary starters and have never been a DI.  You can call them Nationalized but it is a status quo. They aren't going into the game to replace any Canadians.

I gave you the option of naming any import that this applies to and you didn't name one. Like I said, at best Grant might fit the bill on 1 or 2 plays a game.

At the moment with him on IR, I see no actual choices: Jackson, Cole, McCrae, Parker or Agudosi don't qualify.  They've been what we'd normally call DI's in games this year.

Darby was listed as a starter every game until this week. I suppose he " would qualify " but he's really just the non starting import for the that game. He may be back starting next week or another import DB and we'll be back to no Nationalized American that isn't the full time starter.

I'm still waiting for you to give an actual example of the team using this rule.

Not sure if we've done that (it's up to the individual team, obviously) but other teams have, and it's been written about. Here's some links:

https://3downnation.com/2023/06/07/opinion-new-cfl-roster-rules-make-mockery-of-the-game/
https://3downnation.com/2023/06/11/elks-chris-jones-on-cfls-newest-roster-rule-we-just-got-to-be-real-careful-theyll-fine-you/

You are also still confusing things: Designated Americans (formally DIs) are in no way related to Naturalized Americans. Alden Darby does qualify as he's been in the league five seasons, so he could replace Kramdi if they are both designated to do so. Have they? That's a different question. They could if they wanted to.