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

[TecnoGenius]

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.

Yes.  In CompSci we call these kludges and the end result is massive technical debt.  The whole rulebook is one big mass of kludges on top of kludges with never a rewrite for clarity.  As a result ambiguities are everywhere.  Nothing is clear to anyone.  Only if someone notices someone pushing the boundaries does the league issue "clarifications", but then it takes another year for them to make it into the rulebook, if at all.  So all us fans, the players/coaches and TSN are left talking about all these clarifications which appear nowhere in the rules!  So frustrating.

If this was Formula 1, each team would have a platoon of employees combing these rules for all the loopholes and maximizing their exploitation.  I'm surprised the C.Jones-types aren't doing this already.

Kafka novel: the perfect description.

[Blue In BC]

My big question: If you start 7(NAT)+1(NA), can another NA (a NA DA) sub in for the 1 NA?  Or must it be a NAT?

One would think another (any!) NA'd DA could sub in for the NA (replacing "like for like").  I'm not talking injury, just normal spelling / rotation.

But the url SB&G provided doesn't really speak to that, well except for: "[A DA] may only replace an American player on the field".  Technically a NA starter is still an "American", just a special one (a subset).  If read this way, you could replace a NA starter with any old (non-vet) DA?!  That would be even more ripe for abuse.

That's why I'm thinking either they would only allow another NA DA to replace the +1 starting NA.  And if you can't, then only a full-blooded(!) / "real" NAT can spell a +1 starting NA, then that would mean the 2022 ratio change would hurt IMP players and increase NAT snap counts!!  Isn't that the opposite of the stated goal of getting more IMP snaps and giving more reasons to keep ageing IMP vets around?

Interestingly, since Darby is a NA (vet IMP), if NA can spell a +1 NA, then surely he can also replace the 8th NAT when there's no +1?  If Darby couldn't, then SB&G is correct and you'd have to take off another IMP starter when Darby comes in.  If your head doesn't hurt yet, add in the fact that we could have made Darby the DNA allowing for the sub not by the '22 ratio rule change but by the '23 DNA rule change.  But for this discussion I'm more curious to find out the sub rules for +1 NAs.

Can someone look at the WPG@OTT chart and tell me who our +1 starting NA was??  I want to go back and see what we did for substitutions for them.

Too early in the morning to comment on all of this but: Depending on how they qualified the categories for the last game, Darby would have just been an import that wasn't a starter but not a DI. I say that because he normally was the starter and just being bumped by Kramdi in this game.

The maximum number of imports is a constant. If a team decides to start 8, 9 or 10 Canadians, it generally means there are a few imports that aren't starting but are not DI's.

The DI's would have been: Cole, Jackson, Parker and McCrae in theory. It was possible that Darby WAS a DI but I find it unlikely any of the other 4 would have been the extra import that wasn't starting.

As you can see none of the DI's I show would qualify as a Nationalized American, but Darby would if they choose to do that. Regardless we actually started 8 Canadians and a boatload of veterans that I mentioned that would classify as Nationalized.

It's a useless rule. The only benefit I see is if you have veterans as DI's that meet the new classification. Bombers don't at the moment.

Your question was the same as my question. Who was our + 1 starting NA?

I can name about 10 they could have made the NA but each was already starting and not replacing a Canadian. In fact the exact opposite would be true. If Bryant or Hardrick are injured they would be replace by a Canadian in game. Ditto for: Bailey, Nichols, Alexander, Walker, Jeffcoat or Jefferson.

[TecnoGenius]

Your question was the same as my question. Who was our + 1 starting NA?

I can name about 10 they could have made the NA but each was already starting and not replacing a Canadian. In fact the exact opposite would be true. If Bryant or Hardrick are injured they would be replace by a Canadian in game. Ditto for: Bailey, Nichols, Alexander, Walker, Jeffcoat or Jefferson.

You may be confusing the DNA stuff with the 7+1 NAT/NA stuff again(?).  In the EDM game we didn't start a +1.  If you start 8 NAT, you don't need a +1 NA (FAKENAT).  You've fulfilled the "starting ratio rules" as per that url and can forget about any +1 stuff or any questions about subbing for them.

The question does apply to the OTT game though, and all prior games, because we only started 7 NAT.  So all those games we had a +1 NA in there, but no one knows who it was except the WFC and the league.

Depending on the answer to the substitution rules, my last question remains important:
My big question: If you start 7(NAT)+1(NA), can another NA (a NA DA) sub in for the 1 NA?  Or must it be a NAT?

Now, you can probably get around answering that if you make your +1 NA a guy that is always on the field barring injury: Yosh, Stan, Lawler, Schoen.  You probably wouldn't pick a D guy because they are always rotating.  Probably the least-spelled guys on D are BA and Biggie, but even they come out for special sets.

Give my previous posts some more thought later in the day, and let me know what you think.  I also want to hear from Sir B&G to make sure I've got it right, and his take on the subs issue.

[TecnoGenius]

Too early in the morning to comment on all of this but: Depending on how they qualified the categories for the last game, Darby would have just been an import that wasn't a starter but not a DI. I say that because he normally was the starter and just being bumped by Kramdi in this game.

The maximum number of imports is a constant. If a team decides to start 8, 9 or 10 Canadians, it generally means there are a few imports that aren't starting but are not DI's.

Yes, maybe if we work it out precisely we can see how it works?

1. Darby wasn't a DI, and not a +1 NA, and not the DNA.  He was an IMP and an NA.

2. The url talks about how a DI can sub in.  Since Darby wasn't a DI, those rules don't apply to him at all.  If Darby comes in, some other rule must apply.

3. It says 8 NATs or 7+1 NAT/NA must start.  And the ratio between O and D cannot change in game.  So we had 2 on D, and they were both "real" NATs.

4. Since we declared 2 real NATs on D, I don't see any rule or loophole or special case "because we started 8 real NATs" that would allow Darby to sub in for Kramdi.  I don't see any rule that would indicate Darby becomes some special status just because he didn't start and wasn't a DI.  He's like in ratio limbo.  Therefore I think SB&G is correct and Darby cannot come in unless an IMP (or GLOB) leaves the field elsewhere on D and a NAT comes in.  This could be Briggs coming in for Maruo, for instance.

5. What really upsets me is we could have solved all this (under different rules) by naming Darby our DNA and Kramdi our DNS.  Then everything is peachy and Darby can play 23 snaps for Kramdi.  Maybe WFC did this in the docs sent to the CFL; as we've seen the chart we get never shows the whole picture of data they send to the league.

It may be beneficial to rewatch and look for Darby on D and see what other subs were made at the same time.

I think it's incredibly dumb to ever start 8 NAT because then your "limbo" IMP is hamstrung.  You should always start 7+1 on paper, and if you then want to take out the +1 (Darby) on play 1 and put your favored NAT (Kramdi) in there, then do that.

[Blue In BC]

No I don't believe that is the case or correct. We had a similar situation with McCrae IIRC  earlier this year.

Simply put if the DI's are known, they are the players that must only come in for another import.

A team can start more than 7 - 8 Canadians if they choose. Taking it to extreme, if a team starts 12 Canadians, do you really think those extra imports can only come in for other imports? That's why there is that rule for DI's. That seems self evident doesn't it? It's not the 1st time a team has actually started more than 7 Canadians. Montreal used to start 9 - 10 on a regular basis when Calvillo was still playing.

If we choose to start 4 Canadian OL next week, do you really think Bryant and Hardrick could only replace an import when they came back in? That would make zero sense.

Anyway, time to put this to bed. PM me if you want to further discuss the topic.

[TecnoGenius]

No I don't believe that is the case or correct. We had a similar situation with McCrae IIRC  earlier this year.

If we choose to start 4 Canadian OL next week, do you really think Bryant and Hardrick could only replace an import when they came back in? That would make zero sense.

Anyway, time to put this to bed. PM me if you want to further discuss the topic.

I think the discussion should be public because surely someone out there besides SB&G claims to understand this new 7+1 ratio stuff?  And surely someone other than us 3 is interested in it?  Anyone?  Bueller?

This is critical stuff to understanding how that non-DI non-starting IMP can come in on subs!

Normally I'd agree with you, but SB&G said we were wrong.  And if you go by the ratio url, it clearly states:

"Each Club must identify how many National starters will be playing on offence and defence and that number cannot be deviated from"

This is written in stone.  Last game we declared 6 true-NAT on O and 2 true-NAT on D.  By the above you must keep those 2 NAT on D.  Now, we can question if a "starting NA" can come in to spell a D NAT.  But we had no starting NA, because we started the 8 true-NATs.

I see nothing anywhere that says a non-DI NA can sub in for a true-NAT.  One might think that makes sense, but show me that in the rules url (or elsewhere).

We can prove it either way by watching the EDM game and seeing what happens when Darby comes in (did he??).  If everything else stays the same, that's proof you're theory is correct.  If they always sub in a Briggs/Cadwal/Hallett, or Kramdi moves elsewhere, then it points to (but doesn't prove) my new theory being correct.

[theaardvark]

I think the discussion should be public because surely someone out there besides SB&G claims to understand this new 7+1 ratio stuff?  And surely someone other than us 3 is interested in it?  Anyone?  Bueller?

This is critical stuff to understanding how that non-DI non-starting IMP can come in on subs!

Normally I'd agree with you, but SB&G said we were wrong.  And if you go by the ratio url, it clearly states:

"Each Club must identify how many National starters will be playing on offence and defence and that number cannot be deviated from"

This is written in stone.  Last game we declared 6 true-NAT on O and 2 true-NAT on D.  By the above you must keep those 2 NAT on D.  Now, we can question if a "starting NA" can come in to spell a D NAT.  But we had no starting NA, because we started the 8 true-NATs.

I see nothing anywhere that says a non-DI NA can sub in for a true-NAT.  One might think that makes sense, but show me that in the rules url (or elsewhere).

We can prove it either way by watching the EDM game and seeing what happens when Darby comes in (did he??).  If everything else stays the same, that's proof you're theory is correct.  If they always sub in a Briggs/Cadwal/Hallett, or Kramdi moves elsewhere, then it points to (but doesn't prove) my new theory being correct.

Our DC listed that, but we have no idea what the lineup card MOS handed the officials listed as our NAT distribution.  It was either 6 on O and 1 on D or 5 on O and 2 on D... it definitely wasn't 6 on O and 2 on D, that would be idiotic, and MOS is not an idiot.

[TecnoGenius]

Our DC listed that, but we have no idea what the lineup card MOS handed the officials listed as our NAT distribution.  It was either 6 on O and 1 on D or 5 on O and 2 on D... it definitely wasn't 6 on O and 2 on D, that would be idiotic, and MOS is not an idiot.

Yes, the chart we see doesn't contain all the info, but surely who the starters are must be the same.  And that's what we're talking about.  Surely, by definition the starters (guys at the front of the position) must be the official starters, and thus set the ratio?

What you're suggesting is Kramdi could show as the starter on our chart but Darby was the "real" starter (as reported to the league) at SAM?  That would be even crazier than the current craziness!

Thus, I'm pretty sure the 6+2 we saw on our chart was the "real" designated starters and ratio.

[theaardvark]

Yes, the chart we see doesn't contain all the info, but surely who the starters are must be the same.  And that's what we're talking about.  Surely, by definition the starters (guys at the front of the position) must be the official starters, and thus set the ratio?

What you're suggesting is Kramdi could show as the starter on our chart but Darby was the "real" starter (as reported to the league) at SAM?  That would be even crazier than the current craziness!

Thus, I'm pretty sure the 6+2 we saw on our chart was the "real" designated starters and ratio.

The co-relation between who the "starters" are adn how many Nat's we "play" on either side of the ball is completely unconnected.  I can see why someone would mistake one for the other, but they are not the same thing. 

If you say you are starting 5 on O and 2 on D and release a depth chart that shows 6 on O and 2 on D, how is that related?

The DC suggests which specific players will be at which specific positions play #1.  But you can take any Nats off the field and replace them with other Nats, even for play #1.  Completely unrelated. 

So long as you keep your declared number of Nats on every play on O, and your declared number of Nats on every play on D.

Ref's want a roster and a decaration of Nats on O and Nats on D.  They have no concern for depth charts whatsoever, DC's mean nothing to a ref.

[TecnoGenius]

Ref's want a roster and a decaration of Nats on O and Nats on D.  They have no concern for depth charts whatsoever, DC's mean nothing to a ref.

I'm not sold on what you're saying; well parts of it, anyhow.  For the sake of this conversation, let's include the off-field "refs" in the word "refs" (i.e. the stats keepers and spotters who check each play satisfies the ratio).  Technically I guess we call them "officials".

Anyhow, those refs definitely are concerned with the depth chart (DC) because absolutely they need to know who the DIs (now DAs) are, as a bare minimum.  And the 23-play warning official needs to know who the DNA is.  To make sure the DNA sub is legal, they need to know who the DNSs are.  All that is on the DC.

Now, if all that is also contained on a separate page that only the league sees, so be it, but it's also info on the DC we see, and thus "DC info".

You're saying the DC we see doesn't mean squat as to the O/D ratio?  And doesn't mean squat as to who each "starter" (ratio-wise) is?  It's kind of a bold statement to say the info we are shown deviates in a massive way from what the team presents the league.  And then one might wonder what info does the opponent get?  Sounds complicated, and more work for the teams.  I'm not sold on this take at all.

If you are right, why the extra work?  Why not put all the info on the DC (80% of it is there already) and let everyone see what "reality" is?

[theaardvark]

I'm not sold on what you're saying; well parts of it, anyhow.  For the sake of this conversation, let's include the off-field "refs" in the word "refs" (i.e. the stats keepers and spotters who check each play satisfies the ratio).  Technically I guess we call them "officials".

Anyhow, those refs definitely are concerned with the depth chart (DC) because absolutely they need to know who the DIs (now DAs) are, as a bare minimum.  And the 23-play warning official needs to know who the DNA is.  To make sure the DNA sub is legal, they need to know who the DNSs are.  All that is on the DC.

Now, if all that is also contained on a separate page that only the league sees, so be it, but it's also info on the DC we see, and thus "DC info".

You're saying the DC we see doesn't mean squat as to the O/D ratio?  And doesn't mean squat as to who each "starter" (ratio-wise) is?  It's kind of a bold statement to say the info we are shown deviates in a massive way from what the team presents the league.  And then one might wonder what info does the opponent get?  Sounds complicated, and more work for the teams.  I'm not sold on this take at all.

If you are right, why the extra work?  Why not put all the info on the DC (80% of it is there already) and let everyone see what "reality" is?

Again, they need a roster, not a DC.  The roster lists who the DI's are, who the NATs are, who the QB's are.  On any given play, your DC micght have Alexander at FS, but he might line up at DE for a blitz.  So a DC is of no value. 

You declare the number of starting NATs on D and on O, and on any given play, you have to make sure you have that many.  Whether BO lines up at QB and McCrae at RB, doesn't matter, as long as the total number of Nat's you declared for O are on the field. 

Your DC can show you starting Thomas at DT and Kramdi at SAM, and you can put in Beeksma at WIL and Briggs in at FS on a run play instead, and what good is your DC?  For the officials, that is.

DC's a needed for other teams, sure.  They are a reference of where players are intended to play, and are great for showing that visually.  But in regards to officiating, they are not binding in any way.  Saying who your Nat starters are is irrelevant.  Most rotate, and many times its an exchange of a DT going out and a DE coming in, or a WR coming out and an extra OL going in. 

A DC is a good chart for fans, a great chart for commentators, but useless for officials.  A roster, designating players by Nat, Int, DA (new denotation for DI) and QB, preferably in number order, is what they truly need.  And a declaration of how many NATS will play each down on O or D.

[TecnoGenius]

A DC is a good chart for fans, a great chart for commentators, but useless for officials.  A roster, designating players by Nat, Int, DA (new denotation for DI) and QB, preferably in number order, is what they truly need.  And a declaration of how many NATS will play each down on O or D.

I see, we're mostly saying the same thing, just getting hung up on the nomenclature "DC" vs "roster".  If the roster handed to the CFL lays out all the required info, much of it duplicated in the DC, then it basically amounts to the same thing.  But that again begs the question of why the "real roster sheet" is not public information, put up alongside the DC before each game?

I understand that positionally the DC doesn't mean much, and that refs wouldn't care (outside of who the DIs and DNA/DNS are).  I was more concerned with it laying out who the "starters" were.  I'm still not convinced the teams wouldn't have to specify the precise "starters" (actual single players) on whatever they hand to the league, because of this precise verbiage used on the ratio url:

"One Nationalized American player may be listed as one of the eight National starters."

That clearly, in their own rules, implies teams "list" the "National starters".  Not just a count (O/D), but actual names.  Yes, as you say the team doesn't actually have to "start" who they say they are (as a NAT can sub in for a NAT anytime, etc.), but it looks like they ostensibly have to lay out who the prima facie starters are.