Off-season Rule Change

[Horseman]

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.

No, on KO's there is no halo as it's a live football that anyone can recover.

[Blue In BC]

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... 

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.

[theaardvark]

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...

[Blue In BC]

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...

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.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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[/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.

[Blue In BC]

You 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?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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?

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.

[Blue In BC]

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.

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.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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.

A DI will replace whom? An American starter? Yes. A National? No. The Naturalized American rostered as one of the 8 Nationals? No.

[TBURGESS]

How 'bout we change the rules to:

Canadian citizen = Canadian
Not Canadian citizen = NC (Non-Canadian)
Must have 7 starting Canadians

[Blue In BC]

A 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?

[Blue In BC]

How '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.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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?

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.

[Blue In BC]

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.

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.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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.

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.

Pretty sure Randolph replaced Bryant at LT when he went down, but maybe that's not what you're talking about.