5Y to Take Zach Out Isn't Good Enough

[Tecno]

The CFL needs to do something about that hit on Zach.  The dude ended up getting 5Y penalty (net) after the offsetting hold.  Not only did he do the "full weight" pancake and violent push so the head would snap back, but he was pushing him quite a while and could have let up at any point or just left Zach to fall with the momentum!  The ball was long gone.

That's 100% intent to injure, just like I predicted in the pre-game thread BC would try to do.  This totally improves BC's chances of beating us last week if Zach is out or woozy.  And it only cost them 5 yards!!

I propose:

1. Make the egregious RTP types (like full weight) be non-offsettable by non-major O penalties.  If they do egregious RTP then that 10Y holding would just disappear.  Yes, this would be an entirely new thing, football-wise.

2. Make egregious RTP (like this) be 25Y, not 15.  This is probably more palatable from a football history perspective.  I'd prefer to see both.  Consider adding cases where a DQ would apply, with full review by command every time it happens.

If Zach is now knocked out for the playoffs and that directly helps the offending team (BC), isn't this worth a 1-game suspension from the league?  He'll for sure get a fine, but a suspension may help us if he's an important player.  Plus it sends a message: take our guy out for the playoff, then your guy is out too (still doesn't even out if the guy is a 3rd string goon).

[Jesse]

It was very BS to have a holding call apply on a RTP play, imo.

[Stats Junkie]

The penalty wasn't for Holding. It was an Intentional Grounding penalty.

Also: I read this thread title as 5 years.

[Jesse]

The penalty wasn't for Holding. It was an Intentional Grounding penalty.

Also: I read this thread title as 5 years.

I also read it as 5 years.

But regardless, I think the RTP should nullify that type of penalty.

[Stats Junkie]

As unfair as it seems, CFL penalty rules are infinitely better than NFL penalty rules.

In the CFL, penalties are balanced out after yardage is applied. In the NFL, if there is at least one penalty against each team then all penalties offset and it is down repeated.

i.e. in NFL you could have grounding against the offence and offside, illegal contact on a receiver & roughing the passer against the defence and all the penalties would just offset.

[Tecno]

As unfair as it seems, CFL penalty rules are infinitely better than NFL penalty rules.

Yikes!  That would mean that if you see a penalty elsewhere (or have a buddy call out that one occurred away from you!) then you can lay the wood on the QB to take him out "for free"!?

[Stats Junkie]

Yikes!  That would mean that if you see a penalty elsewhere (or have a buddy call out that one occurred away from you!) then you can lay the wood on the QB to take him out "for free"!?

I over simplified my explanation because it applies in most situations. There are a few exceptions in the NFL where fouls do not offset or where fouls do stack.

There is a 'Clean hands' exception which applies when there is a change of possession on a play. A foul before a turnover does not offset with a foul committed after a turnover.

There are egregious personal foul penalties (I forget the exact terminology) which do stack. The scenario you describe would likely fall into this category.

[BLUEBOMBER]

CFL QBs do seem to get injured a lot more than NFL QBs... Maybe they need better protective gear?

[bluengold204]

The CFL needs to do something about that hit on Zach.  The dude ended up getting 5Y penalty (net) after the offsetting hold.  Not only did he do the "full weight" pancake and violent push so the head would snap back, but he was pushing him quite a while and could have let up at any point or just left Zach to fall with the momentum!  The ball was long gone.

That's 100% intent to injure, just like I predicted in the pre-game thread BC would try to do.  This totally improves BC's chances of beating us last week if Zach is out or woozy.  And it only cost them 5 yards!!

I propose:

1. Make the egregious RTP types (like full weight) be non-offsettable by non-major O penalties.  If they do egregious RTP then that 10Y holding would just disappear.  Yes, this would be an entirely new thing, football-wise.

2. Make egregious RTP (like this) be 25Y, not 15.  This is probably more palatable from a football history perspective.  I'd prefer to see both.  Consider adding cases where a DQ would apply, with full review by command every time it happens.

If Zach is now knocked out for the playoffs and that directly helps the offending team (BC), isn't this worth a 1-game suspension from the league?  He'll for sure get a fine, but a suspension may help us if he's an important player.  Plus it sends a message: take our guy out for the playoff, then your guy is out too (still doesn't even out if the guy is a 3rd string goon).

Ironically Zach getting injured was the best thing for us that game.  We don't win if Zach didn't exit the game.

[Tecno]

Ironically Zach getting injured was the best thing for us that game.  We don't win if Zach didn't exit the game.

Watch the post-games.  I can't remember who said it, but they said our OC was finally figuring out that D and putting us in good places -- hinting that Zach would have started having success too.

There's also the fact of when did BC start putting in more of their D backups?

So we don't know for sure what Zach would have done.  However, I'd guess most people would agree that Dru brought new fire to the team at a critical point.  As such I think that Zach should be given a short leash in games, even if it's just for 1-2 series to see what Dru can do.

That said, Dru more often than not loses when he's the #1 guy all week and starts.  He's very easily fooled, and he needs his main reads to work out.  He's maybe slightly more escapeable than Zach, but just as glass.  He does seem to have better arm strength (but still never really throws deep).

[Blue In BC]

Watch the post-games.  I can't remember who said it, but they said our OC was finally figuring out that D and putting us in good places -- hinting that Zach would have started having success too.

There's also the fact of when did BC start putting in more of their D backups?

So we don't know for sure what Zach would have done.  However, I'd guess most people would agree that Dru brought new fire to the team at a critical point.  As such I think that Zach should be given a short leash in games, even if it's just for 1-2 series to see what Dru can do.

That said, Dru more often than not loses when he's the #1 guy all week and starts.  He's very easily fooled, and he needs his main reads to work out.  He's maybe slightly more escapeable than Zach, but just as glass.  He does seem to have better arm strength (but still never really throws deep).

Brown came in and immediately completed 3 passes and a TD scored. I don't believe that is a matter of the OC just figuring out the defence all of a sudden.

We went from Collaros taking too long to get the pass off and getting sacked, to a TD by Brown.