TBURGESS

TSN - Please do the interviews at half time. Signed 99% of CFL fans.

Are the redblacks that much better or are we that much worse? Two weeks in a row we stuff a 3rd down gamble in the 4th and win a game we probably shouldn't have. Two weeks in a row we expected to win while the redblacks hoped to win. We're 2-0 and that's really what matters.

I like intentional grounding. Nice. Not written is the definition of not a rule. There's a group of folks who argue all the time, including Booch. It's not just me, but a certain group loves to complain about me arguing with them. Talk about lack of self awareness. Every hit is both intentional and targeted. What folks are really saying is targeting the head or neck. Guess what? According to the rules if you hit the head or neck, you get a penalty, targeted or not, intentional or not. Why would would you even need/want to figure out intent? UR, intent or not, is a 15 yard penalty anyway. 'Intent' for a fine after the fact. Sure. Why not? You get a chance to see the hit in multiple angles and in slow motion. Might be why players get fines for hits that aren't penalties in game. Although in this case it was the blow to the head that was missed in game. Rules should be binary. On side or off side. In or out. Within 5 yards or not. Hit the head/neck or not.

You're arguing something that can't be proven one way or the other. I'm arguing the rule and you admit it's not a rule then complain that I'm the one who is arguing and twisat'ing whatever that is. You're the one who keeps bringing intent and targeting up. Leave it alone and we'll have nothing to argue about. Keep bringing it up, and I'll keep replying. As usual the arguing is up to you.

Not sorry, but you're wrong. Intent isn't part of any rule for good reason. Refs can't even get off side right all the time. They can't be expected to decide on intent on a hit in real time. Show me the intent rule and I'll change my mind.

Looks like I didn't read far enough. I stopped at f when g was the answer. Based on this information, I change my opinion. It was a UR penalty. It has nothing to do with intent.

I don't make up rules. I post the rules. Targeting isn't a rule. It wasn't helmet to helmet. The receiver wasn't in a vulnerable position. The ball wasn't past him when he was hit. I'm not surprised that the DB was fined. That doesn't make it a penalty in real time. If you don't want me to reply, then don't post 'alternate facts' IE: lies.

KaDeem Carey

Damn right I would. You can't call a penalty off the field of play.

You keep going back to targeting which isn't part of the rules no matter how many times you repeat it. If Schoen hadn't caught the ball and then got hit like that, it would most likely have been called as a receiver in a vulnerable position. The fact that he was trying to bring the fumble back in is the reason he got smacked the way he did & the reason it wasn't called. The play is on the highlight package from two different angles. No mention of any problem with it. They wouldn't do that if it was a botched call. Fans around here want a penalty any time our players take a vicious hit. They also want no penalty when our players lay a vicious hit on other teams.

Schoen's head was up because he was fumbling. He'd be able to tuck it in and protect himself if he hadn't fumbled the ball. If you expect a DB to pull up in that case, then you're expecting too much IMO. I just re-watched the CFL.CA highlight package. The play is around the 4:15 mark. The DB leads with his shoulder. The hit is shoulder to helmet, not helmet to helmet.

You think that the game should be stopped by the spotter every time a player takes a big hit and winces? I don't. I doubt the spotter stops the game more than a couple of times a year.

I don't know why people keep talking about targeting. It's not in the rule book. If you think the rule should be changed to hit a player in the helmet = penalty, then fine. If you think leading with your helmet should be a penalty, I'm with you. If you think it's already a rule then you are wrong. Defenceless isn't in the rule book. "Vulnerable position" is the closest. Every ball carrier and every receiver are not in a vulnerable position. Schoen wasn't in the act of catching a pass. He we in the act of fumbling. Collaros wasn't a ball carrier in the grasp of another tackler. He was RB trying to gain extra yards. That's why they didn't call those plays as penalties.

The spotter is specifically looking for concussion symptoms, not writhing on the ground & not to take players off the field to make sure they don't have a serious injury. If I was the Riders staff, I'd have taken him off for a 3 plays to assess the injury, but it's not up to the refs. The hit on Shoen wasn't a missed call even tho it could have resulted in a serious injury. Targeting isn't in the rule book and you can't decide what's in a players mind especially in the split second real time that a ref needs to make their decisions.

I like Kate. She makes me laugh. She's not there for her football knowledge. I like Dun-in-again, altho his new fashion Santa look makes me roll my eyes. I think of him as Canada's Bradshaw. One of Sanchez or Milt would be better than both and I'd choose Chazz.

I'm pretty sure they didn't. In fact, they changed the rule this year that the QB has to give himself up early or get a penalty. If they don't want to get hit, then they have to slide early. Collaros wasn't going to do that in the situation and he paid the price. That's just football.

Collaros' head bounced off the turf. You can't give the turf a penalty.

No it doesn't make it worse. If the DB was targeting the head in the first place, he'd have missed. The fact that Shoen lost the ball and tried to get it back changed where his head was. That's why it wasn't called. As for Zach. Going head first makes him vulnerable to getting hit without any penalty. You're allowed to hit players on the way down. Heck your allowed to hit the player even after he's down to the echo of the whistle.

The head shot wasn't targeted. Schoen's head wouldn't have been in that position if he hadn't had the ball punched out. Helmet to helmet happens. It's called on QB's. It's not called as often on RB's or Receivers when they are on their way down. It wasn't even the first hit on Schoen on the play.

BLM is in a walking boot today and getting an MRI.

I looked through the 2019 CBA because I couldn't find the 2022 one and there is no mention of the minimum number of NI's required. I think the 7 NI's came from the Maximum number of Imports allowed on the field (20 American's including 4 DI's=16 Starters) . As QB's aren't imports by definition, they should be allowed using that definition.

Perfect. That's exactly what I needed. Thanks. As QB's are neither NI's or Imp's, you can get an extra Imp on offence when you have 2 QB's on the field. Example: Streveler in for a NI RB would be fine.

I don't think you can. If you could, you would designate a starting import as a 3rd string QB because QB's don't fall under regular ratio rules. Now you have an extra starting import and 6 starting NI's. cfl.ca says maximum of 2 QB's, no designation, but that was posted in 2020. I couldn't find anything that says 3 QB's are allowed.

Folks keep saying this but the rules clearly state 2 QB's. A 3rd QB wouldn't be a QB by definition. Once defined as a QB, you can't change to another designation, which is why we couldn't roster Streveler as a RB. Therefore, I see no rule that allows for 3 QB's. Can someone point out what rule allows for this?

Ka'deem Carey