TBURGESS

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

West: Bombers - Lost a few great players but still the class of the league Riders - Pull out all the stops to get a home Grey Cup Stamps - BLM got chased from the first pre-season game. Will happen again and again until Dicky pulls him for good. Elks - Their HC will force them to win enough games for the cross over. Lions - Poor QBing and bad OL will highlight their demise. East: Ticats - QB will keep them in most games. Als - Were close last year. Should be better this year. Might take first. Argos - SMS what SMS? Buy themselves into 3rd. redblacks - Go as far as Masoli takes them. Trending the right direction, but not quite good enough for the playoffs.

Lapo with Nichols... conservative and uninspired. Lapo with Collaros... unbeaten and a Grey Cup win. Buck with Collaros.... Grey Cup win. It's not the OC folks... It's the QB.

Brown looked better against the Riders's 2's. Prukop looked good against the 3's and 4's. Neither are starters at this point, but Brown has a better chance of getting there because he keeps his eyes down field when he scrambles.

I checked out the stats, cuz that's all I can do. Looks like the defence was close because there were very few yac yards. Prukop didn't have a good night. Kicking looked to be a problem. A nothing game that doesn't matter. No worries from me.

Some Canadians are good enough to start, but most aren't. Finding the 7th starter has always been a problem for most teams and that becomes even harder when a starting NI goes down. That's why NI starters get paid more than comparable imports & NI backups get paid more than DI's. For Example: Every team has backup NI OL's getting paid more than starting imports. The current offer seems to be 1 less guaranteed starting NI spot, but the same number of NI jobs. NI's cry 'Slippery Slope', when it only affects 1 player per team & that player can still get the starting job if they beat out an import anyway. They are basically saying that they can't compete on even ground so they should be given a starting spot.

The CFL isn't talking about eliminating the Ratio and that's the only way that we may not have seen Harris play. They are talking about reducing the ratio by 1 starter and total number of Canadian's by 1. That's just getting rid of the worst player on the team, and possibly starting one less Canadian. It's not getting rid of Canadian starters or Canadian stars and Harris is both. Note that starting ratio is a minimum, not a maximum number. Teams could start 24 Canadians if they want under current rules and under the proposed rules. They could have a whole team with zero Americans.