Advise the CFL

[WBBFanWest]

4 hours ago, BigBlue said:

Yes they have been developing him, all year, on the PR and agrteeing to do so ... they can join the other free agents in February ... meanwhile the club gas a c hance to sign the prospecty they are developing ... its not about the  money, not even slightly

What you have here is a solution looking for a problem.  If the CFL was as concerned as you clearly are, adjustments to the rules would happen.

[mbrg]

16 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

What you have here is a solution looking for a problem.  If the CFL was as concerned as you clearly are, adjustments to the rules would happen.

I'm hoping the problem of keeping his cat off his keyboard while posting is moving up the list.

There are about 4 people here who think the Riders signing whatshisface - the QB who was on our PR last season - is a huge issue that must be addressed.  For some reason ignoring that if the Bombers wanted to, they could have offered him a real contract at any point in time.  They could have given him a two year deal and hid him on the 1 game IR all year if they wanted to.

And changing the date these players become free agents by two months does...I don't know what in his mind.  Apparently letting them come to practise and eat at the buffet afterwards is an investment we can't afford to just let walk out the door, and we're doing a crazy amount of development with them from Dec 1 to Feb 14??

We have re-signed a few players who finished the year on the PR, so the Bombers obviously are able to get around this massive problem somehow.

[BigBlue]

How is a cap issue related to a protection issue? yes put he whole PR roster on the 1 game IR to protect them from scavengers like Jones

Edited March 7, 2017 by BigBlue

[WBBFanWest]

1 hour ago, BigBlue said:

How is a cap issue related to a protection issue? yes put he whole PR roster on the 1 game IR to protect them from scavengers like Jones

I hope you can join the eight other GM's in their march to the new Mosaic field to protest what Jones is doing.  Let us know how it went.

[BigBlue]

6 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

I hope you can join the eight other GM's in their march to the new Mosaic field to protest what Jones is doing.  Let us know how it went.

Are you actually defending Jones?

[WBBFanWest]

Just now, BigBlue said:

Are you actually defending Jones?

No I'm pointing out how silly your argument is when it would appear that approximately 0% of GM's seem to be concerned about this.  Like I said before, if they really are concerned about his conduct, they have ways to voice their displeasure.  So I'm thinking that you can stop tilting at this windmill now Mr. Quixote.

[BigBlue]

"approximately 0% of GM's seem to be concerned about this"

and how do you know this?

[SPuDS]

well he did say approximately.. wasn't a definitive statement BUT id imagine because none of them have spoken about it or tweeted or anything relevant about it..

 

not to put words in his mouth but that's how I see it anyway..

[WBBFanWest]

2 hours ago, BigBlue said:

"approximately 0% of GM's seem to be concerned about this"

and how do you know this?

Have you heard a single word from anyone in the CFL who sounds even the slightest bit concerned about what you are going on about?  No, me neither.

Edited March 8, 2017 by WBBFanWest

[Jimmy Pop]

31 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Have you heard a single word from anyone in the CFL who sounds even the slightest bit concerned about what you are going on about?  No, me neither.

[WBBFanWest]

Just now, Jimmy Pop said:

Too many words?  OK, I'll dumb it down.  The CFL doesn't seem to care, so why should we?

Better?

[Jimmy Pop]

10 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Too many words?  OK, I'll dumb it down.  The CFL doesn't seem to care, so why should we?

Better?

No, it was dumb enough, thanks. 

I was just thinking about what else you don't think exists purely because you don't hear anything about it.  But I digress. Carry on... 

[WBBFanWest]

16 minutes ago, Jimmy Pop said:

No, it was dumb enough, thanks. 

I was just thinking about what else you don't think exists purely because you don't hear anything about it.  But I digress. Carry on... 

So you're suggesting that there is a problem across the CFL with the way that the practice roster system (including the rights to players) works?  You have evidence of this of course or do you believe things because some dude on the internet said so?  But I too digress

[BigBlue]

3 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

Have you heard a single word from anyone in the CFL who sounds even the slightest bit concerned about what you are going on about?  No, me neither.

It's good to know you have an ear for silence

[bearpants]

19 hours ago, Jimmy Pop said:

No, it was dumb enough, thanks. 

I was just thinking about what else you don't think exists purely because you don't hear anything about it.  But I digress. Carry on... 

 

19 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

So you're suggesting that there is a problem across the CFL with the way that the practice roster system (including the rights to players) works?  You have evidence of this of course or do you believe things because some dude on the internet said so?  But I too digress

I'll take "completely missing the point" for $1000 please 

@Jimmy Pop was clearly saying that just because you don't hear about it, does not mean the problem doesn't exist... no where does he state that the CFL has a major problem with the PR player system... and now, I will be the one to digress?....

[WBBFanWest]

47 minutes ago, bearpants said:

 

I'll take "completely missing the point" for $1000 please 

@Jimmy Pop was clearly saying that just because you don't hear about it, does not mean the problem doesn't exist... no where does he state that the CFL has a major problem with the PR player system... and now, I will be the one to digress?....

I'm well aware of what he, and you are saying, but sadly, I was talking about a specific case, the PR system, and some here have decided to broaden that into a philosophical discussion.  No time for that.  

[Rod Black]

Since we're all digressing.....

all parties agreed to the pr rules, and are living with it. 

Edited March 9, 2017 by Rod Black

[BigBlue]

I am fine with the PR system during the year ... as a matter of fact I wish players would move from team to team a little more ... its good for those players who can get work pn another team  ... it is just when the season ends let the developing team have that player's rights until free agency ... its only fair and orderly

[Rod Black]

Sounds to me like you want to call a Practice Roster a Developmental Squad. Since the clubs don't practice after seasons end the Practice Players are let go. In my opinion, if the Practice Roster were to be Developmental exercise, they would have put rules in place to accommodate the the lengthier relationship. Possibly the clubs do not want the responsibility to hang onto players for the extra number of months. Adding extra months requires extra consideration like compensation, pay.

[Fan Boy]

15 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

Sounds to me like you want to call a Practice Roster a Developmental Squad. Since the clubs don't practice after seasons end the Practice Players are let go. In my opinion, if the Practice Roster were to be Developmental exercise, they would have put rules in place to accommodate the the lengthier relationship. Possibly the clubs do not want the responsibility to hang onto players for the extra number of months. Adding extra months requires extra consideration like compensation, pay.

You have hit the nail squarely here. It is a practice squad not a development squad. It is about the money.

[mbrg]

2 hours ago, Fan Boy said:

You have hit the nail squarely here. It is a practice squad not a development squad. It is about the money.

The CFL minimum salary is $52,000 per year.

Unless a player has a special deal in place, he will make $13,500 spending an entire regular season on the practise roster.

 

Yep, those guys owe us...

(so much sarcasm)

[BigBlue]

3 hours ago, Fan Boy said:

You have hit the nail squarely here. It is a practice squad not a development squad. It is about the money.

My observation is that it is not about the money ... yes thay want backup players for injury relief .... but a number of players are getting CFL ready for use next year or later in the season .... could not disagree with you more on practice squad vs development

[WinnipegGordo]

CFL heading in right direction to get calls right while improving player safety

REGINA - Improve player safety, coaches’ challenges and the role of the eye-in-the-sky official, while at the same time cutting down on penalties and trying not to interrupt the flow of the game. This is the task at hand for the 12-person rules committee as it meets to kick off CFL Week in the Saskatchewan capital.

http://slam.canoe.com/Slam/Football/CFL/News/2017/03/20/22711868.html

[BigBlue]

I love this from the site above outlining the meetings:
"Another idea is changing the standard by which certain calls — like illegal blocks on kick returns — are made.  Possibly we’re going to make a certain type of play more lenient on the standard,” Johnson said. “We don’t want fans saying, every time there’s a big play, ‘Oh my goodness is there going to be a penalty.’ We want to get to a spot where you are enjoying that excitement and only on those rare occasions will there be a penalty."

[BigBlue]

Coaches Challenges:

"The league was forced to make a rule change in mid-season last year because too many coaches’ challenge flags were being thrown. They made the decision to throw a challenge flag more punitive for coaches by putting a timeout at risk for every challenge, whereas, in the past, they only put a timeout at risk with their second challenge.

Until the change was made, coaches' challenges had risen to 2.2 per game from 1.26 and the new timeout rule helped bring that number back down to 1.6 per game. Of course, last year at this time the rules committee added seven new penalties that coaches could challenge, which certainly contributed to the rise in flags.

“We feel we’re still not in a spot that’s good enough,” Johnson said. “We’re looking at, ‘Should we challenge less things? Some of those penalties, should we take them out?’ We’re also looking at changing the process itself, so potentially, how many challenges coaches get or the actual process we use to do it. If we can make it faster does that make more sense? Have the number be the same but have the whole thing just take a shorter period of time.”