TrueBlue4ever

Three thoughts: 1. A $300,000 signing bonus, so he actually comes in cheaper cap-wise than his current contract. 2. The “guaranteed money” part of the CBA is a huge positive development for the league. Players now willing to sign longer term, continuity for the club and the fans. Good article here: https://3downnation.com/2022/10/18/zach-collaros-kyle-walters-agree-partially-guaranteed-contracts-will-help-cfl-build-roster-continuity/ And for anyone worried about having to pay a 37 year old $250,000, Bombers can make that back by selling 1,100 “Collaros” jerseys in the next 3 seasons. Now that I don’t need to worry about replacing it for a while, I am in. 3. The conspiracy theorist on me loves the timing of this. Do it on an off-week to keep the vibes positive without being a distraction for next game prep, and also a nice reminder to all the writers hemming and hawing about the Rourke/Collaros MOP debate what Zach’s numbers are and how deserving he is of being the highest paid player in the league. A nice reset for the conversation.

Sounds like Rod may be preparing to do some backpedaling, or some “out of context” justification (“I was talking about the trade to Regina, or the trade to Toronto, not the trade to Winnipeg”).

Me to Rod right now:

That’s curious. I’m surprised teams have not abused that loophole to cheat the cap and load up for certain seasons.

There was nothing subtle about it. If there was a Ring of Honour for bad takes, Pedersen would be up there for this one, along with a bunch of Bomber fans when the trade went down. I’m not sure anyone, even those excited by the trade when it went down, could have imagined it would have worked out this well for the club or Zach three years in. Does the salary cap really work that way? Can you borrow from cap savings one year to apply to future years without penalty? Or a singing bonus is not part of the AAV?

Could be worse. Vancouver has blown 3 multi-goal leads already this year and held a player’s only meeting after their loss tonight, one week into the season.

No problem. Did not mean to detract from your question. I too would love to understand the “intent” behind this rule. Not sure O’Shea will know (although has he been a part of the rules committee at some point?) but it would be nice if the league office had a way to “ask the ref” on the website to clear up curious calls.

It absolutely is an illegal kick. Here are some video examples from the NFL (yes the rule is the same there and in amateur football). Now if you want to know WHY that penalty exists, I have not found a clear answer as to the intent of the rule, and most people either think this is a genius play or the stupidest rule on the hook.

I’m not one of those who believes that officials are biased against a certain team, that they are nowhere near as bad as the game day threads fans say they are, or that the command centre is getting it wrong the majority of the time. However, this meme was too funny not to post (came from a Twitter question by Lucky Whitehead of who actually operates the command centre - the first response was “probably someone from Winnipeg this season, they seem to get away with quite a bit”). So enjoy, the mystery has been solved.

A few rebound control issues.

Week 20 update: this week’s playoff clinching scenarios (assuming no ties)- Winnipeg: Clinched 1st in the West. BC: Clinched a West playoff spot. Can clinch 2nd with a win OR a Calgary loss. Calgary: Clinched a West playoff spot. Need to win both their remaining games AND have BC lose both their remaining games to clinch 2nd (barring any ties). Saskatchewan: Will finish 4th in the West. Will be eliminated from playoff contention with a loss AND a Hamilton win. Need wins and Hamilton losses totalling 3, AND wins and Ottawa losses totalling 1, to clinch a crossover spot. Edmonton: Will finish 5th in the West. Eliminated from playoff contention. There are no East crossover possibilities. Toronto: Clinched 2nd in the East and a home playoff game. Can clinch 1st in the East with a win or a tie. Montreal: Clinched 2nd in the East and a home playoff game. Need to win both remaining games against Toronto to clinch 1st. Hamilton: Can finish no better than 3rd in the East. Can clinch 3rd with a win and can clinch a playoff spot with a win AND a Saskatchewan loss. Ottawa: Can finish no better than 3rd in the East. Need to win both games against Hamilton to finish 3rd, and also need Saskatchewan to lose both of their remaining g games to make the playoffs. Will be eliminated from the playoffs with a loss OR a Saskatchewan win.

So the person I have contact with is a senior official in amateur football covering Ontario at various levels from high school to junior and CIS for decades. He cannot speak specifically to the CFL rule but says the amateur rule book defines a kickoff as a “ball in flight” until someone in the field of play touches it, and not a “loose ball”. For it to be a loose ball it would have required some sort of prior possession. Therefore if a ball in flight touches anything out of bounds, the ball itself is declared out of bounds. He acknowledges that this is a weird situation, and cannot say what the intent is behind the rule allowing a player to be out of bounds and field a kickoff that lands in bounds, only that this is not the same as touching a “loose ball” (like a fumbled ball) while out of bounds, which would be illegal participation.

If you’d have only stuck with Schoen and Demski, we’d have a winner and someone complaining that 2-point conversions should be considered as a correct pick as it is the same scoring requirement (possession in the end zone) as a TD. (OK, it is me complaining that this is how the rule should be, since I had this happen to my picks 3 times last year).

I don’t disagree with you that this seems inconsistent, especially when his deliberate intent seems clear here. I am looking into a possible explanation as to why the rule is the way it is, hopefully my source can give me a coherent answer.

They do know the rules. On a kickoff the receiving player can step out of bounds, stay out of bounds, and field the ball in bounds and it is considered an illegal kickoff. Illegal participation is where a player goes out of bounds without being forced out and re-enters the field of play to play the ball. Here the BC player deliberately stepped out of bounds and fielded the ball, which makes the ball out of bounds.

lol

Hoping for an entertaining contest, but would not put any money on the Bombers tonight. Their biggest motivation is to not get hurt, BC has everything to play for. Kind of depends on which Adams shows up at QB.

Calgary could possibly be eliminated from 2nd place contention before their next game. With the Sramps’ loss last night, BC needs 2 wins to guarantee 2nd. They get a Bomber team with zero to play for at home tonight and go to Edmonton next Friday where the Elks have not won in 3 years. By the time Calgary plays Sask on Saturday, they may well know their fate. Now, Sask has been playing so lousy that it may make no difference how little Calgary has to play for.

Montreal has already clinched 2nd, since they won the season series with Hamilton and can now finish no worse than tied in the standings with the Cats.

Hot stepper (murderer), I’m the lyrical gangster (murderer)? Sun (doo-duh-doo-dum)?

Bride?

Would like to see some progression, but people need to remember that he is only just 24 and has little more than one full season’s worth of games under his belt. Zdeno Chara was given up on by two teams by the time he was 28 and didn’t win the Norris until he was 32. Won the Cup at 34 and still had a decade of hockey left in him.

Isn’t that what Brett Favre said when he sent those pics on his phone? FIFY

Ditto. No ghosts though*. *(I moved the bodies).