I'm going to go with tradition here and say bad.  i mean I have to think contact practice and full pads and all have some essence to conditioning players and getting them ready to go in big games.  I really don't like this move by the league and think it's going to do more bad than good here.

Edited September 13, 20178 yr by USABomberfan

If you can only have 17 full contact practices now in season, and if most teams don't even use this, why is anybody complaining about this?

23 hours ago, MOBomberFan said:

I'd like to know what the players think. Whatever they think is best for them, I'm for it.

Of course the players will like this. No player is going to say they don't like this. 

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

Maybe.  There's a subtle difference and the rules in rugby are way more strict.  I was shocked.  I took up rugby about 5 years after I finished up with football and there's a degree of "if you can tackle, you can tackle" as my buddy who recruited me said but he instincts are different.  You actually need to tackle and with great form, you can't pop a guy and you can't drag him down by his ankles either.

Say this for sure, the amount of contact in any rugby practice I've been in pales in comparison to the amount in any football practice I was in, different era albeit.  Rugby is absolutely the more physical game in totality.

 There's a crew of high school football coaches who think they are Vince Lombardi and still torture kids in practice but aside from a little live tackling and scrimmage there should be no full contact.

Those guys have been around always. They're the coaches that need to change. i remember up to  about a decade when players couldn't get water if they were thirsty & were called sucks if they  asked. Back in the 70's when I played you didn't dare ask for water or you could be running or doing extra conditioning.  It could be 35 C & there were only a couple of water breaks during practice. That was so wrong yet it was part of the culture of football. That is to toughen you up. As far as concussions go, I still say it's incumbent on the officials to call head shots. They don't though. So, guys will get hurt in games & the dumb ass officials won't call it. The hit on Mike Reilly for example last Saturday by a Stamps DL. Obvious headshot but no call by the official staring right at the play. That ref should be called on the carpet to explain what he saw & why he never threw a flag. Suffer the consequences of his inaction. Only then, will the game become safer.

Edited September 14, 20178 yr by SpeedFlex27

10 hours ago, bearpants said:

I think you might be confusing a joke with an argument...  

I just see that kind of argument here maybe a little too much. That anything new if it isn't considered a good thing by someone then they're labelled old & crotchety by the Millennial crowd.  This isn't about being old, It's about having a meaningful discussion & presenting your side of the subject. So, I was just a bit dismayed when I saw the "old man's pants" reference. I thought, "Here we go again". 

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

Those guys have been around always. They're the coaches that need to change. i remember up to  about a decade when players couldn't get water if they were thirsty & were called sucks if they  asked. Back in the 70's when I played you didn't dare ask for water or you could be running or doing extra conditioning.  It could be 35 C & there were only a couple of water breaks during practice. That was so wrong yet it was part of the culture of football. That is to toughen you up. As far as concussions go, I still say it's incumbent on the officials to call head shots. They don't though. So, guys will get hurt in games & the dumb ass officials won't call it. The hit on Mike Reilly for example last Saturday by a Stamps DL. Obvious headshot but no call by the official staring right at the play. That ref should be called on the carpet to explain what he saw & why he never threw a flag. Suffer the consequences of his inaction. Only then, will the game become safer.

At game speed it is often difficult to make the right call. However, in the event of the hit like the one on Reilly last game, there ought to be a recourse. Maybe each game should be reviewed by player safety and any intents to injure should result in at least a one game suspension. Similarly hits to the knees and such where a player cannot defend himself ought to warrant a similar penalty.

9 hours ago, Rod Black said:

The Blue Bomber practices that I've attended this year, not one had full contact or pads. The Blue squad is remarkably healthy this year. It was by design not to practice with pads or contact. When I reported that,  SF27 said "it's a good idea in theory". 

Ambrosie as an ex-player, must be easily sold on the idea as this decision is early in his career as Commissioner.  Naturally the CFLPA is onboard. Team managements must be on board as well, thinking how much they will save on injuries and injury replacements.

No team makes money by having full contact during practice. Fans should see a higher level of talent because there will be fewer star players missing games due to injury. 

I'll take your word that I may have said that but I don't recall which is fine. My worry is more injuries. Deron Mayo of the Stampeders was quoted in today's Calgary Herald as saying that the Stamps don't push contact very much. That Dickenson gives guys maintenance days. That they've had no contact since training camp. Yet, they are decimated by injuries on the OL, receiver, DL & DB positions. Dickenson was quoted as saying he still doesn't know what he's going to do about receiver for their game vs the Lions Saturday as they've run out of bodies even on the PR. So, I think that shows that little or no contact during the week doesn't prevent injuries during the week. Spencer Wilson broke his hand during practice.  Again, no contact. 

Just now, tracker said:

At game speed it is often difficult to make the right call. However, in the event of the hit like the one on Reilly last game, there ought to be a recourse. Maybe each game should be reviewed by player safety and any intents to injure should result in at least a one game suspension. Similarly hits to the knees and such where a player cannot defend himself ought to warrant a similar penalty.

You'd think with the Eye In The Sky, CFL officials could overrule an official in a situation like that with Reilly. Again, total inaction by the CFL when they have the technology to make changes but for some reason CFL Control doesn't want to take away the game from the refs which is ridiculous. 

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

You'd think with the Eye In The Sky, CFL officials could overrule an official in a situation like that with Reilly. Again, total inaction by the CFL when they have the technology to make changes but for some reason CFL Control doesn't want to take away the game from the refs which is ridiculous. 

The problem is see is how much CFL oversight would slow the game down- we've had enough of that already. Nail ém in the pocketbook afterwards and penalize their team by it having to put in a different player next game.

8 minutes ago, tracker said:

The problem is see is how much CFL oversight would slow the game down- we've had enough of that already. Nail ém in the pocketbook afterwards and penalize their team by it having to put in a different player next game.

Nail the refs too. Has that head official whose crew robbed that Bomber fan of a million dollars worked a game as a CFL Head Official since? 

I'm on he ref's side on that Reilly hit. It was a hellacious hit, straight on, straight on the chest. Then his head snaps. I can't tell if there's contact at that point. To me, the question of Reilly looking slightly dazed came about on the fall to the ground, where he definitely hit his head., and looked a little frazzled.

It was a good call to take a closer look at him, no matter what Maas was saying. There can be concussion protocols even if there is no penalty called. 

And I didn't see any fines for that hit, but I may have missed it. Anybody?

9 hours ago, SPuDS said:

does it? or does it say they are tired of getting injured/bell rung, bruised and battered in practice then having to take those ailments into the next game?  You are assuming they don't want the contact due to laziness essentially.. where as it seems like its more so to protect the players.. you can't deny that people can and do get injured, sometimes badly, in practice (see Dan West on.. his victim escapes me at the moment.. Watson possibly?)

Do you dismiss Dan Dorazio's comments that I posted last night? He has been an OL Coach in the CFL since the late 90's with Wally. He thinks this is a terrible decision. He's coached hundreds of players the last 20 years. I'd say his opinion carries as much weight as any player. 

Edited September 15, 20178 yr by SpeedFlex27

1 hour ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Nail the refs too. Has that head official whose crew robbed that Bomber fan of a million dollars worked a game as a CFL Head Official since? 

First I disagree that the fan was robbed of a million dollars but that's already been discussed to death.

Second, why should the head ref be punished for that call. He didn't throw the flag and he can't force an official to pick it up. 

4 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

First I disagree that the fan was robbed of a million dollars but that's already been discussed to death.

Second, why should the head ref be punished for that call. He didn't throw the flag and he can't force an official to pick it up. 

Have you seen him since? I haven't. That was an epic embarrassment for the CFL. How can you say that lady wasn't robbed? Otherwise why would the CFL offer her so much if the ref made the right call??? Glad we won the game but that was a bullshit call. 

Back to the no pads no contact at practice issue. If in a few years the league decides to return to contact practices, the answer that today's decision was good or bad,  will be your answer. Right now, it is a decision and the stakeholders appear to be in agreement. 

Can we start a new thread on the issue of Ryan Lankford being in the game day line up? Or has no one any opinion on him playing in games? 

Edited September 15, 20178 yr by Rod Black

This is a decent discussion. Lots of very good points. 

7 hours ago, Rod Black said:

Back to the no pads no contact at practice issue. If in a few years the league decides to return to contact practices, the answer that today's decision was good or bad,  will be your answer. Right now, it is a decision and the stakeholders appear to be in agreement. 

Can we start a new thread on the issue of Ryan Lankford being in the game day line up? Or has no one any opinion on him playing in games? 

If there is one player who has been immune to criticism on this board, it's Ryan Lankford.

12 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

I'm on he ref's side on that Reilly hit. It was a hellacious hit, straight on, straight on the chest. Then his head snaps. I can't tell if there's contact at that point. To me, the question of Reilly looking slightly dazed came about on the fall to the ground, where he definitely hit his head., and looked a little frazzled.

It was a good call to take a closer look at him, no matter what Maas was saying. There can be concussion protocols even if there is no penalty called. 

And I didn't see any fines for that hit, but I may have missed it. Anybody?

Personally, I thought I saw Reilly take a shot under the chin on the tackle, but that was just my take on it.  I do think there should have been a penalty on that play.  That being said, I do agree that there can be situations where the concussion protocols are used even if there is no penalty.  How many times do guys get tackled clean and then hit their head on the ground pretty hard?

sometimes tho it doesn't take a shot to the head to cause the concussion or the damage over time...it's the sudden stopping of the body in motion where the inertia and energy continues..and as the brain is basically free floating in the skull it keeps moving at that speed until it stops by slamming into the skull.

Times have sure changed tho as I recall constantly doing this, and seeing it coached to come in with force and drill a guy in the chin/face with the forehead to "ring their bell"

Kick-offs where notoriously bad with guys flying down field at full force trying to pick guys off...especially with the pedestrian style stuff on guys not necessarily looking at you...crazy

36 minutes ago, Sard said:

 That being said, I do agree that there can be situations where the concussion protocols are used even if there is no penalty.  

if it really is about player safety then you absolutely have to pull a guy if you believe he's taken the head shot regardless of a penalty or not. 

I couldn't  imagine  preparing  for a boxing match with only bag work  and shadow boxing

4 minutes ago, Fraser said:

I couldn't  imagine  preparing  for a boxing match with only bag work  and shadow boxing

Yeah but now your head's so messed up you can barely put together a coherent sentence.  Pros and cons.

Chris Walby weighs in on the changes: http://www.winnipegsun.com/2017/09/14/walby-feels-new-rule-will-hurt-not-help-cfl-players

Quote

Walby is convinced that by eliminating practices in pads which ultimately eliminates contact between games the league is opening itself up to more injuries because guys will no longer be conditioned both to hit and be hit and that, Walby believes, will lead to more injuries.

In Walby’s experience, it is that contact in practice that prepares you to take on contact and dish it out during games. Without the reps in practice, he is worried that “when the bullets start flying for real,” players won’t be ready either physically or mentally for the contact in a game.

 

15 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

I just see that kind of argument here maybe a little too much. That anything new if it isn't considered a good thing by someone then they're labelled old & crotchety by the Millennial crowd.  This isn't about being old, It's about having a meaningful discussion & presenting your side of the subject. So, I was just a bit dismayed when I saw the "old man's pants" reference. I thought, "Here we go again". 

fair enough... but you have been around long enough to know who the "jokers" are (no offense @mbrg) and who is making a legitimate argument... that was very clearly a joke...

1 hour ago, blue_gold_84 said:

Chris Walby weighs in on the changes: http://www.winnipegsun.com/2017/09/14/walby-feels-new-rule-will-hurt-not-help-cfl-players

 

Disagree wholeheartedly.  The vast majority of injuries are ligament, joint, bone and tendon injuries that have more to do with playing on crap surfaces and overexertion (guys literally too big for their own bodies, out of proportion) and nothing to do with contact.  

You don't lose that feeling of contact by not practicing it when prepping for games.  Same for hockey and nobody has practiced full contact in hockey for years and years.

I don't necessarily agree with all Walby say's but have to agree somewhat. If anything it may lead to technique erosion and sloppy play, which in turn could lead to other injuries and yes more nagging soreness, bumps and bruises and discomfort...cause yes the body does get acclimated to the hits and pounding and any extended time off always takes a few games to get back to whee you need to be physically and mentally...