5:30PT San Diego Fleet at San Antonio Commanders

CBS

Restrictions on defensive formations:

(1) no more than five players may rush on passing plays; 

(2) any player who aligns on the line of scrimmage either prior to or at the snap is designated as one of the five players regardless of whether he rushes; 

(3) no defensive player may rush from a position more than two yards outside the widest offensive lineman and more than five yards from the line of scrimmage (they’ll call it the “defensive pressure box”); 

(4) a player is deemed eligible to rush if he has both feet inside the box at the snap; (5) no more than four players may rush from the same side of the ball; 

(6) adjacent linebackers may not rush from the same side of the ball; and 

(7) two or more linebackers aligned between the offensive guards may not rush.

So, basically, up to five players can rush the passer and each of those five players must be aligned within two yards of the widest offensive lineman and five yards of the line of scrimmage. This means that there will be no corner blitzes. There will be no delayed blitzes from linebackers and safeties. There will be no double-A gap blitzes.

👁‍🗨 These restrictions are supposed to save QBs..the lifeline of any team, but holy geez, talk about borderline confusion for the refs. 

Edited March 12, 20196 yr by Mr Dee

25 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

That's the same question I asked when the CFL decided not to pay players the bonus money.

IMO and I'm no lawyer... It's likely that the AAF are in breach, but that doesn't mean the contracts are automatically and quickly brought to an end. More likely that the players would have to sue, which they'd win, but that would take time.

And a sizeable retainer to the lawyer up front. If the corporation (AAF) has no tangible assets, you would end up with an unenforceable judgement after spending a fair bit of money.

16 hours ago, Tracker said:

And a sizeable retainer to the lawyer up front. If the corporation (AAF) has no tangible assets, you would end up with an unenforceable judgement after spending a fair bit of money.

Wouldn't the reverse be true also?

Players could sign contracts with the CFL and the AAF would have sue to get the contract rescinded? 

37 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Wouldn't the reverse be true also?

Players could sign contracts with the CFL and the AAF would have sue to get the contract rescinded? 

I would think so, but the international barrier would be an issue. However, there is not an agreement between the two leagues and there is probably no one at AAF left alive to pursue the action, or pay for it.

1 hour ago, Jesse said:

Wouldn't the reverse be true also?

Players could sign contracts with the CFL and the AAF would have sue to get the contract rescinded? 

But the CFL is not going to sign a contract with someone who may not be able to honour it. Then, the CFL would have to sue the player. Also, you can't knowingly enter a contract when you're bound by another agreement that would preclude you from playing in another league. I'm sure the AAF agreements are tight. 

AAF pitched a merger with XFL before the season even began. Vince said no way 

 

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2019/04/08/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/AAF.aspx

Another spin to this crazy story...

Good luck with that

How would that even work?  The AAF season was like 10 games.  Buy the contract now they are playing 18 games?  The contracts are also USD.  The players would have no obligation to go along with it either.  They aren't property.

Edited April 17, 20196 yr by JuranBoldenRules

1 hour ago, Mr Dee said:

Another spin to this crazy story...

Good luck with that

He's obviously being paid by the hour but it must be like picking through a landfill site for beer bottles.

3 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Another spin to this crazy story...

Good luck with that

CFL GM's are well practised at this game, they'll wait until the flesh drops from the bones.

17 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Another spin to this crazy story...

Good luck with that

Pretty disgusting that they want to make it difficult for people to do their job or make a living. 

20 minutes ago, Blueandgold said:

Pretty disgusting that they want to make it difficult for people to do their job or make a living. 

It is the bankruptcy trustee's job to wring every last dollar out of whatever assets might remain. I do not know if under US laws, employee owed wages are given priority in company dissolutions but I would bet not. So, the trustee is working for creditors and creditors only.

2 hours ago, Tracker said:

It is the bankruptcy trustee's job to wring every last dollar out of whatever assets might remain. I do not know if under US laws, employee owed wages are given priority in company dissolutions but I would bet not. So, the trustee is working for creditors and creditors only.

I think it is prioritized by amount owed, those at the bottom will get....nothing.

17 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

I think it is prioritized by amount owed, those at the bottom will get....nothing.

It depends on the class of the creditor. Creditors are classified, the highest class getting paid first. Secured creditors will get what's owed to them. But most won't, including the players. 

JCon is correct. Even the secured creditors are unlikely to get everything back. The "assets" that are reported will be sold for pennies on the dollar as is the case with all bankruptcy sales. No one pays full value for assets from a bankruptcy claim.

fwiw, there's apparently a bunch of AAF players participating in Bombers mini-camp right now...

3 hours ago, Noeller said:

fwiw, there's apparently a bunch of AAF players participating in Bombers mini-camp right now...

Yes, but unsigned. 

4 minutes ago, JCon said:

Yes, but unsigned. 

Indeed but we only have the rights to them for something like 56 hours (according to one of the beat writer tweets) so we'll have to sign them sooner rather than later........

What is the AAF or trustee going to do?  Initiate court action to stop someone from earning a living?  The AAF is a non-factor at this point.

1 hour ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

What is the AAF or trustee going to do?  Initiate court action to stop someone from earning a living?  The AAF is a non-factor at this point.

The CFL ignores another league's legal contracts at its peril.  The NFL could always decide that if the CFL can do it...

RE: the AAFL

                                                             

16 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

The CFL ignores another league's legal contracts at its peril.  The NFL could always decide that if the CFL can do it...

Entirely different situations and we all know it. The CFL is honouring these contracts right now out of sheer respect for a process, but if push comes to shove, they're not going to think twice about providing a guy an opportunity to earn a living in spite of what some defunct circus thinks about their entitlement to these players.

16 hours ago, WBBFanWest said:

The CFL ignores another league's legal contracts at its peril.  The NFL could always decide that if the CFL can do it...

The AAF contracts were void the minute they closed shop.  Very basic principle of contract law is that if one side does not live up to their obligations the other party is not bound to their obligations.  The AAF is not providing the opportunity for the players to earn money playing football, therefore contract is worthless.

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

Entirely different situations and we all know it. The CFL is honouring these contracts right now out of sheer respect for a process, but if push comes to shove, they're not going to think twice about providing a guy an opportunity to earn a living in spite of what some defunct circus thinks about their entitlement to these players.

Mike, it's only different because the NFL says it is.  They're willing to honour our contracts because having a stable "feeder" league is in their best interest.  But don't doubt for a second that if they ever decided that they really don't need the CFL, our contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on.

Just now, JuranBoldenRules said:

The AAF contracts were void the minute they closed shop.  Very basic principle of contract law is that if one side does not live up to their obligations the other party is not bound to their obligations.  The AAF is not providing the opportunity for the players to earn money playing football, therefore contract is worthless.

The contracts are void the minute that both parties say they are.  Until then, either side can claim that the contract is still in effect and binding.  That's why we have courts.

A

18 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

15 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

The contracts are void the minute that both parties say they are.  Until then, either side can claim that the contract is still in effect and binding.  That's why we have courts.

They're willing to honour our contracts because having a stable "feeder" league is in their best interest.  But don't doubt for a second that if they ever decided that they really don't need the CFL, our contracts wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on.

Aren't you disagreeing with yourself?