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

23 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.

Sure, the AAF doesn’t have a case nor the resources to fight it.

32 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

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.

Not true. The CFL and NFL have a signed legal agreement in place in regards to honoring each others contracts.

On 2019-04-12 at 4:18 PM, Mr Dee said:

And now for something completely ridiculous..

 

This is actually not AS ridiculous as it sounds... it would basically only apply in the unlikely scenario that the QB throws the ball and it gets batted back to him... the QB would then still have the option to throw... according to the article...

The CFL has zero obligation to honor AAF contracts legally. The AAF could not do diddly if the CFL decided to sign players under AAF contract. It is the players themselves that could potentially face litigation, not the league or it's member teams who offered the new contract. That litigation would be over in 30s if the AAF chose to pursue any player for signing elsewhere as the AAF initiated the breach of contract.

39 minutes ago, 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.

Unofficially void. Soon to be officially void. At any rate, the AAF's claim to these players rights is extremely unlikely to hold up in a court of law. The bankruptcy agents will soon just mass release these players. They have a duty to try and get something but they can't realistically prevent these players from going elsewhere without honoring their contracts.

39 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

A

Aren't you disagreeing with yourself?

No, not at all.  One can always chose to ignore a contract because they believe it to be null and void.  Whether or not it is actually null and void in law  and if there is a will to enforce the contract is another matter altogether.  In this case, I'd bet that thew CFL could sign AAF players because the likelihood of someone  wanting to enforce the contract is low.  At the same time, it sends out a signal that we will only honour contracts that we feel we choose to.  That's a dangerous signal to put out there when we have an organization like the NFL which honours our contracts only because they choose to.

30 minutes ago, gcn11 said:

Not true. The CFL and NFL have a signed legal agreement in place in regards to honoring each others contracts.

Lol, Ya, and if the NFL decides that the "legal agreement" is no longer in effect?  You really think the CFL has the financial muscle to take on the NFL???

2 minutes ago, WBBFanWest said:

Lol, Ya, and if the NFL decides that the "legal agreement" is no longer in effect?  You really think the CFL has the financial muscle to take on the NFL???

in a case like this. Yes. Assuming they are in clear violation of the contract between the two leagues, it would be pretty easy to justify.

Besides, it takes the NFL 4 tries to succeed, while we only need 3...

On ‎2019‎-‎04‎-‎25 at 1:32 PM, WBBFanWest said:

Lol, Ya, and if the NFL decides that the "legal agreement" is no longer in effect?  You really think the CFL has the financial muscle to take on the NFL???

Legal agreements are just as binding on the NFL as anyone else. 

On ‎2019‎-‎04‎-‎25 at 1:35 PM, Bigblue204 said:

in a case like this. Yes. Assuming they are in clear violation of the contract between the two leagues, it would be pretty easy to justify.

It's not like we're in competition for players with the NFL in the first place.