Who amongst the CFL executive insist on not protecting the franchise quarterbacks that is their biggest expenditure on every roster?

Who benefits from not adjusting the rules? The NFL has certainly gone to every effort to protect their franchise quarterbacks... So what is the reasoning process???

Do they just want to see violence to make the game more attractive?

The hit to Collaros was a clear attempt to injure: the hit was very late and helmet to helmet was deliberate and intentional. The offender's will be greatly rewarded for knocking our QB out of the game and who knows how many games in the immediate and distant future.

These type of deliberate non-protection QB rules cost attendance around the league. Nobody ultimately benefits from such malfeasance.

So tell me why?

Duh?

15 hours ago, Captain Blue said:

NFL already figured this out. People want to see the star QBs play and that means protecting them as much as possible. Sask could have - and still may have - altered our season and all it cost them was one penalty. 

And that dinky 15 yard penalty didn't stop the Rider player from putting his shoulder into Streveler's head shortly thereafter, and received no penalty at all.

3 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

Follow the NCAAs lead. It's not just qbs the league should protect. No targeting anyone with the helmet. You do it? You're out. No warnings no 2nd chances.

I'm sure the CFLPA wouldn't like it, but both sides talk about safety while being a part of a league that is pretty well the least safe in NA football. 

Soo much this. 
Every player needs to be responsible for their helmet and their target. 

17 hours ago, wbbfan said:

Soo much this. 
Every player needs to be responsible for their helmet and their target. 

Easiest solution is to mandate the league's DC's to eliminate the practice, the players won't do what the coach tells them directly not to do.

8 minutes ago, Fatty Liver said:

Easiest solution is to mandate the league's DC's to eliminate the practice, the players won't do what the coach tells them directly not to do.

dont be so sure of that

I propose this:

All roughing the passer and/or intent to injure and/or spearing with the helmet = 25 yards and ejection

Plus

3 game suspension or

2 game suspension if player was not in control of their body or

1 game suspension for "accidental" roughing

 

No interpretation - judgment based on action

No favors for 1st or 2nd time in the season

At first this may seem too harsh but it is not

These rules keep our best players playing ... the players will adjust by time the first third of the season is over

The players are better off.

the fans get to watch their heroes,

the teams experience better attendance and ratings!

All we need is for the CFL Exes to buy in; of course that requires a small spoonful of courage

 

 

 

3 hours ago, BigBlue said:

I propose this:

All roughing the passer and/or intent to injure and/or spearing with the helmet = 25 yards and ejection

Plus

3 game suspension or

2 game suspension if player was not in control of their body or

1 game suspension for "accidental" roughing

 

No interpretation - judgment based on action

No favors for 1st or 2nd time in the season

At first this may seem too harsh but it is not

These rules keep our best players playing ... the players will adjust by time the first third of the season is over

The players are better off.

the fans get to watch their heroes,

the teams experience better attendance and ratings!

All we need is for the CFL Exes to buy in; of course that requires a small spoonful of courage

 

 

 

The PA has to sign off on it as well, and that may be a tougher sell depending on where they decide to stand on it.

Was the hit on Bighill legal? Is chop blocking still allowed in the CFL?

16 minutes ago, bryan35 said:

Was the hit on Bighill legal? Is chop blocking still allowed in the CFL?

You can't have a tandem block on the LOS. No double teaming. Someone blocks a guy high while another chop blocks the legs. Leaves the player defenseless to injury. I think Bighill's block was legal. 

On 2024-09-02 at 1:17 PM, Tracker said:

And that dinky 15 yard penalty didn't stop the Rider player from putting his shoulder into Streveler's head shortly thereafter, and received no penalty at all.

you know what though... he didn't even get a 15 yard penalty... because it happened on the same play as the PI that set us up on the 1 yard line... so there was literally no penalty for making that hit to the head

39 minutes ago, bearpants said:

you know what though... he didn't even get a 15 yard penalty... because it happened on the same play as the PI that set us up on the 1 yard line... so there was literally no penalty for making that hit to the head

yup...was essentially a free pot shot

17 hours ago, Sard said:

The PA has to sign off on it as well, and that may be a tougher sell depending on where they decide to stand on it.

I thought this  proposal was already within the agreement

3 hours ago, bearpants said:

you know what though... he didn't even get a 15 yard penalty... because it happened on the same play as the PI that set us up on the 1 yard line... so there was literally no penalty for making that hit to the head

That was borderline ejection conduct, and in any case, the penalty should have been announced to finger the offender even if it was not enforced due to the other penalty. That two SOBs are going to walk away with almost no penalties and no league suspensions or fines. The best was to ensure bad behaviour continues is to reward it.