Jump to content

CFL


around4ever

Recommended Posts

Saskatchewan is on ESPN2 now. Nick Marshall and Tre Mason.  They are playing Toronto.  I didn't see any of our guys on their roster.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Darvin Adams is a playmaker on Toronto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, around4ever said:

He has been in Winnipeg since 2015. 

Yes you are correct. I did just see Moncrief though on Sask.  Laid a lick. Mentioned Auburn as a previous school on air. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick is having a good game in the defensive backfield. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, AUBwins said:

Crap Mason just fumbled.

Yeah, Tre still has a long way to go to being his old self.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

For those that missed it. 

 

Awesome. Drats, I turned the game off about 5 mins before that. Love that guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clip.....Nick can still motor can't he?    Nice return and good move to break it for the TD. 

Otherwise,  after someone above mentioned the game being on  I watched a bit of it and just could not get into it...even worse than NFL in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having players we know kinda helps but it reminds me of watching a MAC game on a Tuesday night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, AU64 said:

Thanks for the clip.....Nick can still motor can't he?    Nice return and good move to break it for the TD. 

Otherwise,  after someone above mentioned the game being on  I watched a bit of it and just could not get into it...even worse than NFL in my opinion. 

I think some of the rule diffrerences make for an interesting product. 

3 downs instead of 4.

Field is larger.

Endzones are bigger.

D has to stay 1 yard off the ball.

Goal posts are at the front of the end zone.

12 players on the field.

Backs and receivers have unlimited motion before the snap.

No fair catch.

The Rouge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The Rouge.

This one could probably use a bit of explanation. The Rouge is a funny twist. When a ball is punted or a FG attempted, it results in a point for the kicking team if the ball is kicked out of the back of the end zone or if the return man is tackled there. In a tie game with 1 second on the clock, even a missed FG or punt can win the game, provided the ball goes out the back of the end zone or if the receiving team can’t advance it out. What the receiving team can do, however, is punt the ball back out of the end zone to prevent giving up that point. 

This wild finish, involving our very own Damon Duval, was possible because of said twist.

On the above play, Damon misses the game winning FG. However, the ball is kept in play by one of Toronto’s players to prevent giving up a game winning point. The return man (not technically a return man, as they have specialist “kick out” teams for this situation in the CFL) realized he could not advance out of the end zone to force OT, so he kicked it back into the field of play, where it was fielded by Damon. Damon punted it back into the end zone. The returner, realizing, once again, that he couldn’t advance the ball, once again attempted to kick it out. This poor kick was blocked and recovered by the Alouettes for the game winning TD. 

Novel, and fun to watch. Had they gotten the ball out and the ball had been downed in the field of play, OT would have been the result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

This one could probably use a bit of explanation. The Rouge is a funny twist. When a ball is punted or a FG attempted, it results in a point for the kicking team if the ball is kicked out of the back of the end zone or if the return man is tackled there. In a tie game with 1 second on the clock, even a missed FG or punt can win the game, provided the ball goes out the back of the end zone or if the receiving team can’t advance it out. What the receiving team can do, however, is punt the ball back out of the end zone to prevent giving up that point. 

This wild finish, involving our very own Damon Duval, was possible because of said twist.

On the above play, Damon misses the game winning FG. However, the ball is kept in play by one of Toronto’s players to prevent giving up a game winning point. The return man (not technically a return man, as they have specialist “kick out” teams for this situation in the CFL) realized he could not advance out of the end zone to force OT, so he kicked it back into the field of play, where it was fielded by Damon. Damon punted it back into the end zone. The returner, realizing, once again, that he couldn’t advance the ball, once again attempted to kick it out. This poor kick was blocked and recovered by the Alouettes for the game winning TD. 

Novel, and fun to watch. Had they gotten the ball out and the ball had been downed in the field of play, OT would have been the result. 

Sweet! That's straight up rugby. Haha. Thanks for the info.  I was curious how the score was 1 point for Toronto in the game this week. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, AUDub said:

I think some of the rule diffrerences make for an interesting product. 

3 downs instead of 4.

Field is larger.

Endzones are bigger.

D has to stay 1 yard off the ball.

Goal posts are at the front of the end zone.

12 players on the field.

Backs and receivers have unlimited motion before the snap.

No fair catch.

The Rouge.

 

Canadians tried to reinvent a very good game in their own image....and pretty much failed.   

There are few of their rules that make the game more interesting or fun to watch.  or if adopted in the US would make the US game better.   In my view, mostly their game comes from the desire for Canadian Football to "not to be like American football".   even the football is different.   Could be considered a merger of rugby and American football.....and they came up with a game that is not equal to either one. 

JMO ...a second rate game being mostly played by guys who would have a hard time playing regularly in the SEC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Canadians tried to reinvent a very good game in their own image....and pretty much failed.   

There are few of their rules that make the game more interesting or fun to watch.  or if adopted in the US would make the US game better.   In my view, mostly their game comes from the desire for Canadian Football to "not to be like American football".   even the football is different.   Could be considered a merger of rugby and American football.....and they came up with a game that is not equal to either one. 

JMO ...a second rate game being mostly played by guys who would have a hard time playing regularly in the SEC. 

They did not "reinvent" the game. The rule differences are a result of differences in evolution. Both sports are descendants of rugby and association football (soccer). It's just that Canadian football retains more of those roots than American football, which had departed more radically from the sports from which it came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Both sports are descendants of rugby and association football (soccer). It's just that Canadian football retains more of those roots

Gridiron football is mostly a descendant of rugby, and not a descendent of soccer. The Rugby and soccer versions of football are descendants of European games in tbe 1800s where the primary goal was to advance the ball up field and score at tbe end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

Gridiron football is mostly a descendant of rugby, and not a descendent of soccer. The Rugby and soccer versions of football are descendants of European games in tbe 1800s where the primary goal was to advance the ball up field and score at tbe end. 

Early rules were either borrowed or based upon early FA (football association, the governing body for soccer in England) rules. American football is just as much a descendant of association football as it is rugby football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Early rules were either borrowed or based upon early FA (football association, the governing body for soccer in England) rules. American football is just as much a descendant of association football as it is rugby football. 

No. American football is a descendant of rugby, which is in its own (carrying)code of football. Soccer and Gaelic football, in the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AU64 said:

Canadians tried to reinvent a very good game in their own image....and pretty much failed.   

There are few of their rules that make the game more interesting or fun to watch.  or if adopted in the US would make the US game better.   In my view, mostly their game comes from the desire for Canadian Football to "not to be like American football".   even the football is different.   Could be considered a merger of rugby and American football.....and they came up with a game that is not equal to either one. 

JMO ...a second rate game being mostly played by guys who would have a hard time playing regularly in the SEC. 

I don't think they failed. It's just their version of football that they want to be more entertaining. 

And there are plenty of very good Auburn players on teams, that made a little splash in the NFL, and were very good SEC players. So i think other than they have to have a certain percentage of Canadians on the teams which I really don't know how good they are, are made of very good American college players and ex NFL players. And I think they could play pretty well in the SEC...ofc not Alabama like. lol...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, steeleagle said:

I don't think they failed. It's just their version of football that they want to be more entertaining. 

And there are plenty of very good Auburn players on teams, that made a little splash in the NFL, and were very good SEC players. So i think other than they have to have a certain percentage of Canadians on the teams which I really don't know how good they are, are made of very good American college players and ex NFL players. And I think they could play pretty well in the SEC...ofc not Alabama like. lol...

Christion Jones played for Bama and was the lead returner for one of the teams the other night.  I think SSK. I think they have enough talent to make for some exciting plays, and to have a little familiarity from watching these guys in college.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing a source to support your argument would be helpful here. 

https://www.britannica.com/sports/gridiron-football

Gridiron football was the creation of elite American universities, a fact that has shaped its distinctive role in American culture and life. After several decades of informal, student-organized games that were tolerated by faculty as an alternative to more destructive rowdiness, the first intercollegiate football game was played on November 6, 1869, in New Brunswick, New Jersey, between in-state rivals Princeton and Rutgers according to rules adapted from those of the London Football Association. This soccer-style game became the dominant form as Columbia, Cornell, Yale, and a few other colleges in the Northeast took up the sport in the early 1870s, and in 1873 representatives from Princeton, Yale, and Rutgers met in New York City to found the Intercollegiate Football Association and to adopt a common code. Conspicuously missing was Harvard, the country’s premier university, whose team insisted on playing the so-called “Boston Game,” a cross between soccer and rugby. In May 1874, in the second of two matches with McGill University of Montreal (the first was played by the rules of the Boston Game), Harvard’s players were introduced to the rugby game and immediately preferred it to their own. The following year, for Harvard’s first football contest with Yale, representatives of the two schools agreed on “concessionary rules” that were chiefly Harvard’s. When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.

49 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

No. American football is a descendant of rugby, which is in its own (carrying)code of football. Soccer and Gaelic football, in the other. 

It is a descendant of both. Rugger and soccer diverged from each other around the 1820s. American football came later and borrowed from both, and while it was a unique game, the rules of the FA (again, the governing body for soccer) were paramount before the sport greatly diverged as school associations adopted their own rule changes before the sport was codified. What's widely considered the first football game was played with modified rules based upon the FA's code. 

Later changes to the code would borrow more havily from rugby, but to say the sport is exclusively a descendant of rugby is wrongheaded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...