Page 1 of 1

New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:49 pm
by Zarquon
Paul did a great job on the left footed onside kick but I wonder if he could learn these new tricks.
http://watch.tsn.ca/cfl-news-and-highli ... clip715394

Actually I wonder if a kick like this might not be an interesting idea as I presume it would be much harder for a returner to field.

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:48 pm
by KnowItAll
easy to put a soccer ball through the posts from the corner, but I never thought it would be anything but a fluke for one to do so with a football. May we see the day when every team has an aussie rules football punter :cr:

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:29 am
by Rammer
Paul McCallum's onside kick was a thing of beauty that will help limit teams cheating on the returns or prepare to get burned.

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:21 am
by CatsEyes
Just a dumb question but how is an Aussie player a non-import? I could probably not be lazy and look it up myself, but you guys are SO much smarter :beauty:

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
by TheLionKing
CatsEyes wrote:Just a dumb question but how is an Aussie player a non-import? I could probably not be lazy and look it up myself, but you guys are SO much smarter :beauty:
Because he never played football in the States ?

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:30 pm
by Sir Purrcival
You know, I'm not so sure that the banana kick is irrelevant. Depending on how long it can go. It could really play fits for return teams to have the ball sailing one direction only to curve way over the other way in mid flight. The cover teams on the other hand can know exactly where it is intended to go and overload to that side when covering. Just think, kick it straight, curve one to the right, curve one to the left kick it left again, kick it right. It would drive the return teams nuts.

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:21 pm
by B.C.FAN
CatsEyes wrote:Just a dumb question but how is an Aussie player a non-import? I could probably not be lazy and look it up myself, but you guys are SO much smarter :beauty:
It's illegal to discriminate based on citizenship, but import-non import definitions based on past football training are OK, apparently. Jim Mullin has a nice history lesson here if you're interested.

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:35 pm
by Heathcliff
Thanks for the link, B.C. Fan, I found it very interesting

Re: New Tricks for an Old Dog

Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:48 am
by CatsEyes
Heathcliff wrote:Thanks for the link, B.C. Fan, I found it very interesting
So did I, but it didn't really answer my question. I guess I have to go look him up myself. The answer I was looking for was something like "Oh he lived here for X years, so he's a NI", or "He went to school here so he's a NI" I know the rule, I just don't know why an Australian counts as a NI.

EDIT

*THIS* is what I was looking for:
“Essentially, if you received football training outside of Canada, you are in import,” McDonald said. “By virtue of the fact that these Australian guys have no football training whatsoever, they are being granted non-import status.”

In essence, because there is no specific statement in the league’s rules about what happens if a player has no football training, Bartel and Crough will be treated as if they are, essentially, Canadian.

“I guess you could consider that as a bit of a loophole,” McDonald said.

Both the league and the CFLPA signed off on Crough’s and Bartel’s designation as non-imports but both McDonald and representatives from the players’ union said the issue is likely to come up for discussion.
From here: Scratching Post