Players being forced out due to concussions has not always been a part of the game. That is new. And it introduced a rule that tilts heavily toward defense vs. offense. If the point of concussion protocol is player safety, then the NFL should be concerned that these rules create Tonya Harding loopholes for defenses to knock players out with barely any repercussions. Clowney knocking Wentz out, intentional or not, ended the game for Philly. It was that big of a play.

When the NFL introduced this big of a rule, you can't say hard hits are just part of the game. They're gamechangers. I'm not crazy about targeting penalties. But when a hit directly leads to a concussion, malicious or not, if the NFL is forcing the offensive player to miss time why shouldn't they force the defender to too? The defense still wins.

You don't think there is subjectivity in concussion protocol too? Or that the protocol isn't very conservatively applied so the NFL can cover liability? If those standards are conservatively applied and often subjective, why shouldn't they be for defense too? Unlike targeting, in this case, it's a clear 1:1 thing - if the offense is forced to lose a player, the defense should be forced to too.

There were already concussion assessment tools in existence. The NFLs big change was using an independent assessor. This may be liability driven, but I am not sure what makes you believe it is more conservative than other assessments. The goal of this screening tool is to avoid false negatives, meaning they want everyone who has a concussion to test positive on the assessment. In terms of player safety allowing a concussed player to return is more harmful than a nonconcussed player being ruled out

The concussion protocol is applied conservatively because there is a risk that a player could become a ****ing vegetable, you moron.

And why are you only applying this to concussions? Should the guy who broke Alex Smith's leg last year be forced to sit out for the same amount of time as Alex Smith? Clearly losing their QB really ****ed over the Redskins.

Plus as already pointed out, if teams wanted to play dirty they could just use the 53rd guy on their roster to deliver the hits and lose NOTHING if that guy was forced to sit out. Or they could have a guy go at the QBs legs and try to knock him out that way, completely avoiding a concussion.

And no, the NFL is never making a healthy QB sit if the opposition QB has to leave the game, who the **** wants to watch two back ups go at it?

The NFL wants close exciting games, it doesn't want Josh McCown taking any snaps at all in primetime games. But, they realise that despite the "risk" to ratings and revenues, it would be worse to risk players playing with concussions.

EDIT: I may as well add that if Mahomes took a serious hit to the head next week and an independent medical specialist did not let him go back into the game and that pissed you off and you want him back out there and "tough it out", then you are a horrible human being. It's ****ing entertainment at the end of the day and you want a 24 year old kid to literally risk his health for the rest of his life so you don't have to cry like a little girl if the Chiefs don't make a superbowl?

I think what really needs to be changed is the rulebook.

On a very high percentage of plays, there is a defender that isn't involved in the actual tackle diving into the offensive player, usually leading with a shoulder, but sometimes the helmet. The hits aren't late enough to be penalties, but they are definitely late enough that they don't impact the tackle.

I understand that in some cases they already started their motion, but in most cases they are adjusting their path after the ball carrier is being tackled. If that action hurts a player, it's usually the person with the ball, but I have seen it hurt the defensive player, and even hurt the defender that actually made the tackle.

I think Wentz was injured because this is just an acceptable action. Whoever hit Wentz has probably done something similar multiple times a game.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

There's so little logic you're following that I don't even know how to answer. Why should any player be ejected if they accidentally caused an injury? That makes no sense at all.

And how did the concussion protocol create Tonya Harding loopholes? The rule was meant to protect players from playing with injury and protect the league from players suing because of all the head trauma they get by playing. It's not like before the rule defensive players couldn't target a QB and take him out of the game if they wanted like you keep trying to say is happening now or can happen now. The difference is that now that QB won't be sent back to keep receiving those same hits that will eventually lead him to eating food through a straw. I don't know how you can find a negative in that.

I agree. I'm a fan of choice and free will. It won't happen, but it would be interesting if players were given an option to sign a ironclad waiver in situations like this to be able to keep playing or not.

But it will never happen, it is a PR nightmare in our recent incredibly sympathetic society.

Safety is a big part of what I do and I cannot see them changing it to make it less safe/sure that head injury isn't dealt with.

Dangerous game.

ya, two field goals in the second half.

Whoop!

Charles got hurt on like the 2nd play of the game so thats not really relevant.

The other RB's getting hurt was relevant.

If it is applied conservatively it means players can be forced out even if there's minimal risk of injury. Like I said, of course there is a line. I don't want loopy players back on the field. But there is a line. Because it is a game where mini concussions are happening constantly. At what point do you draw that line so conservatively that players are constantly shuffling in and out? Aren't players well aware by now of the risks they're taking on? So yes, we can debate where that line is. And I'm guessing the NFL draws it on the very safe side.

I am calling it for concussions only because for other player injuries, the player makes a choice whether to sit out. Brett Favre played practically on a broken ankle against the saints. I never said take out the other teams qb. I said that the defender causing the concussion should sit out for as long as the qb he knocked out is in protocol.

If a defender knocks out a star qb, in most cases you ended the game for them. And as punishment maybe you lose 15 yards and MAYBE an unimportant player gets ejected. Concussion protocol makes it far easier to officially knock that player out. So what's the incentive for defenses not to play extra dirty? The NFL may have intended for player safety but the unintended consequence is that they created a loophole that makes it easier for defenses to end games on one play. If defenses are incentivized to play dirtier how has that made the game safer?

Could not disagree more. It's a simple red card ejection. If they don't do something to discourage this, it's going to cost a team their Superbowl. There has to be a consequence and automatic ejection would be the absolute best way to keep guys safe. Not some silly fine a player can dig out of his couch. The week AFTER the game.

This guy gets it.

Sideline concussion assessment is a medical tool, with medical standards. It is conservative for a reason, and this applies to multiple sports

It is better to sit someone without a concussion than to allow a player to return with one, so the test is designed to capture all concussions (True positives) at the risk of also having some test positive without a concussion (false positive). If you aim to reduce the number of false positives you begin to create false negatives.

We scored 13 points in the 2nd half.

You're literally making up a scenario right now and acting like it's happened or happening.

Once again what would stop those same defenses from sending bottom of the roster guys to **** up the already concussed QB further?

If Mahomes is slow to get up and people realize it's a head injury and he gets let back in, why would the defense which you keep presuming is playing dirty target mahomes' head specifically knowing it will not only **** him up for the current game but for future games as well?

Injuries cost teams Superbowls every year lol.

And how are hitting players high/targeting not already discouraged?

ROFL

This sounds like a rule neighborhood kids would make up for backyard football games.

It has happened with bountygate. The NFL found out many teams (not just new orleans) were coaching their players to intentionally injure other players. Again, I am fine with keeping concussion protocol, but I also recognize the advantage it gives to a defense. Of course the stuff is still happening. Teams have been playing extra dirty this year to get in a QBs head. They've found ways around targeting.

The Tonya harding solution is a real threat in sports. It's not like the idea of removing aggressors is unusual. College more aggressively enforces targeting, and I'm not suggesting that. Hockey and soccer, more reasonably, do a much better job of consistent enforcement.

Bountygate was nearly a decade ago.

There's no evidence this was targeting or dirty play.

There's no evidence Wentz going out changed the outcome of this game. Seattle comfortably won the prior encounter and were the favorite in Vegas.

There's no evidence that Clowney being ejected would have changed the outcome at all either.

There's no evidence that Wentz disagreed with the medical assessment of him.

When was the last time any suspected targeting of a QB occurred?

If you genuinely think this kind of dirty play is a real concern, I assume you support moving to flag football for the quarterback only, and any tackle of the QB that is not grabbing a flag is met by immediate ejection? Its a better idea than letting people with head trauma decide whether it is their best interests to put themselves in more physical danger.

Of course losing Wentz to McCown made a huge difference. It doesn't mean Philly would have won. But everyone knows that game was over as soon as McCown went in.

I am not talking about this being a proven problem. I'm talking about how the Philly game exposed that the risk is there. And the impact is huge. If teams are willing to risk scandal by taping signals for tiny advantages, you don't think they're scheming up ways to exploit a big loophole like this?

I am not supporting arbitrarily targeting ejections on plays where the player goes back in. I'm talking about removing the defensive player as long as the offensive player is in concussion protocol. Again, I don't know if it's the solution. But it's at least an idea.

Don't forget about Kelce at the beginning of the Titans game. Another cheap shot.

Hit someone till they get injured isn't a loophole. And it's not some new strategy that only came about because of the protocol. Jesus Christ.

The concussion protocol made it much much easier to knock a player out of a game. Sure, targeting penalties have made it harder to pull off. But it has not eliminated the loophole. If the right hit is pulled off the defense advantage is tremendous.

Perfect example. One where concussion protocol rightly removed kelce out of the game. But the Titans safety should have been thrown out. Easy call.

Long-term player safety should appear to be more important than the outcome of any individual game, IMHO. It's one league, one business, and it hardly matters which regional department of that business takes home a trophy as long as the revenue continues to flow. You weigh all the pros and cons and do the thing that'll cost the business the least in terms of settlement money or public perception or whatever you decide is important to the health of the business.

I'd play around with the idea of disqualifying a player for an illegal, injurious hit for the length of time it takes for the injured player to be cleared to rejoin the game, or for the duration of that game, whichever period is shorter. Obviously, the league itself—not the individual team—would have to have final say on whether a player is clear to rejoin the game. Can't have the injured player's team making that determination alone or they'd be tempted to game the rule.

No way they change it with the lawsuits and all that have come about. It is called CYA and the NFL is doing just that.

To be honest I get what your saying op but from what test results have shown the biggest problems retired players have are from getting concussions and then going back in moments later banging their heads around for the next few hours because they weren’t given the proper treatment immediately following the concussion... so no, they don’t change it

I call bullshit. Wentz is obviously going to the ground and then Clowney goes down on top of him head first when Clowney head was the furthest part of his body away from Wentz.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FyY3NfwOqJU" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Do brains become less important in the playoffs?

First time I'm seeing it. It looks to me like Clowney could very well be trying to get his shoulder into the middle of Wentz's back so the guy gets up hurting. Hurting is legal and usually clean.

You're making up a problem where there isn't. Unless you have evidence that the protocol was taking out players that hadn't shown symptoms, then there's no loophole. Anymore than a player being taken off the field because they think he tore something.

If Wentz continues how he was calling, Clowney would have went over his back. But when Wentz braced himself with his right arm, it made him stay up for a the fraction of a second needed for their helmets to hit.

It wasn't a purposeful helmet to helmet imo.

No he shouldn't have. His hit didn't have any malicious intent at all.

You're missing the point. The concussion protocol is forcing teams to eject (mostly) offensive players who a decade ago would have been allowed to go back in the game. So if a defensive player is trying to knock a player out, it is significantly easier to do it. And it's not like an injury where a player can tough it out. Once the NFL says you're out, you're out. No exceptions. It's basically an ejection. The unintended consequence is that a rule designed for player safety gives a defense massive incentive to do unsafe things.

Do you really not see the problem that the "victim" team is forced to eject a player, while the "aggressor" team is usually only gets a 15 yard penalty... if even that? That's one hell of a loophole.

No there's not a problem because these hits aren't on purpose. If a player tackles a running back low and they blow their knee and the RB is ejected as you say, should the defender have to go too? What's the difference?

And yeah players going back to the game when they had concussion symptoms a decade + ago is the problem that's being solved. It's not a loophole that the player has to leave the game.

I'm still confused by where you stand. Because you claim to be this advocate for concussion protocol because of player safety. Yet keep making excuses for unsafe hits and have an incredibly high standard for "malicious intent."

The point of targeting rules isn't about malicious intent. Launching at a player like a missile isn't always malicious. Launching at a player low is helmet to helmet even if you didn't intend for it. If you're going to create rules that make it easier to eject offensive players, it's ridiculous to have wild west rules for what is called targeting.

Let's make it easy:
Players who have concussions symptoms shouldn't be allowed back in the game

Players who cause these injuries should be allowed to stay in the game if the hit looks incidental

I honestly don't know how that's confusing to you. It's not a contradiction or whatever you think it is.

If you think Kelce's concussion was caused by incidental contact, then you have a really low standard for what "malicious" and "intent" mean. You keep claiming these hits are just football being football. The NFL has created conservative rules on what's considered an ejectable concussion. Why would you have a problem with also having conservative rules on the types of hits causing concussions that lead to ejections? If a player launches at an offensive player, goes for a kill shot, leads with their head... they are intentionally going against the NFL's point of emphasis. And when it leads to a concussion, the NFL should have a very conservative standard for what is considered intentional.

College has gone the extra mile on targeting while the NFL has barely enforced it.

And you're still downplaying how big an advantage it is that on one play, the victim team is forced to eject a player while the aggressor team sees a 15 yard penalty at worst. HUGE loophole.

The defender in the Kelce hit went low and turned his body...in what way would that be an intentional hit to the head. How would that be targeting?

I'm downplaying how big of an advantage because it's a stupid point you keep trying to make. Injuries happen in football. As long as a player doesn't look to have intended to injure, then play ball.

Both teams have an offense, and both teams have a quarterback. As long as the concussion rules are enforced equally for both teams, how is it an advantage for one team over the other?

I still don't see how you find this a contradiction, the NFL wants to keep its players on the field as much as possible, for the most entertaining product possible, except where their safety is at risk. That's why they make a guy sit with a concussion, but they don't randomly eject guys who hurt someone with no clear malicious intent.

In the cases of pure malicious intent (the Gronk headshot to White last year, various Burfict hits), I would fully support any player doing that being suspended for a season, or banned for life.

When Clowney decided to lead with the crown of his helmet, he already knew that he was not contributing to the tackle at all, and that Wentz basically down.

He clearly lowers his head and drives the crown of his helmet down, targeting Wentz's head, while also trying to use his forearm and shoulder to impact Wentz's back and shoulder.

It is so clearly a dirty hit. The only real difference between the Clowney hit, and the Ben Davidson hit on Dawson is that Davidson was a second later on his hit because he had to run farther. Neither Clowney nor Davidson were making a football play.

The official's statement after the game is just absolute shit.

If that hit had been perpetrated by Vontaze Burfict, I believe he would have been flagged and probably tossed from the game.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

agreed.

The browns were targeting our players Sunday. If they were really serious, the NFL would have kicked them out on the spot.

...but they really don't care.

:rolleyes:

Kicked who out? How? When did they target our players? Why?




What?

I guess because they tackled somebody.
In a game where one of the biggest plays was a Chief going helmet-first to stop a TD and cause a fumble on the goal line, he should probably leave this alone.

Concussion protocol SHOULD be changed. These are grown men making huge money, even at the league minimum. They also know the risks of repeated concussions. Maybe let them make the decision to play or not.

Multiple sources now have confirmed Mahomes only missed one question.

One question, that he probably just forgot the answer to, almost cost us the game.

Shit ****ing sucks.

Unfortunately, that won't work in our society.

Allowing them to make that decision doesn't indemnify the team or the NFL if the player does something later in life that affects their family.

True.

How about eliminating helmets? You won't see defenders leading with their exposed head, that's for sure.

No we'll just see more deaths and broken necks.

LMAO

What's your name?

I forgot.

It's only one question, he seems ok.

That's actually not one of the questions.

By the way, it's good to see you out here in the open talking football. :thumb:

He should have stayed on the ground and got his bearings back. The moment he tried to stand and stumbled, I knew he wasn't coming back in. It would have been a horrible look for the NFL.

More deaths? There have been no deaths from a single injury, and that includes guys who played with leather helmets, or no helmet at all.

Every broken neck I can recall was suffered by a player wearing a helmet, and lowering the head was almost always involved...which wouldn't happen if heads were more exposed.

This. It's all about the NFL covering their ass.

“What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?”

"European? Or African?"

I remember when they had a greatest hits of the week show.

Football is more high speed and high powered than ever. Imagine the Sorensen goal line hit but without helmets.

And you're delusional if you think players are really going to change how they play instantly because they don't have helmets on.

Saying take the helmets off and there will be less head and neck injuries is like saying take seat belts off cars and there will be less car deaths.

So, I'm not complaining about mahomes. I totally get that. Even if it wasn't a concussion, not a good look to get him back on the field.

But I still feel the concussion rules need to be re-thought. Just last week two superstar qbs left a playoff game with a concussion. As much as the rule claims to be about player safety you're inviting the next bountygate. A dirty defense can send hatchet men to lay a dirty hit on a qb knowing the huge advantage it gives to the defense. 15, yards or even an ejection are worth it if it hurts or ejects the qb. While I would start mahomes without hesitation it does make me nervous that the bills may play a little more dirty this week knowing our qb situation.

I don't know how you fix that. At the very least, at least expand the rules for sitting players (usually defense) out who cause a concussion. If the rules are going to be extra safe about putting players in concussion protocol then rules for the hitter should be extra strict.

I'm also rethinking players eating when they go to another teams city. A dirty team can just have the hotel/restaurant staff poison the food so the QB is out with food poisoning. Why isn't anyone talking about this?!??

Wut? Nobody is stopping the players from playing or eating. We're talking about rules to prevent concussion. If a hotel has rules that could help prevent a rogue staff member poisoning someone of course you'd explore it.

I think his point might be that there's the same amount of evidence for people trying to poison Qbs as there is that people are trying to deliberately cause concussions for QBs.

It was a stupid response to your (no offense) stupid post. If the defense is sending "hatchet men" to purposely give Mahomes a concussion, why they hell would they care if those players were suspended.

There is a ton of evidence that the saints were doing that during bountygate. And it wasn't a secret that lots of teams were doing it. Bountygate is especially important because they were rewarded for knocking players out of the game. And in their case, it worked as they knocked Warner out and practically put Favre in a wheelchair during their super bowl run.

I don't think all teams are that dirty. But these days it seems like lots of defenses are putting that little extra. The ravens get away with this shit all the time. You may not plan to put Mahomes in a concussion. But could they be coached to come in a little late or hit with a little extra mustard? Probably. Is the NFL going to be very strict about mahomes concussion protocol if he's even a little slow to get up? Absolutely. So yeah, why wouldn't that motivate a defense to play a little dirtier than usual.

Nfl must change playoff concussion protocol
 

I don’t know if you’ve ever played contact sports but a big part of the ego behind it, especially when you actually got “your shit rocked” is showing no pain and popping right back up even when you “get your shit rocked”. As competitors we know that a lot of times our egos outweigh our rationale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. Exactly.

Bountygate happened a decade ago. I am sure I can probably find one case in sports somewhere where a team got poisoned at a hotel as well.

Why are we even comparing the two? poisoning doesn't happen often is because it is a serious crime. Because restaurants and hotels have safeguards to prevent it.

The saints weren't the only ones doing bountygate. They were the only ones that got caught. And the only reason it was a big deal was it involved money. You think by taking away a cash incentive defenses stopped targeting offensive players? Defenses know that knocking out a qb gives them a better shot at a super bowl. And they know by now ways to get around targeting rules to do it. There are defenses out there notorious for hitting extra late. Players who know how to play just borderline dirty enough. Lots of people think the clowney sack on Wentz last year was a great example of making a dirty tackle look borderline

I'm not saying it's a widespread issue. But look we've had three qbs in two years (lamar, mahomes, Jackson) exit playoff games due to concussion protocol. And there's nothing worse for the game then for playoff games to go on without the best players on the field.

If a player tackles another player low and the runner gets injured, should the tackler be suspended? If Higgins had a concussion on the goal line play, you think Sorensen should be suspended this week?

When did I say suspend anyone? If a player hits a guy into a concussion, at the very least the NFL should have stricter targeting rules and the defender should sit out for as long as the offensive player is in protocol. If you're going to create stricter rules about what a concussion is, there should be equally strict rules about targeting. If Higgins ended up with a concussion, Sorensens hit should fall into that category. At the very least. Higgins didn't have a concussion so it's kind of irrelevant.

Tackling low is different. If the tackle was blatantly dirty, throw the guy out. But unlike concussions, the offensive player decides if he wants to go back in. Concussion rules follow arguably arbitrary protocol and the league understandably is stricter maybe than they even need to be. If they create those rules out of player safety, then they absolutely should explore rules on the opposite side to bring that into balance.

Having to sit out the same length as the player on the protocol is a defacto suspension.

And why do you think there needs to be a balance? You act like players do this shit on purpose. The vast vast vast majority of injuries including suspensions happen because 2 200lb men who both run 4.6 or faster were just trying to make a play and shit happened.

Because there is no single bigger disadvantage in sports than taking out a QB, let alone offense superstars. People may shit on rules to overprotect QBs but it's the NFL recognizing how important healthy QBs are for the game. Obviously players aren't blatantly cold clocking players. But anyone who's watched judon or the clowney hit on Wentz knows players are finding ways to bend the rules on hits. We saw it just a few weeks ago in New Orleans. So what do you do? I don't know. I'm only suggesting at least a small step. I didn't suggest every hit should lead to de facto suspension. But if a player goes into concussion protocol through overly strict rules, why would you be against overly strict rules on targeting?