Originally Posted by Chargem (Post 14700743)

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?

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14700751)

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.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14700751)

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.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14700834)

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?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14700827)

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.

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 14700822)

ya, two field goals in the second half.

Whoop!

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14700834)

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?

Originally Posted by MahiMike (Post 14700889)

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.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14700954)

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?

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14700999)

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.

Originally Posted by Chargem (Post 14701542)

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.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14701605)

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.

Originally Posted by -King- (Post 14701629)

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.