Quote:
|
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
|
Quote:
<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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It wasn't a purposeful helmet to helmet imo. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.