Nfl must change playoff concussion protocol

[Discuss Thrower]

If you make a hit that looks intentional that ends with the other player winding up in the protocol: you're off the field as long as that player is off the field.

[ShortRoundChief]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

If you make a hit that looks intentional that ends with the other player winding up in the protocol: you're off the field as long as that player is off the field.

On the surface, sure sounds logical. Until people start throwing undrafted 3rd string scrubs at drew brees.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

On the surface, sure sounds logical. Until people start throwing undrafted 3rd string scrubs at drew brees.

It's not perfect, but it's at least something. And it's a hell of a lot easier to consistently enforce than targeting.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

If you make a hit that looks intentional that ends with the other player winding up in the protocol: you're off the field as long as that player is off the field.

So who will be the judge of what he's look or don't look intentional?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

So who will be the judge of what he's look or don't look intentional?

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.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

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?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Chargem

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?

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.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

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.