Nfl must change playoff concussion protocol

[suzzer99]

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

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

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

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

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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

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

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

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

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.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

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.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

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.