Nfl must change playoff concussion protocol

[chiefzilla1501]

I'm still sour about Jamaal Charles, then flowers getting knocked out of the Colts playoff game a few years ago. Regular season... Sure. But ending a season on a doctors fuzzy opinion? Yeah, not a fan of that at all.

I'd argue that concussion protocol can make playoff games even more dangerous. We saw with bountygate what lengths a team will go to to knock a player out. What incentive does a DC have to not coach dirty football they can get away with? It's easy to play super dirty without risk of targeting.

Maybe Wentz didn't want to go back in. We know that Jamaal Charles was super pissed years ago that he couldn't. What say you... Is this an nfl rule that needs to be re-thought?

[Azide22]

Originally Posted by Shaid

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.

Yep. Exactly.

[Chargem]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Chargem

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.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

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.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

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?