Nfl must change playoff concussion protocol

[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.

[Deberg_1990]

Jadeveon Clowney expects death threats for hit on Carson Wentz, says #Eagles have 'worst fans in the world'
�� ⁦@SportsRadioWIP⁩https://t.co/3sauNr9sZY

— Dave Briggs (@davebriggstv) January 6, 2020

[ljmhawk]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Jadeveon Clowney expects death threats for hit on Carson Wentz, says #Eagles have 'worst fans in the world'
�� ⁦@SportsRadioWIP⁩https://t.co/3sauNr9sZY

— Dave Briggs (@davebriggstv) January 6, 2020

not saying that was an intentional shot to the head but he def. dipped his shoulder down and smacked him in the back of the head.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by ljmhawk

not saying that was an intentional shot to the head but he def. dipped his shoulder down and smacked him in the back of the head.

Yeah he should have been flagged.

[Discuss Thrower]

I mean this type of shit is exactly why hockey has it right.

[dlphg9]

Dear God, OP is reeruned.

Amen

[ChiefsFanatic]

I think what really needs to be changed is the rulebook.

On a very high percentage of plays, there is a defender that isn't involved in the actual tackle diving into the offensive player, usually leading with a shoulder, but sometimes the helmet. The hits aren't late enough to be penalties, but they are definitely late enough that they don't impact the tackle.

I understand that in some cases they already started their motion, but in most cases they are adjusting their path after the ball carrier is being tackled. If that action hurts a player, it's usually the person with the ball, but I have seen it hurt the defensive player, and even hurt the defender that actually made the tackle.

I think Wentz was injured because this is just an acceptable action. Whoever hit Wentz has probably done something similar multiple times a game.

Sent from my GM1915 using Tapatalk

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by 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?

I agree. I'm a fan of choice and free will. It won't happen, but it would be interesting if players were given an option to sign a ironclad waiver in situations like this to be able to keep playing or not.

But it will never happen, it is a PR nightmare in our recent incredibly sympathetic society.

[F150]

Safety is a big part of what I do and I cannot see them changing it to make it less safe/sure that head injury isn't dealt with.

Dangerous game.

[stumppy]

This sounds like a rule neighborhood kids would make up for backyard football games.

[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.