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?

[dlphg9]

Dear God, OP is reeruned.

Amen

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Of course players aren't intentionally punching QBs in the head are hitting them with anvils and hammers (though Garrett came close). That's not what happened with Brett Favre during Bountygate either. You have a bit of a strange position in defending concussion protocol, while believing that behaviors that contribute to concussions are just a part of football. Do players purposefully try to put players into concussion? I don't know about that. Do players hit with the intent of making it hurt as much as possible? Definitely. Do they toe the line as much as they can legally get away with? Definitely, some teams and players much more than others. Do they do it with intent to injure - as we learned in Bountygate, lots of teams (not just the Saints) were.

How is that strange? Concussions are part of the game. But if a player suffers one like many other injuries, precaution needs to be taken to mitigate the risk of reinjury or making the injury worse.

Unless it's obviously clear a player had malicious intent in the hit or if they are a multiple repeat offender, ejecting the defender just seems dumb and overkill.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Imagine the firestorm on here if Mahomes enters concussion protocol during the Texans game.

It would be similar to the Colts playoff game. Forcing Charles out of the game killed us. He was basically our offense.

[-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?

[-King-]

Originally Posted by jjjayb

It would be similar to the Colts playoff game. Forcing Charles out of the game killed us. He was basically our offense.

Lol we scored 44 points that game.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by -King-

How is that strange? Concussions are part of the game. But if a player suffers one like many other injuries, precaution needs to be taken to mitigate the risk of reinjury or making the injury worse.

Unless it's obviously clear a player had malicious intent in the hit or if they are a multiple repeat offender, ejecting the defender just seems dumb and overkill.

Players being forced out due to concussions has not always been a part of the game. That is new. And it introduced a rule that tilts heavily toward defense vs. offense. If the point of concussion protocol is player safety, then the NFL should be concerned that these rules create Tonya Harding loopholes for defenses to knock players out with barely any repercussions. Clowney knocking Wentz out, intentional or not, ended the game for Philly. It was that big of a play.

When the NFL introduced this big of a rule, you can't say hard hits are just part of the game. They're gamechangers. I'm not crazy about targeting penalties. But when a hit directly leads to a concussion, malicious or not, if the NFL is forcing the offensive player to miss time why shouldn't they force the defender to too? The defense still wins.

[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?

[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

[-King-]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Players being forced out due to concussions has not always been a part of the game. That is new. And it introduced a rule that tilts heavily toward defense vs. offense. If the point of concussion protocol is player safety, then the NFL should be concerned that these rules create Tonya Harding loopholes for defenses to knock players out with barely any repercussions. Clowney knocking Wentz out, intentional or not, ended the game for Philly. It was that big of a play.

When the NFL introduced this big of a rule, you can't say hard hits are just part of the game. They're gamechangers. I'm not crazy about targeting penalties. But when a hit directly leads to a concussion, malicious or not, if the NFL is forcing the offensive player to miss time why shouldn't they force the defender to too? The defense still wins.

There's so little logic you're following that I don't even know how to answer. Why should any player be ejected if they accidentally caused an injury? That makes no sense at all.

And how did the concussion protocol create Tonya Harding loopholes? The rule was meant to protect players from playing with injury and protect the league from players suing because of all the head trauma they get by playing. It's not like before the rule defensive players couldn't target a QB and take him out of the game if they wanted like you keep trying to say is happening now or can happen now. The difference is that now that QB won't be sent back to keep receiving those same hits that will eventually lead him to eating food through a straw. I don't know how you can find a negative in that.

[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.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by -King-

Lol we scored 44 points that game.

ya, two field goals in the second half.

Whoop!

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by stevieray

ya, two field goals in the second half.

Whoop!

Charles got hurt on like the 2nd play of the game so thats not really relevant.

The other RB's getting hurt was relevant.