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.
[Reply]

If a defender knocks out a star qb, in most cases you ended the game for them. And as punishment maybe you lose 15 yards and MAYBE an unimportant player gets ejected. Concussion protocol makes it far easier to officially knock that player out. So what's the incentive for defenses not to play extra dirty? The NFL may have intended for player safety but the unintended consequence is that they created a loophole that makes it easier for defenses to end games on one play. If defenses are incentivized to play dirtier how has that made the game safer?
[Reply]

Could not disagree more. It's a simple red card ejection. If they don't do something to discourage this, it's going to cost a team their Superbowl. There has to be a consequence and automatic ejection would be the absolute best way to keep guys safe. Not some silly fine a player can dig out of his couch. The week AFTER the game.
[Reply]

This guy gets it.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

We scored 13 points in the 2nd half.
[Reply]

You're literally making up a scenario right now and acting like it's happened or happening.

Once again what would stop those same defenses from sending bottom of the roster guys to fuck up the already concussed QB further?

If Mahomes is slow to get up and people realize it's a head injury and he gets let back in, why would the defense which you keep presuming is playing dirty target mahomes' head specifically knowing it will not only fuck him up for the current game but for future games as well?
[Reply]

Injuries cost teams Superbowls every year lol.

And how are hitting players high/targeting not already discouraged?
[Reply]

:-)

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

It has happened with bountygate. The NFL found out many teams (not just new orleans) were coaching their players to intentionally injure other players. Again, I am fine with keeping concussion protocol, but I also recognize the advantage it gives to a defense. Of course the stuff is still happening. Teams have been playing extra dirty this year to get in a QBs head. They've found ways around targeting.

The Tonya harding solution is a real threat in sports. It's not like the idea of removing aggressors is unusual. College more aggressively enforces targeting, and I'm not suggesting that. Hockey and soccer, more reasonably, do a much better job of consistent enforcement.
[Reply]

Bountygate was nearly a decade ago.

There's no evidence this was targeting or dirty play.

There's no evidence Wentz going out changed the outcome of this game. Seattle comfortably won the prior encounter and were the favorite in Vegas.

There's no evidence that Clowney being ejected would have changed the outcome at all either.

There's no evidence that Wentz disagreed with the medical assessment of him.

When was the last time any suspected targeting of a QB occurred?

If you genuinely think this kind of dirty play is a real concern, I assume you support moving to flag football for the quarterback only, and any tackle of the QB that is not grabbing a flag is met by immediate ejection? Its a better idea than letting people with head trauma decide whether it is their best interests to put themselves in more physical danger.
[Reply]

Of course losing Wentz to McCown made a huge difference. It doesn't mean Philly would have won. But everyone knows that game was over as soon as McCown went in.

I am not talking about this being a proven problem. I'm talking about how the Philly game exposed that the risk is there. And the impact is huge. If teams are willing to risk scandal by taping signals for tiny advantages, you don't think they're scheming up ways to exploit a big loophole like this?

I am not supporting arbitrarily targeting ejections on plays where the player goes back in. I'm talking about removing the defensive player as long as the offensive player is in concussion protocol. Again, I don't know if it's the solution. But it's at least an idea.
[Reply]

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

Hit someone till they get injured isn't a loophole. And it's not some new strategy that only came about because of the protocol. Jesus Christ.
[Reply]

The concussion protocol made it much much easier to knock a player out of a game. Sure, targeting penalties have made it harder to pull off. But it has not eliminated the loophole. If the right hit is pulled off the defense advantage is tremendous.
[Reply]