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

Long-term player safety should appear to be more important than the outcome of any individual game, IMHO. It's one league, one business, and it hardly matters which regional department of that business takes home a trophy as long as the revenue continues to flow. You weigh all the pros and cons and do the thing that'll cost the business the least in terms of settlement money or public perception or whatever you decide is important to the health of the business.

I'd play around with the idea of disqualifying a player for an illegal, injurious hit for the length of time it takes for the injured player to be cleared to rejoin the game, or for the duration of that game, whichever period is shorter. Obviously, the league itself—not the individual team—would have to have final say on whether a player is clear to rejoin the game. Can't have the injured player's team making that determination alone or they'd be tempted to game the rule.
[Reply]

No way they change it with the lawsuits and all that have come about. It is called CYA and the NFL is doing just that.
[Reply]

To be honest I get what your saying op but from what test results have shown the biggest problems retired players have are from getting concussions and then going back in moments later banging their heads around for the next few hours because they weren’t given the proper treatment immediately following the concussion... so no, they don’t change it
[Reply]

I call bullshit. Wentz is obviously going to the ground and then Clowney goes down on top of him head first when Clowney head was the furthest part of his body away from Wentz.


[Reply]

Do brains become less important in the playoffs?
[Reply]

First time I'm seeing it. It looks to me like Clowney could very well be trying to get his shoulder into the middle of Wentz's back so the guy gets up hurting. Hurting is legal and usually clean.
[Reply]

You're making up a problem where there isn't. Unless you have evidence that the protocol was taking out players that hadn't shown symptoms, then there's no loophole. Anymore than a player being taken off the field because they think he tore something.
[Reply]

If Wentz continues how he was calling, Clowney would have went over his back. But when Wentz braced himself with his right arm, it made him stay up for a the fraction of a second needed for their helmets to hit.

It wasn't a purposeful helmet to helmet imo.
[Reply]

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

You're missing the point. The concussion protocol is forcing teams to eject (mostly) offensive players who a decade ago would have been allowed to go back in the game. So if a defensive player is trying to knock a player out, it is significantly easier to do it. And it's not like an injury where a player can tough it out. Once the NFL says you're out, you're out. No exceptions. It's basically an ejection. The unintended consequence is that a rule designed for player safety gives a defense massive incentive to do unsafe things.

Do you really not see the problem that the "victim" team is forced to eject a player, while the "aggressor" team is usually only gets a 15 yard penalty... if even that? That's one hell of a loophole.
[Reply]

No there's not a problem because these hits aren't on purpose. If a player tackles a running back low and they blow their knee and the RB is ejected as you say, should the defender have to go too? What's the difference?

And yeah players going back to the game when they had concussion symptoms a decade + ago is the problem that's being solved. It's not a loophole that the player has to leave the game.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]

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.
[Reply]