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? [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
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.
The defender in the Kelce hit went low and turned his body...in what way would that be an intentional hit to the head. How would that be targeting?
I'm downplaying how big of an advantage because it's a stupid point you keep trying to make. Injuries happen in football. As long as a player doesn't look to have intended to injure, then play ball. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
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.
Both teams have an offense, and both teams have a quarterback. As long as the concussion rules are enforced equally for both teams, how is it an advantage for one team over the other?
I still don't see how you find this a contradiction, the NFL wants to keep its players on the field as much as possible, for the most entertaining product possible, except where their safety is at risk. That's why they make a guy sit with a concussion, but they don't randomly eject guys who hurt someone with no clear malicious intent.
In the cases of pure malicious intent (the Gronk headshot to White last year, various Burfict hits), I would fully support any player doing that being suspended for a season, or banned for life. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chief Roundup:
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.
When Clowney decided to lead with the crown of his helmet, he already knew that he was not contributing to the tackle at all, and that Wentz basically down.
He clearly lowers his head and drives the crown of his helmet down, targeting Wentz's head, while also trying to use his forearm and shoulder to impact Wentz's back and shoulder.
It is so clearly a dirty hit. The only real difference between the Clowney hit, and the Ben Davidson hit on Dawson is that Davidson was a second later on his hit because he had to run farther. Neither Clowney nor Davidson were making a football play.
The official's statement after the game is just absolute shit.
If that hit had been perpetrated by Vontaze Burfict, I believe he would have been flagged and probably tossed from the game.
Originally Posted by MahiMike:
The browns were targeting our players Sunday. If they were really serious, the NFL would have kicked them out on the spot.
Originally Posted by MahiMike:
The browns were targeting our players Sunday. If they were really serious, the NFL would have kicked them out on the spot.
...but they really don't care.
Kicked who out? How? When did they target our players? Why?
Originally Posted by -King-:
Kicked who out? How? When did they target our players? Why?
What?
I guess because they tackled somebody.
In a game where one of the biggest plays was a Chief going helmet-first to stop a TD and cause a fumble on the goal line, he should probably leave this alone. [Reply]
Concussion protocol SHOULD be changed. These are grown men making huge money, even at the league minimum. They also know the risks of repeated concussions. Maybe let them make the decision to play or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AdolfOliverBush:
Concussion protocol SHOULD be changed. These are grown men making huge money, even at the league minimum. They also know the risks of repeated concussions. Maybe let them make the decision to play or not.
Unfortunately, that won't work in our society.
Allowing them to make that decision doesn't indemnify the team or the NFL if the player does something later in life that affects their family. [Reply]
