| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mistakebytehlak
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 38688
Location: Brooklyn, NY
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Keleth
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2587
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| JaguarCrazy2832 wrote: |
Exactly, I think people are ok with the fines. Its the "pick a number" system Goddell uses |
Go read the thread on Goodells contract being extended,go read the "flag football" comments in that and many threads about fines etc.
Sorry but to read that people are ok with the fines is an absolute joke.
There may be a few sensible posters who understand about concussion and its dangers etc but they're drowned out by the "flag football,mans game,ruining the game" shouters on this board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panther dude
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 5597
Location: East Lansing, MI
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | This, people, is why goodell fines so much. Now maybe people will understand the method to his madness. |
My gripe is the fines to guys like Stevie Johnson and Gronk celebrating being as big, if not bigger than the fines guys get for bad hits or stuff like horse collar penalty fines. Seems so ticky tacky, soon they'll start the fines for false starts  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PuppyMcNabb
Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 336
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| FourThreeMafia wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | This, people, is why goodell fines so much. Now maybe people will understand the method to his madness. |
Its more the consistency of the fining that I take issue with. |
Consistency with this would be impossible. The situation that caused the hit, the intent and repeat offenders are some of the many factors that the panel takes into consideration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17782
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | This reminds me of the people who sued cigarette companies after getting lung cancer . . .
whodathunk that slamming your 2-400lb bodies full speed against others for 60 minutes a week was going to cause physical issues down the road? |
That's actually not an unfair analogy, but you're pointing the wrong way with it. The questions coming up now are about how long the NFL knew about the dangers of head trauma before the organization started doing anything about it, including informing the players of it.
Additionally, the story highlighted in the OP demonstrates why the "You chose to play the game!" idea doesn't necessarily pass muster. The guy was knocked absolutely silly - he likely didn't have the capacity at that time to make an intelligent decision about whether he should go back into the game. It's not that he played a violent sport. It's that he suffered a head injury, then was placed back into a position immediately afterwards with an increased risk of subsequent (and lasting) injury.
And players then weren't making the same types of sums as they are now (or even were about a decade later), so the "millions of dollars" argument is much less relevant as well.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iPwn
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 35363
Location: Stand United
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| theJ wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | This, people, is why goodell fines so much. Now maybe people will understand the method to his madness. |
The fines are donated to charity. Not to ex-players. |
He's talking about why the fines are being implemented, in hopes of cutting down on these types of hits moving forward.
_________________
 | samgurl775 wrote: | | It's alright iPwn, you're my #1. |
| EliteTexan80 wrote: | | I AM TRYING TO BE PWNY! AND I AM NOT! AND THIS VEXES ME SORE!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaddHatter
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 41472
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| theJ wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | This, people, is why goodell fines so much. Now maybe people will understand the method to his madness. |
The fines are donated to charity. Not to ex-players. |
Sarcasm?
The OP meant that he fines people to keep them from having problems like Dorsett is currently having when THEY retire. Not so tehy have money for bills later in life...
_________________
Ware Stat Tracker: 27 Pressures, 9 Hits, 10 sacks, 4 FF, 7 TFL (thru 8 games) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 810
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | This reminds me of the people who sued cigarette companies after getting lung cancer . . .
whodathunk that slamming your 2-400lb bodies full speed against others for 60 minutes a week was going to cause physical issues down the road? |
That's actually not an unfair analogy, but you're pointing the wrong way with it. The questions coming up now are about how long the NFL knew about the dangers of head trauma before the organization started doing anything about it, including informing the players of it.
Additionally, the story highlighted in the OP demonstrates why the "You chose to play the game!" idea doesn't necessarily pass muster. The guy was knocked absolutely silly - he likely didn't have the capacity at that time to make an intelligent decision about whether he should go back into the game. It's not that he played a violent sport. It's that he suffered a head injury, then was placed back into a position immediately afterwards with an increased risk of subsequent (and lasting) injury.
And players then weren't making the same types of sums as they are now (or even were about a decade later), so the "millions of dollars" argument is much less relevant as well. |
I didnt make any reference to monetary compensation off-setting physical risk. The point I am making is EVERYBODY knows repeated blows to the head and body of high-intensity is going to cause problems. Period. This whole society of litigation and fault-finding is ridiculous. Its a matter of... 'so when did you have exact science proving without a doubt what is transparently obvious to anybody with common sense' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fretgod99
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 17782
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | This reminds me of the people who sued cigarette companies after getting lung cancer . . .
whodathunk that slamming your 2-400lb bodies full speed against others for 60 minutes a week was going to cause physical issues down the road? |
That's actually not an unfair analogy, but you're pointing the wrong way with it. The questions coming up now are about how long the NFL knew about the dangers of head trauma before the organization started doing anything about it, including informing the players of it.
Additionally, the story highlighted in the OP demonstrates why the "You chose to play the game!" idea doesn't necessarily pass muster. The guy was knocked absolutely silly - he likely didn't have the capacity at that time to make an intelligent decision about whether he should go back into the game. It's not that he played a violent sport. It's that he suffered a head injury, then was placed back into a position immediately afterwards with an increased risk of subsequent (and lasting) injury.
And players then weren't making the same types of sums as they are now (or even were about a decade later), so the "millions of dollars" argument is much less relevant as well. |
I didnt make any reference to monetary compensation off-setting physical risk. The point I am making is EVERYBODY knows repeated blows to the head and body of high-intensity is going to cause problems. Period. This whole society of litigation and fault-finding is ridiculous. Its a matter of... 'so when did you have exact science proving without a doubt what is transparently obvious to anybody with common sense' |
I was addressing more than your point with my post. Other people commented on the compensation issue.
Whether society is ultra-litigious or not is irrelevant. What you're doing is analyzing decisions people made in the 1980s using information available in the 2010s. That's unfair. If the same information regarding sustained and prolonged damage resultant from repeated concussions, etc. was available to the NFL but not made available to the players at the same time, then yes, he has a completely legitimate claim.
Additionally, if the NFL/teams were aware that players were getting knocked senseless, but putting them back into games when they were incapable, at the time the decision was to be made, of making rational decisions, then yes, he could have a completely legitimate claim.
After all, it's difficult to claim that he "got what he signed up for" if, when the prolonged damage was done, he wasn't truly cognizant of what was going on around him. Perhaps what he signed up for was to have the medical staff on his team protect him during those times when he'd had his bell rung and couldn't make rational decisions for himself.
_________________
| MrDrew wrote: | | Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keleth
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2587
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This article has Urlacher saying he would lie even if he knew he had a concussion to stay on the field.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/story/_/id/7497340/chicago-bears-brian-urlacher-gets-shots-lie-stay-field
Seriously what is the NFL actually supposed to do when they come out with stuff like that.
Would people be happy with a lifetime ban for him.If the NFL are to be held responsible for injuries in that respect then should they let players with that attitude play ?
Have independent doctors on the sideline who make the call on who plays and who doesn't play and can stop play and pull a player off when they say so ?
That idea is so open to a ton of problems.
How are the NFL going to stop it happening if the player denies having any ill effects ?
Kyle Turley actually makes the point that his suit is about the lack of care after the injury which is a whole different problem.
But honestly as someone who loved watching Dorsett this article says to me he is either incredibly dumb or he is after a fast buck.
Plus when Dorsett was playing nowhere near as much was known about concussion as is now and the way he was treated with the light in the eye and the questions was pretty standard practice.Let's face it that was what they'd do with boxers who had taken a real bad beating before letting them box on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
growdaddy21
Joined: 06 Jan 2011
Posts: 84
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | This reminds me of the people who sued cigarette companies after getting lung cancer . . .
whodathunk that slamming your 2-400lb bodies full speed against others for 60 minutes a week was going to cause physical issues down the road? |
That's actually not an unfair analogy, but you're pointing the wrong way with it. The questions coming up now are about how long the NFL knew about the dangers of head trauma before the organization started doing anything about it, including informing the players of it.
Additionally, the story highlighted in the OP demonstrates why the "You chose to play the game!" idea doesn't necessarily pass muster. The guy was knocked absolutely silly - he likely didn't have the capacity at that time to make an intelligent decision about whether he should go back into the game. It's not that he played a violent sport. It's that he suffered a head injury, then was placed back into a position immediately afterwards with an increased risk of subsequent (and lasting) injury.
And players then weren't making the same types of sums as they are now (or even were about a decade later), so the "millions of dollars" argument is much less relevant as well. |
I didnt make any reference to monetary compensation off-setting physical risk. The point I am making is EVERYBODY knows repeated blows to the head and body of high-intensity is going to cause problems. Period. This whole society of litigation and fault-finding is ridiculous. Its a matter of... 'so when did you have exact science proving without a doubt what is transparently obvious to anybody with common sense' |
I was addressing more than your point with my post. Other people commented on the compensation issue.
Whether society is ultra-litigious or not is irrelevant. What you're doing is analyzing decisions people made in the 1980s using information available in the 2010s. That's unfair. If the same information regarding sustained and prolonged damage resultant from repeated concussions, etc. was available to the NFL but not made available to the players at the same time, then yes, he has a completely legitimate claim.
Additionally, if the NFL/teams were aware that players were getting knocked senseless, but putting them back into games when they were incapable, at the time the decision was to be made, of making rational decisions, then yes, he could have a completely legitimate claim.
After all, it's difficult to claim that he "got what he signed up for" if, when the prolonged damage was done, he wasn't truly cognizant of what was going on around him. Perhaps what he signed up for was to have the medical staff on his team protect him during those times when he'd had his bell rung and couldn't make rational decisions for himself. |
likewise it could be said that dorsett is doing the same thing, using info that is available now to us now to make a case for what happened in the 80s. i honestly dont think little to anything was know back then about concussions. its not like Any Given Sunday where coaches are knowingly throwing players in harms way just to get a win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 810
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | fretgod99 wrote: | | Fender wrote: | This reminds me of the people who sued cigarette companies after getting lung cancer . . .
whodathunk that slamming your 2-400lb bodies full speed against others for 60 minutes a week was going to cause physical issues down the road? |
That's actually not an unfair analogy, but you're pointing the wrong way with it. The questions coming up now are about how long the NFL knew about the dangers of head trauma before the organization started doing anything about it, including informing the players of it.
Additionally, the story highlighted in the OP demonstrates why the "You chose to play the game!" idea doesn't necessarily pass muster. The guy was knocked absolutely silly - he likely didn't have the capacity at that time to make an intelligent decision about whether he should go back into the game. It's not that he played a violent sport. It's that he suffered a head injury, then was placed back into a position immediately afterwards with an increased risk of subsequent (and lasting) injury.
And players then weren't making the same types of sums as they are now (or even were about a decade later), so the "millions of dollars" argument is much less relevant as well. |
I didnt make any reference to monetary compensation off-setting physical risk. The point I am making is EVERYBODY knows repeated blows to the head and body of high-intensity is going to cause problems. Period. This whole society of litigation and fault-finding is ridiculous. Its a matter of... 'so when did you have exact science proving without a doubt what is transparently obvious to anybody with common sense' |
I was addressing more than your point with my post. Other people commented on the compensation issue.
Whether society is ultra-litigious or not is irrelevant. What you're doing is analyzing decisions people made in the 1980s using information available in the 2010s. That's unfair. If the same information regarding sustained and prolonged damage resultant from repeated concussions, etc. was available to the NFL but not made available to the players at the same time, then yes, he has a completely legitimate claim.
Additionally, if the NFL/teams were aware that players were getting knocked senseless, but putting them back into games when they were incapable, at the time the decision was to be made, of making rational decisions, then yes, he could have a completely legitimate claim.
After all, it's difficult to claim that he "got what he signed up for" if, when the prolonged damage was done, he wasn't truly cognizant of what was going on around him. Perhaps what he signed up for was to have the medical staff on his team protect him during those times when he'd had his bell rung and couldn't make rational decisions for himself. |
Just my opinion but I dont see it that way. I dont care if the NFL knew that concussions were bad for your health in 1980... why? Because we all did, including the players. Tony Dorsett knew getting banged in the head was bad for him, yes even back then. And im sorry but Im going to call BS on the 'right state of mind' crap; Tony Dorsett - armed with the knowledge that he could be doing more damage to his health - would never voluntarily take himself out of the game - if you believe so you've never played competitive team sports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keleth
Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 2587
Location: Restaurant at the end of the universe
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Fender wrote: | | I dont care if the NFL knew that concussions were bad for your health in 1980... why? Because we all did, including the players. |
We knew concussions were bad but we didn't know how bad and also didn't know how easy they were to get and more importantly so little was know about them not much was known about treating them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fender
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 810
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Keleth wrote: | | Fender wrote: | | I dont care if the NFL knew that concussions were bad for your health in 1980... why? Because we all did, including the players. |
We knew concussions were bad but we didn't know how bad and also didn't know how easy they were to get and more importantly so little was know about them not much was known about treating them. |
All true. But again... it doesnt matter to the players. Only to the FORMER players who are now suffering the consequences of having played in the NFL... even your article about Urlacher supports that.
Im not claiming my position is lawfully legit, or even morally acceptable - its based purely based on looking after yourself, making your own decisions, and then dealing with the consequences. Dorsett is pulling sour grapes now... probably because he didnt make 100 million, and possibly because he regrets the condition his body is in now.
If you want to get real about it... blame pop-warner and high-school football. Because thats where most of the brain damage likely occurs. No $ in suing your parents though unfortunately... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
broncos67
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 18068
Location: Capitol Cit-ay
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Sorry, you choose to play a violent contact sport. That's why the players are compensated very handsomely to do it. Should've taken a different path if you didn't want this outcome. Harsh, but true.
_________________
Thanks, Tzimisce |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
