PFT: NFL approves Injury Reserve Exemption

[WoodysGirl]

NFL owners approve moving trade deadline, allowing IR exemption

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 22, 2012, 5:56 PM EDT

The NFL owners voted today to approve moving the trade deadline back two weeks and tweaking the injured reserve rule, two changes that will be implemented for the 2012 season if the league and the union can agree on the details.

The change to the injured reserve rule would allow each team to put one player on injured reserve for only part of the season, rather than making every player’s season come to an end if he’s placed on injured reserve. Under the revised rule, a player who is on the roster for Week One and then gets hurt during the season can be placed on injured reserve and designated for return, and then can return to practice six weeks later and play in a game eight weeks later.

It’s unknown whether the union will have any objections to either proposal.

Read more: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-moving-trade-deadline-allowing-ir-exemption/

 

[5Stars]

That would be good for Jenkins problem.

 

[xwalker]

I like both changes.

The change to the IR rule is almost like adding an additional roster spot for that period of time.

I was dissappointed that they didn't increase the 53 man roster during the new CBA. This is like making it 53-1/2.

 

[THUMPER]

I like both changes.

The change to the IR rule is almost like adding an additional roster spot for that period of time.

I was dissappointed that they didn't increase the 53 man roster during the new CBA. This is like making it 53-1/2.

The roster should be increased to 60 with 53 active on game day instead of 45.

 

[AdamJT13]

The roster should be increased to 60 with 53 active on game day instead of 45.

The players wouldn't agree to that, because it would mean less money per player.

 

[AbeBeta]

That would be good for Jenkins problem.

not really. Jenkins should be ready week 1 or 2

you save this in case a guy like a starting OL player tears an MCL or something and needs 6-10 weeks to recover. You don't waste it on someone who may miss a game or two at worst

 

[AbeBeta]

The roster should be increased to 60 with 53 active on game day instead of 45.

You do that and you primarily make jobs for specialists.

You'd have two kickers on every team. Guys who did nothing but cover punts. A slew of guys who are there to take a few snaps in the wildcat but do nothing else.

The idea that more spots are just going to translate to places for injured players is silly. If a team have 45 actives and 7 inactives is going to use those 45 active players and stash injured guys on the inactive list. A team with 53 active players is going to use those 53 guys and stash the injured on the inactive list. Teams will use every active slot they can. It is ridiculous to think otherwise

 

[burmafrd]

The players wouldn't agree to that, because it would mean less money per player.

wow and here the media was claiming it was the owners that did not want to increase the roster

 

[xwalker]

not really. Jenkins should be ready week 1 or 2

you save this in case a guy like a starting OL player tears an MCL or something and needs 6-10 weeks to recover. You don't waste it on someone who may miss a game or two at worst

Jenkins could go on the PUP list is he does not participate in training camp due to injury.

 

[Longboysfan]

The players wouldn't agree to that, because it would mean less money per player.

But CAP only covering first 53 should help having 7 more at minimum.
They get 7 more votes and payers into the Union.

 

[AbeBeta]

Jenkins could go on the PUP list is he does not participate in training camp due to injury.

That would put him out until week 8

This rule would be more for guys who get hurt in the pre-season or TC

 

[AbeBeta]

wow and here the media was claiming it was the owners that did not want to increase the roster

That isn't really accurate.

The players would accept an expanded roster if the cap was expanded to accommodate another 7 players. Pretty much all the negotiations for the CBA assume the current roster size remains the same.

The owners would want an expanded roster that they didn't have to pay for.

 

[AbeBeta]

But CAP only covering first 53 should help having 7 more at minimum.
They get 7 more votes and payers into the Union.

The owners don't care about the cap issue here -- they care that those 7 players are going to cost them several million dollars out of pocket

Perhaps Adam can speak to what the true out of pocket cost is for a minimum salary player -- I expect that the expenses associated with each player would push the true out of pocket cost to at least 750k per additional player when you take salary and other expenses into consideration. Additionally, those 7 guys make 7 more guys who could go on IR, freeing up a spot and requiring an additional minimum salary player's signing.