The Cowboys retained rights to Ryan Williams?

[xwalker]

We're talking about Williams being on the IR and not coming back from an injury settlement. People on the IR can't come back unless they are designated for return by the end of the day they are put on IR. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IR. Williams was on IR, SO HE CAN'T COME BACK THIS YEAR BECAUSE HE WASN'T DESIGNATED TO RETURN. There is no issue regarding him not TAKING AN INJURY SETTLEMENT because that isn't relevant for him since it didn't happen and it was not the topic to start with and what I addressed. You're speaking in hypotheticals and while that is fine we have been debating returning from IR not what ifs about injury settlements.

So to talk about injury settlements. Yes, there is what you're talking about with an injury settlement for a non-major injury. If the team decides the player has a nonmajor injury that will result in not being able to play for say three weeks (less than 7 which is major) the player and club have a five day window to reach an agreement as to the number of weeks of compensation. If they agree in time then the player is released with the settlement. Most will have to pass thru waivers but the player is not automatically returned to the team for IR BECAUSE they are not waived injured (a get around the system move). If they don't sign with another team then rules apply as to how quickly they can be resigned to the parent club.

There is NO rule that precludes injury settlements for major injuries but that gets more sticky and much of the time teams end up having to put them on IR due to the weeks of compensation and the difficulty negotiating with the player and agent; but not always. So as a practical matter they are generally viewed as a separate issue but only because of compensation and the difficulties and time constraints. The league does review all this and these transactions have to be above board.

Finally, you can't force a player to take an injury settlement and in his case I could easily prove thru a second opinion it would take until next year for the player to recuperate from the aggravation of his preexisting injury. So my educated guess is they could not and likely did not want to give him an injury settlement because they want him back. That's a good choice on their part IMO.

Now since the latter part which addresses just injury settlements is something we agree on then can we end the debate on good terms?

No, there is still the issue of players going on IR for minor injuries until they are healthy and then being released. It is possible that situation could be covered by the same rule as the injury settlement. They are free to sign with another team just like they are if they receive an injury settlement.

If you have a link showing that players with minor injuries that go to IR and are then released, don't fit the same rule as the players that received an injury settlement, then give me the link.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/what-is-an-injury-settlement/
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/what-is-an-injury-settlement/
Injury settlements can also give a team a chance at getting a player back during that same season. There is a rule in place that the team (agreeing to a settlement) can’t resign that player until a minimum of six weeks passes following the amount of weeks of the initial settlement. So for our MCL example, the team cannot resign that player for the first eleven weeks. For a player who did a three week/3 game settlement, his team can’t sign him back until after week nine. However, the player is free to sign with another team.

 

[Nightman]

No, there is still the issue of players going on IR for minor injuries until they are healthy and then being released. It is possible that situation could be covered by the same rule as the injury settlement. They are free to sign with another team just like they are if they receive an injury settlement.

If you have a link showing that players with minor injuries that go to IR and are then released, don't fit the same rule as the players that received an injury settlement, then give me the link.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/what-is-an-injury-settlement/
Injury settlements can also give a team a chance at getting a player back during that same season. There is a rule in place that the team (agreeing to a settlement) can’t resign that player until a minimum of six weeks passes following the amount of weeks of the initial settlement. So for our MCL example, the team cannot resign that player for the first eleven weeks. For a player who did a three week/3 game settlement, his team can’t sign him back until after week nine. However, the player is free to sign with another team.

If a player, like Carr for example, was on the IR waived list and they couldn't reach an injury settlement, would his salary guarantee after Week One like other players. Could they release him when healthy after Week 3 and not be responsible for the rest of his salary?

 

[chagus]

Man, I just wanna watch some football.

 

[jobberone]

If a player is put on the IR then there is only one ******* way they are coming back. It's real simple. That is if they are designated to return from the IR. It used to be until 2012 NO ONE came back. It appears you very confused and/or are incapable of understanding that very simple statement which is unambiguous. But in this regards you can just stay confused. I'm thru with your obstinance.

I suggest you read the damn rules.

 

[xwalker]

If a player, like Carr for example, was on the IR waived list and they couldn't reach an injury settlement, would his salary guarantee after Week One like other players. Could they release him when healthy after Week 3 and not be responsible for the rest of his salary?

Ratliff's full base salary did not guarantee when he was on IR to start the season. Nate Livings was released when healthy after initially being on IR.

 

[jobberone]

For those who can read and are inclined to know here is the section of the rule change beginning Aug 30, 2012. Forget about the dates and the 75 man roster for 2013 and beyond. So for clarification to those who wish it:

Since this rule is being adopted after the cutdown to 75 players, for 2012 only, the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to a transition procedure that permits clubs to return to their 53-player active list one player placed on Reserve/Injured since the start of preseason training camp. This selection of that player must be made no later than 9 p.m. ET tomorrow [today], Friday, August 31.

Following the cutdown to 53 players, the new Reserve/Injured rule will work as follows:

1. Only players with a "major injury" who are placed on Reserve/Injured after 4 p.m., New York time, on Tuesday, September 4, or thereafter during the season, will be eligible to be reactivated at a later time.

2. A "major injury" is defined as an injury that renders the player unable to practice or play football for at least six weeks (42 calendar days) from the date of injury.

3. Each team may reactivate only one player placed on Reserve/Injured after 4 p.m., New York time, on Tuesday, September 4. That player must be "designated for return" at the time the club places him on Reserve/Injured, and such designation shall appear on that day's Personnel Notice.

4. Such player is eligible to return to practice if he has been on Reserve/Injured for at least six weeks from the date he is placed on Reserve. He is eligible to return to the Active List if he has been on Reserve/Injured for at least eight weeks from the date he is placed on Reserve.

I had already posted these but there has been a lot of confusion created by conflating returning to the roster after being on IR and those returned who are not placed on IR but get an injury settlement first.

The major injury part applies only to that player placed on the designated to return IR list. It does not apply to any other player.

/fini