This could ruin the game forever

[CowboyGil]

What the NFL is doing is called CYA. If they don't make every effort, then more lawsuits will follow. Then ticket prices will go up, parking will go up, concessions and fan gear. Then we'll be complaining that the NFL is sticking to us for it's own irresponsibility. I really don't think it'll destroy the game. Above all else, these guys are human.

 

[Tabascocat]

And, as I keep pointing out to you -- as I know a bit more about the law than you -- personal choice by an employee doesn't necessarily absolve an employer (like the NFL) from taking new potential risks into account and attempting to deal with them. So the NFL has legal issues (aside from any moral ones) that it must deal with.

I have no idea if injury-sensing helmets will work as intended. But potential brain injury -- more so than injuries to joints or muscles -- presents serious quality of life issues, and the NFL is right to take whatever steps might protect players from those type of injuries. And fans who whine about their enjoyment of a violent sport being impaired because of extra steps taken to protect players should - in my personal opinion -- be ashamed of themselves.

Not going to argue anymore. We clearly are arguing over different things. I have stated that they need to protect against these types of injuries but to a certain extent. Otherwise; this game as we know it will be something totally different. There will always be another potentially dangerous side-effect from this sport. Maybe the NFL should just write-in clauses from now on and let the players themselves decide if they want to play or not.

An example

I am a certified DiveMaster and close to an instructor. I love diving and do it often. Awhile back, I had the opportunity to become a DeepSea welder. Now, I know that is lucrative, dangerous work but it can't be healthy. We are not made to go down hundreds of feet for extended periods of time. Not getting into blood gases, atmospheric pressure and the like, I used my common sense and decided not to take the risks of that career. It may or may not be safer than an NFL player, but I thought it was too dangerous so I passed.

There has been insufficient research done on the effects of deep diving and I knew this. If I accepted the job, then I would have held only myself accountable for future repercussions.

 

[coult44]

yet the problem is that it is the old fashioned football guys who are suing

I don't like these extra safety measures but given the league now knows about concussion issues, if it does not take more steps, it will really gets burned, even though I agree with you that there is a voluntary assumption of risk by players.

I can see it now, fry cooks suing for having lifelong a be issues. Walmart cashiers suing for led poisoning for years of handelimg china made products with led paint. Streetworkers suing the Feds because they got skin cancer for working all day in the sun. Florists suing for lifelong allergy problems. Waitresses suing for carpel tunnel. Doctors suing for stress patients cause them. Chuck e cheese guy suing for getting kicked in the shins took my times. This is stupid!!! these idiots chose to play football. the reason they don't have degrees is because they were too dumb to be accepted into a college in the first place.There are kids on my sons NCAA baseball team who he said can't pass basic math. He tells me about one star 1st baseman who will be drafted in the first round this year that can hardly read. Yet he gets a D1 scholarship because he can hit 400 ft. home runs. Most of these guys have no business even being accepted into these universities. If they can't manage 400k a year for a few years, and finish their careers without a couple of million in the bank, then why should anyone feel sorry for them?

 

[Gadfly22]

Not going to argue anymore. We clearly are arguing over different things. I have stated that they need to protect against these types of injuries but to a certain extent. Otherwise; this game as we know it will be something totally different. There will always be another potentially dangerous side-effect from this sport. Maybe the NFL should just write-in clauses from now on and let the players themselves decide if they want to play or not.

An example

I am a certified DiveMaster and close to an instructor. I love diving and do it often. Awhile back, I had the opportunity to become a DeepSea welder. Now, I know that is lucrative, dangerous work but it can't be healthy. We are not made to go down hundreds of feet for extended periods of time. Not getting into blood gases, atmospheric pressure and the like, I used my common sense and decided not to take the risks of that career. It may or may not be safer than an NFL player, but I thought it was too dangerous so I passed.

There has been insufficient research done on the effects of deep diving and I knew this. If I accepted the job, then I would have held only myself accountable for future repercussions.

Well, if you've been watching football as long as I have (and maybe you have), you'll realize the game has changed and keeps changing over the years. Goalposts used to be 10 yard closer, which made field goals much easier. Too easy, so they changed the game.

There used to be a position called "fullback", and he carried the ball quite a bit out of the pro set. Pretty much extinct. That's the game changing itself, which happens -- though I'd say rule changes that promoted passing over running accelerated the process.

Players who made a TD might spike the ball. But they didn't do a little dance after every decent play. The game changes.

And your example about deep-sea welding makes my point. You are -- I presume -- in control of your equipment and the other circumstances of any dive and recognize that, even with that level of control, the inherent risks that you know about convinced you that the risk was not worth the reward. And the activity is similar to regular diving, but with special and recognizably more dangerous circumstances.

A football player who makes it to the NFL has no such control over equipment or working conditions. The risks APPEAR to be manageable, since it's very much like what he's been doing since Pee Wee League. In fact, the risks don't appear to be greater than those he is used to. And the reward appears to be enormous relative to those apparent risks. But more and very serious risks are emerging that need to be dealt with or at least recognized -- and perhaps can be minimized without great violence to the rules of the current game. That's why I'm in favor of any steps that minimize those serious risks.

 

[Gadfly22]

I can see it now, fry cooks suing for having lifelong a be issues. Walmart cashiers suing for led poisoning for years of handelimg china made products with led paint. Streetworkers suing the Feds because they got skin cancer for working all day in the sun. Florists suing for lifelong allergy problems. Waitresses suing for carpel tunnel. Doctors suing for stress patients cause them. Chuck e cheese guy suing for getting kicked in the shins took my times. This is stupid!!! these idiots chose to play football. the reason they don't have degrees is because they were too dumb to be accepted into a college in the first place.There are kids on my sons NCAA baseball team who he said can't pass basic math. He tells me about one star 1st baseman who will be drafted in the first round this year that can hardly read. Yet he gets a D1 scholarship because he can hit 400 ft. home runs. Most of these guys have no business even being accepted into these universities. If they can't manage 400k a year for a few years, and finish their careers without a couple of million in the bank, then why should anyone feel sorry for them?

Let's look at the numbers. Say you make $400,000 per year and manage to stay in the league 4 years. We'll look at year #1. Taxes will take about 40% of your salary (you're subject to state income tax in every state you play that year, though the total isn't cumulative). So you're down to $240,000 after taxes. Your agent/manager/CPA/lawyer takes 10% pretax, so now you're down to $200,000. You don't have enough to buy a nice house outright, but you buy one with a mortgage -- maybe you put 10% down and take a $250,000 mortgage. (You may live in a very small house if you're playing in the Northeast or California.)

So you have a nice after-tax salary for a couple years -- maybe you save 30%; call it an average of a generous $60,000 per year over your 4-year playing career. You come out of the NFL with less than $250,000 in the bank, with a mortgage and the usual expenses of life. Depending on your education and non-football skills, maybe you do OK with that kind of nest egg. Maybe not.

In short, most of the guys who churn in and out of the NFL don't leave with a huge pot of gold, no matter how frugal they are. So you might not feel sorry for them. But a whole lot of them are not the multi-millionaires that you might imagine.

 

[ohiocowboysfan25]

I want to know when the players get to be accountable for their decisions as far as choosing football as their career. The players that have gotten into college football and the NFL in the last 10yrs have no excuse as far as not knowing what damage concussions cause. I feel that there has been significant research done recently that the men getting into football should have a pretty clear idea what kind of hits they will endure depending on the position they play. I do feel bad for the players that played in the 60s, 70s, 80s and even the 90s because in the earlier years they really didn't know the damage they were causing their bodies. I feel that if the NFL does everything they can to minimize that damage then there's nothing more they should be responsible for doing. Research has come a long way that players can't claim ignorance anymore and should have some accountability to the choices they make because at some point everyone has to grow up and be adult. Just my 0.02

 

[Gadfly22]

I feel that if the NFL does everything they can to minimize that damage then there's nothing more they should be responsible for doing.

Then, if NFL-required helmet sensors will help minimize brain damage (by providing an observable measure of the force that a player's head is absorbing and so getting that player out of the game before concussion symptoms appear), you're in favor of using those sensors so players can be removed from the action? Since that kind of sensor is now within the realm of "everything they can do".

Just want to clarify, since it's that step that others have predicted as the downfall of the NFL and that I have no problem with.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well, if you've been watching football as long as I have (and maybe you have), you'll realize the game has changed and keeps changing over the years. Goalposts used to be 10 yard closer, which made field goals much easier. Too easy, so they changed the game.

There used to be a position called "fullback", and he carried the ball quite a bit out of the pro set. Pretty much extinct. That's the game changing itself, which happens -- though I'd say rule changes that promoted passing over running accelerated the process.

Players who made a TD might spike the ball. But they didn't do a little dance after every decent play. The game changes.

And your example about deep-sea welding makes my point. You are -- I presume -- in control of your equipment and the other circumstances of any dive and recognize that, even with that level of control, the inherent risks that you know about convinced you that the risk was not worth the reward. And the activity is similar to regular diving, but with special and recognizably more dangerous circumstances.

A football player who makes it to the NFL has no such control over equipment or working conditions. The risks APPEAR to be manageable, since it's very much like what he's been doing since Pee Wee League. In fact, the risks don't appear to be greater than those he is used to. And the reward appears to be enormous relative to those apparent risks. But more and very serious risks are emerging that need to be dealt with or at least recognized -- and perhaps can be minimized without great violence to the rules of the current game. That's why I'm in favor of any steps that minimize those serious risks.

If you have ever seen Larry Csonka nose that is why the goal post was moved to the back in 1974, player running into the goal post stuck at the front of the endzone,players were getting injured running into it during the plays.

 

[johnson2]

you know when your a kid playing football and your parents have to sign a waiver removing the league from all liability...

 

[Cowboys22]

You know what they could do to reduce the concussions down to zero? Disband the league. So until they do that, it can always be said that the league is not doing everything it can to limit concussions. I don't care what anyone says, they could have their lawyers draft a waiver or some other type of document that all players must sign that says the players know the risks and absolve the league of any responsibility for short and long term injuries. The reason this isn't being done in my opinion is that it could be viewed as an admission of guilt for the past and it would bring about huge negative press. It could lead to many parents viewing the game as unsafe and not letting their kids play football. That could eventually kill or seriously water down the league if the best athletes are choosing other sports at an early age.

 

[Gadfly22]

If you have ever seen Larry Csonka nose that is why the goal post was moved to the back in 1974, player running into the goal post stuck at the front of the endzone,players were getting injured running into it during the plays.

Yes definitely player safety played into the decision. But too many games were being decided by teams barely crossing the 50-yd line and kicking FGs.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/4/30/nfl-revises-rules-shifts-emphasis-from/

 

[Gadfly22]

You know what they could do to reduce the concussions down to zero? Disband the league. So until they do that, it can always be said that the league is not doing everything it can to limit concussions. I don't care what anyone says, they could have their lawyers draft a waiver or some other type of document that all players must sign that says the players know the risks and absolve the league of any responsibility for short and long term injuries. The reason this isn't being done in my opinion is that it could be viewed as an admission of guilt for the past and it would bring about huge negative press. It could lead to many parents viewing the game as unsafe and not letting their kids play football. That could eventually kill or seriously water down the league if the best athletes are choosing other sports at an early age.

Sorry, but you're just plain and simple wrong about the legal effectiveness of that kind of waiver and the assumption of unknown risks -- like concussions. Here is a good article that explains it, with this quote addressing your issue:

"Assumption of Risk
The NFL could argue that players assume the risk of all injuries inherent in professional football. Generally,participants in an athletic event are held to assume therisks of injury normally associated with the sport. However, plaintiffs must have actual knowledge of the risk at issue in order to invoke the assumption of risk doctrine. Logically, a plaintiff cannot make an intelligent choice to confront a risk if he or she lacks actual knowledge of the danger. The knowledge required in assumption of the risk analysis is actual knowledge, not constructive notice."

http://www.campbell-trial-lawyers.com/65a57f/assets/files/news/nyspa (kain).pdf

The issue isn't the ability of NFL players to sue for knee injuries, for example. That's a known assumed risk. The issue with concussions is the research that's been emerging that constitutes an unknown danger of increased risk of dementia or Alzheimer's not disclosed to players. With studies coming out from 2005 onward linking concussions to cognitive decline in later life, the NFL is at some possible legal risk and has to think about how to deal with that risk.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

http://canadian-lawyers.ca/Understa...al-Injury/Recreational-Liability-Waivers.html

I think you may not know as much Canadian law as you think. Take special note of the second paragraph:

"The reality is that many of the waivers proffered by organized recreational and athletic activity providers would not be enforced by Ontario courts. These courts have a history of approaching waivers with great caution."

I think you need to stop trying to score points when you do not know what you are talking about.

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2012/chylb284.htm

I wrote up here, that is British Columbia, where such waivers have been found to be complete defences.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I can see it now, fry cooks suing for having lifelong a be issues. Walmart cashiers suing for led poisoning for years of handelimg china made products with led paint. Streetworkers suing the Feds because they got skin cancer for working all day in the sun. Florists suing for lifelong allergy problems. Waitresses suing for carpel tunnel. Doctors suing for stress patients cause them. Chuck e cheese guy suing for getting kicked in the shins took my times. This is stupid!!! these idiots chose to play football. the reason they don't have degrees is because they were too dumb to be accepted into a college in the first place.There are kids on my sons NCAA baseball team who he said can't pass basic math. He tells me about one star 1st baseman who will be drafted in the first round this year that can hardly read. Yet he gets a D1 scholarship because he can hit 400 ft. home runs. Most of these guys have no business even being accepted into these universities. If they can't manage 400k a year for a few years, and finish their careers without a couple of million in the bank, then why should anyone feel sorry for them?

a few years of 400k and you expect them to have a couple of million on the bank? are you nuts?

Assuming you have to pay 1/3 in tax, plus a portion into pension, then there are living expensives etc

Even if you are the cheapest most miserly person on the planet, you would be lucky to save 100000 in a year.

 

[sbark]

but then on the other hand, caught wind of Off. Coordinators that want to take advantage via schemes with the Def players avoiding fines on hits going over the middle on possible helmet to helmet and big hits.........it could be opening up the game more for offenses is bottom line.

 

[Gadfly22]

I think you need to stop trying to score points when you do not know what you are talking about.

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/2012/chylb284.htm

I wrote up here, that is British Columbia, where such waivers have been found to be complete defences.

Sorry, but I know very well what I'm talking about. Waivers get a very close look by courts. And if you read the article you cited, you'd see the following:

"However, it is important to note that this is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and is therefore influential, but not binding outside of that province. Secondly, this decision illustrates the importance of ensuring that a liability waiver is properly drafted and executed. The liability waiver was found to be enforceable by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal because it was clear, drew attention to the impact of the waiver in terms of liability of the service-provider, and gave the plaintiffs the opportunity to read and understand its terms. It is also noteworthy that the Court considered the plaintiffs’ capacity to understand the waiver. Where these conditions are not present, a liability waiver will be less likely to be legally enforceable if challenged."

You originally had written:

"Up here waivers are completely valid and are often complete defences to the claims."

Well, as you would have seen if you read what you cited, waivers are often NOT completely valid or complete defenses. And the Ontario cases that were cited in the link I posted made that clear -- as does the conclusion to the article you cited. Waivers work, but they're not a magic bullet that can erase liability in all circumstances. Certain conditions have to apply and be carefully met. None of which would work in the NFL context that posters have been talking about in the simplistic fashion that you suggested.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

"Often complete defences". Don't argue with me, I know what I am talking about. You were shown to be wrong, accept it and move on.

 

[Gadfly22]

"Often complete defences". Don't argue with me, I know what I am talking about. You were shown to be wrong, accept it and move on.

Oh, I see. You're one of those people who like to insist that they're right, even when they have been shown to be wrong. You post a single-line blanket statement that you think solves the problem an elucidates the great divide between US law and Canadian law on waivers -- and then find out that the approach is actually very much the same, with waivers being respected in certain circumstances in both jurisdictions. Just not in the more complicated NFL-related circumstances actually being discussed and which you piped in on.

And I will argue with you. It's what I do. For a living.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

As a Canadian, I suggest you put more time into the study of American Society before you come to such a broad conclusion.

If you do this, I suspect it might serve you well.

I think he is quite correct.

 

[cowboys1981]

Just switch a key player's helmet who is a little dinged with the punters. Haha. Only a joke...