PDA

View Full Version : INJURED RESERVE RULE CHANGE WOULD BE A POSITIVE STEP BY NFL



RoanokeFan
03-22-2012, 04:30 PM
INJURED RESERVE RULE CHANGE WOULD BE A POSITIVE STEP BY NFL (http://www.bigblueview.com/2012/3/22/2893947/injured-reserve-rule-change-would-be-positive-step-by-nfl)

"Of all of the proposed NFL rules changes (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/21/nfl-weighs-changes-on-overtime-defenseless-players-trade-deadline/) that came to light on Thursday the
one that caught my attention was the possible change of the rules regarding
injured reserve.<div class="entry-body">


Per Pro Football Talk the NFL Competition Committee has proposed:</p>


"Adding an injured reserve exemption so that if a player was on the roster
through the first regular season weekend, that player 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, rather than having all players on
injured reserve out for the season."</p>


I love it. If you have been around these parts for a while you know that I
have been calling for a change like this for several years now. </p>


See what I wrote on August 27 of 2010 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2010/8/27/1653607/injured-reserve-rule-needs-to). And on March 26 of 2009 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2009/3/26/811038/ir-rule-has-to-go). And on January 1 of 2009 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2009/1/1/706607/should-the-ir-rule-go-away). Yes, I have been beating this drum for a
while.</p>
<p class="extend-divide"><a name="storyjump"></a>http://cdn1.sbnation.com/images/blog/star-divide.v5e9d7f1.jpg</p>


The Injured Reserve Rule as it stands now makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Currently, the league forces teams to either hold a valuable roster spot for a
player it can't use for many weeks of the season or put a player on IR when that
player is not injured severely enough to miss an entire season and could be
useful during the second half of the season.</p>


Think about it and you can come up with a ton of examples just on the Giants (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/new-york-giants) roster in
the past few years. Why was Victor Cruz (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/109584/victor-cruz) on
IR with a hamstring injury in 2010? <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/130945/marvin-austin">Marvin
Austin</a> probably did not need to miss all of last season with his torn
pectoral muscle.</p>


It just seems to be silly to force teams to IR players they want to keep and
could use at the end of seasons when rosters are depleted, then have them
picking up players off the street -- like the Giants did with Will Blackmon (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/1925/will-blackmon)
last year -- who clearly don't belong in the league.</p>


I generally hate all the yearly tinkering the league does with its rules.
This, however, would be a long overdue change."</p></div>

MattMeyerBud
03-22-2012, 04:33 PM
i like the Bills proposing all challanges get reviewed by a boothe better

but this would still be cool too

BlueSanta
03-22-2012, 04:38 PM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.

MattMeyerBud
03-22-2012, 04:43 PM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap

Drez
03-22-2012, 05:22 PM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap
</P>


The guy would still need to be legitimately injured, though. I know the NFL investigated us placing Cruz on IR, but luckily the doctor agreed that Cruz would have missed enough games to warrant the designation.</P>

BlueSanta
03-22-2012, 05:28 PM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap


yep, it is a sticky situation. But the current system is just as destructive. There are plenty of ways they could make it a little bit better, even if it is a partial system.

hungrrrry
03-22-2012, 05:35 PM
Yep! Good rule change!

TrueBlue@NYC
03-22-2012, 06:08 PM
INJURED RESERVE RULE CHANGE WOULD BE A POSITIVE STEP BY NFL (http://www.bigblueview.com/2012/3/22/2893947/injured-reserve-rule-change-would-be-positive-step-by-nfl)

"Of all of the proposed NFL rules changes (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/21/nfl-weighs-changes-on-overtime-defenseless-players-trade-deadline/) that came to light on Thursday the one that caught my attention was the possible change of the rules regarding injured reserve.
<DIV class=entry-body>


Per Pro Football Talk the NFL Competition Committee has proposed:</P>


"Adding an injured reserve exemption so that if a player was on the roster through the first regular season weekend, that player 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, rather than having all players on injured reserve out for the season."</P>


I love it. If you have been around these parts for a while you know that I have been calling for a change like this for several years now. </P>


See what I wrote on August 27 of 2010 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2010/8/27/1653607/injured-reserve-rule-needs-to). And on March 26 of 2009 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2009/3/26/811038/ir-rule-has-to-go). And on January 1 of 2009 (http://www.bigblueview.com/2009/1/1/706607/should-the-ir-rule-go-away). Yes, I have been beating this drum for a while.</P>
<P class=extend-divide><A name=storyjump></A>http://cdn1.sbnation.com/images/blog/star-divide.v5e9d7f1.jpg</P>


The Injured Reserve Rule as it stands now makes no sense to me whatsoever. Currently, the league forces teams to either hold a valuable roster spot for a player it can't use for many weeks of the season or put a player on IR when that player is not injured severely enough to miss an entire season and could be useful during the second half of the season.</P>


Think about it and you can come up with a ton of examples just on the Giants (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/new-york-giants) roster in the past few years. Why was Victor Cruz (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/109584/victor-cruz) on IR with a hamstring injury in 2010? Marvin Austin (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/130945/marvin-austin) probably did not need to miss all of last season with his torn pectoral muscle.</P>


It just seems to be silly to force teams to IR players they want to keep and could use at the end of seasons when rosters are depleted, then have them picking up players off the street -- like the Giants did with Will Blackmon (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/1925/will-blackmon) last year -- who clearly don't belong in the league.</P>


I generally hate all the yearly tinkering the league does with its rules. This, however, would be a long overdue change."</P></DIV>



</P>


Doesn't the PUP kind of perform the same task as this rule change? Why not simply extend the PUP for another couple of weeks? </P>

KATKAVAGE75
03-22-2012, 07:58 PM
This would be great for all teams. I like it.

lawl
03-22-2012, 08:23 PM
Aka Disabled list

G-Man67
03-23-2012, 09:36 AM
i like the Bills proposing all challanges get reviewed by a boothe better

but this would still be cool too
</P>


by Kevin Boothe [;)]</P>


i like both proposed changes ... i do worry that shady teams will monkey around with the IR rule, but if a great player can make it back for the playoffs ... then it is disappointing that under the current system they hit IR and that's it</P>


and that disaster of a call vs. us in the GB game is all you have to see to realize the booth needs to do the reviews</P>

nygsb42champs
03-23-2012, 10:00 AM
I agree that this rule needs to be changed. With such a small roster you can not take ups a spot for aplyer who might miss 5 weeks but if you could IR him for those weeks and then bring him back when he is healthy instead of losing him for the whole year.

MattMeyerBud
03-23-2012, 10:06 AM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap
</p>


The guy would still need to be legitimately injured, though. I know the NFL investigated us placing Cruz on IR, but luckily the doctor agreed that Cruz would have missed enough games to warrant the designation.</p>

yea but like for instance wtih Osi, guy missed 4 weeks with a really bad sprained ankle...

where would the line be drawn?

MattMeyerBud
03-23-2012, 10:08 AM
Aka Disabled list

yea i guess thats exactly what it would be

NYGRealityCheck
03-23-2012, 06:16 PM
I agree with it. It'll certaintly be helpful to the Giants.

jomo
03-23-2012, 06:20 PM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap
</P>


The guy would still need to be legitimately injured, though. I know the NFL investigated us placing Cruz on IR, but luckily the doctor agreed that Cruz would have missed enough games to warrant the designation.</P>

yea but like for instance wtih Osi, guy missed 4 weeks with a really bad sprained ankle...

where would the line be drawn?
It would work good all around. If set up properly it would be tough to "game" and it would allow teams to stretch their salary cap since they wouldn't have to sign those mid-season vets to fill a slot created by a player who goes down for less than a full season.

Harooni
03-23-2012, 07:16 PM
i can see this being abused. put some guys on ir knowing you can get them back and you are able to hold on to more players.

if a guy can come back than why put him on IR. this is why you have 2nd and 3rd string depth.

NYGRealityCheck
03-23-2012, 07:19 PM
i can see this being abused. put some guys on ir knowing you can get them back and you are able to hold on to more players.*

if a guy can come back than why put him on IR. this is why you have 2nd and 3rd string depth.


Then they'll just set a limit on how many players a team can put away on this "NFL DL list" at one time. Maybe 2 would be a good number?

Harooni
03-23-2012, 07:49 PM
i can see this being abused. put some guys on ir knowing you can get them back and you are able to hold on to more players.

if a guy can come back than why put him on IR. this is why you have 2nd and 3rd string depth.


Then they'll just set a limit on how many players a team can put away on this "NFL DL list" at one time. Maybe 2 would be a good number?

well when i was young i seem to remember there was a time you could take guys off IR ,and teams abused this , thus the rule we now have in place.

Drez
03-24-2012, 01:18 AM
I would like to see it go even further into the cap rules regarding IR players too. It doesnt seem right that a guy's salary who is out for 16 games still counts against the cap and can prevent the team from bringing in his replacement.


that would be too hard to do becuase then all you would have to do is IR a bad contract and u don't have to have it count against the cap
</p>


The guy would still need to be legitimately injured, though. I know the NFL investigated us placing Cruz on IR, but luckily the doctor agreed that Cruz would have missed enough games to warrant the designation.</p>

yea but like for instance wtih Osi, guy missed 4 weeks with a really bad sprained ankle...

where would the line be drawn?

The line is already drawn. I can't remember the exact number of weeks, but there is a threshold for a certain number of weeks a player is expected to miss to be eligible for IR, so you can't just hide a crappy salary on IR if the guy isn't injured (or you can't find a doctor to say that he's injured).

Hell, even if they gave a cap exemption of the lesser of $1m or the player's salary for the sole purpose of signing a player to fill the injured player's roster spot (this way here, you can't use it to pay a player already on your roster). Don't ask me how the league could oversee or audit that, lol, but it works in theory... Or at least in my head.