PDA

View Full Version : NFL OWNERS VOTE TO APPROVE KNEE/THIGH PADS, IR CHANGE AND TRADE DEADLINE



RoanokeFan
05-22-2012, 06:15 PM
NFL OWNERS VOTE TO APPROVE KNEE/THIGH PADS, IR CHANGE AND TRADE DEADLINE (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19123861/nfl-owners-vote-to-approve-kneethigh-pads-ir-change-and-trade-deadline-extension)

"On Monday <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19113771/nfl-owners-could-vote-to-mandate-thigh-knee-pads">we
discussed the possibility of NFL owners voting</a> to approve mandatory knee and
thigh pads for the 2013 season, and on Tuesday, the NFL owners did just that,
approving the requirement of such padding beginning in 2013.



NFL owners
also voted to extend the trade deadline and to make a change to the
injured-reserve policy.

The change in pads policy is something that
could be met with mixed feelings from the players and could ultimately be
challenged by the NFLPA. Indeed, the union issued a statement on Tuesday that
indicates they're not thrilled with the change.

"Any change in working
conditions is a collectively-bargained issue," said the union in a statement.
"While the NFL is focused on one element of health and safety today, the NFLPA
believes that health and safety requires a comprehensive approach and
commitment. We are engaged in and monitor many different issues, such as
players' access to medical records, prescription usage and the situation with
professional football's first responders, NFL referees. We always look forward
to meeting with the NFL to discuss any and all matters related to player health
and safety."

Though the pads are designed to improve player safety and
minimize leg injuries, most players believe they slow them down and look silly.
The union's decision to classify the mandatory pads as a "change in working
conditions" is a clever one, and could potentially railroad the NFL's move. Of
course, there's a reason why the league waited until 2013 to institute the pad
rule -- you're seeing it right now.

The trade deadline and IR proposals
aren't locked in quite yet, however, though both are likely to be
passed.

The trade deadline proposal would move the trade deadline from
Week 6 to Week 8 and, frankly, it's just too logical not to happen. The NFL
trade deadline is the most boring of all the major sports because teams aren't
as sure about their season's status by Week 6. (I'd move it back even further.)


And the injured-reserve change essentially would allow teams to place a
"marquee" player on IR and move him back to the active roster after the eighth
week of the season. Example: Terrell Suggs suffers an Achilles tear in the
offseason but plans on returning at some point later in the year. The Ravens
could put him on IR prior to the season but return him to the active roster
after the eighth week of the season, giving them substantially greater roster
flexibility with a star player, without losing him for the year."
</p>

RoanokeFan
05-22-2012, 06:16 PM
Interesting change to the IR rules. What determines a "marquee player"?

Strahan4gov
05-22-2012, 06:23 PM
Interesting change to the IR rules.* What determines a "marquee player"?


The way I read that was the marquee bit was just an example as to how the change would be the most effective, i'm assuming it's any player but in his example a marquee player would certainly have the most impact and display the changes improvements the best.

hungrrrry
05-22-2012, 06:26 PM
Interesting change to the IR rules.* What determines a "marquee player"?
Exactamundo!!! So this will be a judgement call??? That is crap...I like a change in this manner without the marquee label which is bull****!!! They should be able to IR them for a possible return prior to say week 4 ...across the board!
Edit: the injury would need to occur prior to week 4...to be clear...hope it was....over and out!

slipknottin
05-22-2012, 06:28 PM
PFT reported the IR rule differently.

"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."

So a "marquee" player would therefore be a player who is on the final roster.

In Suggs case the Ravens would have to make other cuts and keep him on the active roster, until after they play their first regular season game, then they could put him on the limited IR. However, since Suggs was hurt before the season, they would not be able to place him on limited IR at all.

If the rule is actually defined this way, players who suffer substantial injuries in training camp or preseason must go on the regular season ending IR.

hungrrrry
05-22-2012, 06:44 PM
PFT reported the IR rule differently.

"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."

So a "marquee" player would therefore be a player who is on the final roster.

In Suggs case the Ravens would have to make other cuts and keep him on the active roster, until after they play their first regular season game, then they could put him on the limited IR. However, since Suggs was hurt before the season, they would not be able to place him on limited IR at all.

If the rule is actually defined this way, players who suffer substantial injuries in training camp or preseason must go on the regular season ending IR.I dont like the label "marquee" but with it being "a member of the 53-man roster at the season's start" then I don't mind that...but I don't like it being only one guy that can benefit from that.

slipknottin
05-22-2012, 06:48 PM
"a member of the 53-man roster at the season's start" then I don't mind that...but I don't like it being only one guy that can benefit from that.

Except if its a situation where Osi got hurt in preseason, then he is forced to go on season ending IR anyway. And this IR doesnt help at all in that scenario.

BlueBlitzer
05-22-2012, 08:31 PM
They should not of fixed what wasn't broken. 3 players could go on IR and all three could come back if healed . they should have never changed it.

miked1958
05-22-2012, 09:36 PM
I like the IR rule. It could of helped us in past injury plagued seasons

miked1958
05-22-2012, 09:38 PM
I agree that the trade deadline should be moved back even further then week 8. Should be at least week 10

rEaS
05-23-2012, 01:47 AM
If the rule is actually defined this way, players who suffer substantial injuries in training camp or preseason must go on the regular season ending IR.

I wonder if this will keep players and teams from actually announcing major injury to one of their players until after game 1. I mean, if we lose an important player in preseason.. we can just say he's fine and not in because tom doesn't want him to play.. dress him up for game 1.. not play him a single minute.. and after the game announce he had a gruesome injury warming up or something like that..

That way we can have him back at some point in the season.. I'm thinking this should be definitely monitored in some sort of way that players/coaches can't take unfair advantage of it..

rEaS
05-23-2012, 01:51 AM
Oh and I have a real question.. why is everyone happy that they are moving the trade deadline back.. by week 8.. some teams know their season is over.. if your 2-6, 3-5 at that moment.. chances are you won't make it.. don't even mention 1-7 or 0-8.. so teams that are 'dead' will have more motivation (and players will be more motivated to leave the losing team) to get trades in place with teams that are 'alive'... why would this be fair/good? Seems that a dead team wouldn't really care much about trading a certain player if they know their season is all but over.. which just messes up the whole trade system..

TrueBlue@NYC
05-23-2012, 12:17 PM
I think they should have simply allowed a team to designate one player on their PUP list a two week extension.

You already have the PUP list to serve the purpose of keeping a player open to return without eating up a roster spot. Why not simply add a wrinkle to that instead of putting in some vague, hard to understand IR rule?

I don't see the difference.

BlueSanta
05-23-2012, 01:39 PM
They should not of fixed what wasn't broken. 3 players could go on IR and all three could come back if healed . they should have never changed it.

Huh?

That has never been the case with IR. If you are put on the IR, your season is over and you cannot come back.