Did the Stealers just save the Seahawks' bacon?

[Seymour]

........Pete also says he had the same injury Wilson did. So why was Wilson on the injury report and Sherman not? Tomlin again didn't infer anything as damning as that either.

Neither Carroll or Tomlin are doctors, so their exact terms or verbiage will be less of a problem than the actual evidence of the injury itself. IMO Carroll exaggerated the injury toward the worse side, and Tomlin minimized it toward the lighter side, but it should boil down to the actual injury which should help us.
I now think we get by with a small fine possibly but no draft choice reduction. I'm hoping at least.

 

[DJrmb]

Is Sherman taking part in the Pro Bowl? If so, how does a significant injury to the MCL allow him to do that?

Yes, he is playing. He even spoke out that a draft pick was going too far and the Seahawks basically get screwed on minor infractions. Him playing should help our case hopefully.

This^ If he had a significant injury to his MCL, then how would he have played in all of those games without a brace, and now be able to play in the Pro Bowl?

PC said it was like RWs injury, and he had a brace on so......

In 2014 Larry Fitzgerald had a grade 2 tear, and played through it without a brace. It's is not uncommon.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...roundup-fitzgerald-to-play-through-mcl-sprain

Joe Flacco played through an MCL sprain this year as well..... It has nothing to do with playing or not, as a lot of players seem to play through MCL sprains.

Trying to relate Pete's comments to Tomlin's isn't going to save the Seahawks bacon either. Lets look at Tomlin's statement

“I was aware of it. It wasn’t significant to the point where it affected planning or the anticipation of planning in any way. It’s unfortunate that it became an issue in game.” - Tomlin

"You don't know that he dealt with a significant knee the whole second half of the season and it was stressful for him to try to get out there"- Pete

Tomlin states it wasn't significant. Pete Carrol states it was significant. There is your first hurdle and in combination with the wording of the rule. How do you overcome it since it has Pete's exact wording in the rules themselves? How do you say those two are equal statements?

Tomlin also says it didn't affect planning, or the anticipation of planning in anyways. Pete Carroll said it was stressful for Sherman to get out there. That is a world of difference. Lets look a little further.....

"I'm feeling like I screwed that up with not telling you that" - Pete
"I didn't realize we hadn't even revealed it" A 2nd telling statement, and admission

There are some huge differences there. These two instances are not alike. I'm not downplaying the injuries, I am sure Bell's injury was likely just as significant. But the difference in the wording can't be overlooked. The disparity is huge, one admitted guilt, and really dug a huge hole. The other simply said it wasnt a significant injury, and didn't even change planning.
Tomlin did not say anything like that.....

You conveniently dropped off the question raised about playing in the Pro Bowl. Bell is not playing in the Pro Bowl this year. Fitzgerald did not play in the Pro Bowl after he played through the tear you mentioned in the 2014 season. Why would Richard Sherman risk playing on any sort of severe injury in a meaningless game when no one else does? Maybe because the injury was not all that severe?

I hear what you're saying about Pete's words VS. Tomlin's and yeah that looks bad side by side. Tomlin did have the advantage of seeing Pete get jumped all over for this, which allowed him to prepare to not say anything damning when Bell's injury came out. Do you punish someone based on what they said/claimed or do you punish them based on what really happened? Tomlin could be lying about their situation completely (which the evidence points towards since Bell missed more time and isn't playing in the Pro Bowl) but he should be punished less than Pete because he "Said the right thing"? Of course not.

The punishment is for the act itself, not for what they said after the fact. The NFL needs to judge first if either the Seahawks or the Steelers were purposely trying to circumvent the rules for an advantage, they need to determinant intent. Then they need to decide whether the injuries were significant enough that they should have been reported or if they were just the normal bumps and lumps that players get throughout the year but play through because if they weren't significant enough that they needed to be reported then no rules were broken, no matter what any coach or anyone else said or didn't say...

Anyone that follows Pete Carroll's press conferences when he's talking about injured players will tell you that he's all over the board with what he says about them. There is a very real possibility that Pete was trying to talk up Sherman's injury to save face for Sherman not realizing that at the same time he was accidentally claiming to have done something against the rules. I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm saying it's a possibility and not outside of his character either. Pete consistently overplays and underplays injuries to the media to the point that it's become a sort of game to figure out how long players will really be out.

So long story short, simply using the two coaches words to damn them is not a good argument for whether or not they should/will be punished and how harsh the punishment should be.

 

[Seymour]

I will laugh like hell if the Patriots lose their game, then we get by with no draft choice loss. The Patriot fans will go absolutely crazy! This would be the perfect storm in a crappy seasons ending.

 

[253hawk]

The NFL didn't punish the Colts last season after they failed to report Luck's broken ribs for 5 weeks. Funny they made that announcement the morning of the SB, so it was completely missed in all of the gameday hype.

 

[Bobblehead]

We will be penalized.

The difference between us and the Steelers is the Steelers called it a Non football related problem, without any significance.. which is the key word, since Pete called Sherman's injury significant and the Hawks documented it as a MRI instead of a Non football related injury as the Steelers did.

It was a technical issue how each team documented it, should have said the flu and not spoke of it again and it would have been alright.

I guess I don't know what MRI means? What if he had an MRI and it didn't reveal any structural damage? It was just sore. Is that in violation of disclosure rules?

Magnetic resonance imaging

Not exactly sure the full use of it, but they use it to check the integrity of bone, cartilage structures, more precisely probably to check if there is some sort of anomaly with the structure. Apparently it would be considered football related, where as the Steelers used the flu as an excuse which is not football related.

 

[themunn]

Magnetic resonance imaging

Not exactly sure the full use of it, but they use it to check the integrity of bone, cartilage structures, more precisely probably to check if there is some sort of anomaly with the structure. Apparently it would be considered football related, where as the Steelers used the flu as an excuse which is not football related.

But an MRI is just a diagnostic tool - Sherman could have had an MRI every day for a year but that doesn't mean squat other than they're checking for injuries?

 

[ivotuk]

"Obviously something I can't really get into, but we feel like we didn't do anything that was out of the norm or trying to avoid any rules by any stretch of the imagination," Schneider said.


The rule in question states, "If any player has a significant or noteworthy injury, it must be listed on the practice report, even if he fully participates in practice and the team expects that he will play in the team's next game."



If the league decides the Seahawks should lose their second-round pick, it would be an elevation of the previous penalty, meaning Seattle would get the fifth-round pick back, sources told ESPN's Mortensen.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1856 ... nee-injury

Notice the "IF THEY SHOULD"? Mortensen backing off a bit maybe?

 

[HawkGA]

When the heck are they going to make a decision? Enough dilly dallying already.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I'm sure it won't be until after the Super Bowl.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

We will be penalized.

The difference between us and the Steelers is the Steelers called it a Non football related problem, without any significance.. which is the key word, since Pete called Sherman's injury significant and the Hawks documented it as a MRI instead of a Non football related injury as the Steelers did.

It was a technical issue how each team documented it, should have said the flu and not spoke of it again and it would have been alright.

I guess I don't know what MRI means? What if he had an MRI and it didn't reveal any structural damage? It was just sore. Is that in violation of disclosure rules?

Magnetic resonance imaging

Not exactly sure the full use of it, but they use it to check the integrity of bone, cartilage structures, more precisely probably to check if there is some sort of anomaly with the structure. Apparently it would be considered football related, where as the Steelers used the flu as an excuse which is not football related.

An Xray will see if the bone is cracked or broken. MRI will see if there is a bulge in the material around the bone structure or if there is a tear in the connection between the bone and the muscle (tendon) or a tear break in the bone to bone connection (ligament). Sometimes it is not really apparent with the MRI too. I saw my left shoulder tendon tear as a bright light area which they say is a tear. I could not tell by the visual. When I had Sciatic nerve bulge problems, we did an MRI and I could tell there was massive bulge and it looked like a splash of water where that area was messed up. That is my interpretation that is.