Concussion Protocol abject failure

mrt144 · Sep 8, 2016

Dwindling seconds of the 1st game of the season, Newton get's clocked on a helmet to helmet, is obviously shaken up. Nothing happens.

How did this happen?
Cause the NFL is unserious about the #1 problem with the sport.

http://deadspin.com/cam-newton-doesnt-r ... 1786418801

Dude is dazed in the presser after apparently going THROUGH concussion protocol!

TwistedHusky · Sep 8, 2016

The problem with concussion is that while they are checking you, you are out and your team suffers.

That Bronco LB got nailed, had to be checked in the locker room in the 1st half and the Panthers just marched up the field without him in.

It becomes a cynical math, I can take a player and try to headshot you repeatedly. If I succeed, you are out not just one game but perhaps another.

Scoring a concussion becomes more valuable than scoring a TD, because you can take key players out of the game permanently.

So I think the NFL wants to avoid concussion checks literally altering the outcome of a game even when the check comes back negative. Not sure what the solution is on this one.

mrt144 · Sep 8, 2016

TwistedHusky":3jpklt2r said:
The problem with concussion is that while they are checking you, you are out and your team suffers.

That Bronco LB got nailed, had to be checked in the locker room in the 1st half and the Panthers just marched up the field without him in.

It becomes a cynical math, I can take a player and try to headshot you repeatedly. If I succeed, you are out not just one game but perhaps another.

Scoring a concussion becomes more valuable than scoring a TD, because you can take key players out of the game permanently.

So I think the NFL wants to avoid concussion checks literally altering the outcome of a game even when the check comes back negative. Not sure what the solution is on this one.

Helmet to helmet should be an ejection. Clear intent to cause a concussion should be penalized by the harshest means possible. Inadvertent, sit out the series minimum.

253hawk · Sep 9, 2016

Seems familiar...Avril went out and went through the proper protocol while Edelman didn't know what planet he was on and later referred to us as 'St. Louis.'

If Edelman comes out, he doesn't get that 21-yarder to set up the TD and isn't in for the next drive to score what would be the game-winner. And if we let Avril keep going, he probably causes enough havoc to not let any of that happen.

themunn · Sep 9, 2016

I don't agree with an automatic ejection for a helmet to helmet hit, but I do think that any player who causes another player to undergo a concussion test should be out for the period which the player who is being tested is out. If a player is no longer able to return then the player who caused the hit (assuming it wasn't legal) is THEN ejected for the rest of the game, intentional or not.

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

253hawk":142ld1d2 said:
Seems familiar...Avril went out and went through the proper protocol while Edelman didn't know what planet he was on and later referred to us as 'St. Louis.'

If Edelman comes out, he doesn't get that 21-yarder to set up the TD and isn't in for the next drive to score what would be the game-winner. And if we let Avril keep going, he probably causes enough havoc to not let any of that happen.

Exactly. The concussion protocol did exactly what it was supposed to do, it helped the Patriots win a Super Bowl. I don't know what all the bitching is about. :rumble:

Biggest reason the Hawks lost that game was Avril going out. The dline was wrecking the Patriots' oline before that happened.

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

themunn":lvvykk62 said:
I don't agree with an automatic ejection for a helmet to helmet hit, but I do think that any player who causes another player to undergo a concussion test should be out for the period which the player who is being tested is out. If a player is no longer able to return then the player who caused the hit (assuming it wasn't legal) is THEN ejected for the rest of the game, intentional or not.

I think we have seen the ejection thing work horribly in college football. Somebody on the radio this morning floated the idea of ejection and loss of a game check. I get we don't want helmet to helmet hits, but you start doing that and defenders aren't even going to bother tackling. And I wouldn't blame them one bit.

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

mrt144":28oxpa7o said:
Helmet to helmet should be an ejection. Clear intent to cause a concussion should be penalized by the harshest means possible. Inadvertent, sit out the series minimum.

As much as I don't like subjectivity in applying rules, I think I could see something like this. Bumping helmets when making a tackle shouldn't be an automatic ejection. That thing the Broncos CB did in the Super Bowl last year? Yep, he should have been tossed. It was a facemask, I believe, and not a helmet to helmet but there was clear malice intent there.

mrt144 · Sep 9, 2016

HawkGA":38gv8s79 said:
themunn":38gv8s79 said:

I don't agree with an automatic ejection for a helmet to helmet hit, but I do think that any player who causes another player to undergo a concussion test should be out for the period which the player who is being tested is out. If a player is no longer able to return then the player who caused the hit (assuming it wasn't legal) is THEN ejected for the rest of the game, intentional or not.

Click to expand...

I think we have seen the ejection thing work horribly in college football. Somebody on the radio this morning floated the idea of ejection and loss of a game check. I get we don't want helmet to helmet hits, but you start doing that and defenders aren't even going to bother tackling. And I wouldn't blame them one bit.

I think it's clear that there's no obvious disincentive to doing a helmet to helmet hit though. None. No in game disincentive, no post game disincentive, nothing.

As much as I'm happy the Panthers lost for our own self serving purposes, the entire situation at the end of the game highlights so many failures within the structure of the NFL's approach to concussions that I'm sadly counting down the days until RW gets his bell rung through a cheap shot and we just sit here and go "is what it is".

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

There is an in-game disincentive, right? A 15 yard penalty? Maybe that is insufficient but don't say it is nothing.

As to the play at the end of the game, from the clip I saw, I see nothing wrong with it and I don't even think it should have been a penalty. Now, as I said, I didn't see the whole game so perhaps it was a trend and at some point a trend becomes intentional. But on the play shown above:

1) Cam ducks his head
2) The defender would have hit him in the shoulder or below if Cam hadn't been hit in the legs
3) Cam was also throwing a pass so it is perfectly reasonable to expect the defender to go up in the air to try to deflect the pass or at least get in the way of throwing lanes.

One thing you could maybe do is have it be a non-offsetting penalty. That would mean though that it isn't offset but also that it doesn't offset anything else. Basically treat any helmet to helmet like a dead ball foul. So in this case the intentional grounding call would stand but then the 15 yard personal foul would be tacked on after that.

Oh, and it is generally assumed the player will get fined. How is that no disincentive?

253hawk · Sep 9, 2016

He was also outside of the pocket on the last one, so he was technically a runner. I think we all know from having Russ as a QB that special protection rules disappear once you leave the tackle box.

mrt144 · Sep 9, 2016

HawkGA":8kjc8h04 said:
There is an in-game disincentive, right? A 15 yard penalty? Maybe that is insufficient but don't say it is nothing.

As to the play at the end of the game, from the clip I saw, I see nothing wrong with it and I don't even think it should have been a penalty. Now, as I said, I didn't see the whole game so perhaps it was a trend and at some point a trend becomes intentional. But on the play shown above:

1) Cam ducks his head
2) The defender would have hit him in the shoulder or below if Cam hadn't been hit in the legs
3) Cam was also throwing a pass so it is perfectly reasonable to expect the defender to go up in the air to try to deflect the pass or at least get in the way of throwing lanes.

One thing you could maybe do is have it be a non-offsetting penalty. That would mean though that it isn't offset but also that it doesn't offset anything else. Basically treat any helmet to helmet like a dead ball foul. So in this case the intentional grounding call would stand but then the 15 yard personal foul would be tacked on after that.

Oh, and it is generally assumed the player will get fined. How is that no disincentive?

If there was a disincentive howd the Broncos do it 4 times and visibly give Cam a concussion on the last hit? 15 yard penalties don't matter if Derek Anderson is in on the next snap.

twisted_steel2 · Sep 9, 2016

http://brobible.com/sports/article/here ... ts-game/2/

http://imgur.com/Mn1z9Ld?r

Rough night for Cam... some of those look really intentional. That one by #54 Marshall?? Damn...

unno:

253hawk · Sep 9, 2016

It was 3 times; the last one is played twice from different angles.

Von Miller's was technically a penalty, but he only made contact with his face mask. When you're tackling someone straight up like that, it's all but impossible to move your head out of the way in that situation. A lot of the impact was transferred via body first; it's not like he flew in with the crown. The only egregious one was Marshall, which is really weird because he's always been a clean player.

Attyla the Hawk · Sep 9, 2016

The Marshall hit was dirty. No two ways about it. Clear. Intentional. Sized him up, targeted the head and led with his helmet high clearly targeting him.

The Stewart hit I thought was fine. He did launch, but did so shoulder first. He also clearly targeted his chest and Cam ducked down instinctively. I felt the defender committed himself to a clean hit and Cam's reaction dropped his head into the path. Even in that respect, the helmet barely caught his chin and only on the recoil of his head.

The end result was a helmet to helmet contact. But we've seen it before with Chancellor where guys drop their heads down where he's targeted legally and initiate the helmet to helmet strike inadvertently.

I've seen worse from the Rams. Bottom line is, Cam doesn't have carte blanche to run with impunity. He has the afforded luxury to give himself up by sliding. He just doesn't do that. And I don't see any issue with allowing defenders to punish him within reason.

I felt Stewart's hit was reasonable and targeted/executed legally and that Cam's reaction was what initiated the helmet contact.

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

mrt144":3h7sca8y said:
HawkGA":3h7sca8y said:

There is an in-game disincentive, right? A 15 yard penalty? Maybe that is insufficient but don't say it is nothing.

As to the play at the end of the game, from the clip I saw, I see nothing wrong with it and I don't even think it should have been a penalty. Now, as I said, I didn't see the whole game so perhaps it was a trend and at some point a trend becomes intentional. But on the play shown above:

1) Cam ducks his head
2) The defender would have hit him in the shoulder or below if Cam hadn't been hit in the legs
3) Cam was also throwing a pass so it is perfectly reasonable to expect the defender to go up in the air to try to deflect the pass or at least get in the way of throwing lanes.

One thing you could maybe do is have it be a non-offsetting penalty. That would mean though that it isn't offset but also that it doesn't offset anything else. Basically treat any helmet to helmet like a dead ball foul. So in this case the intentional grounding call would stand but then the 15 yard personal foul would be tacked on after that.

Oh, and it is generally assumed the player will get fined. How is that no disincentive?

Click to expand...

If there was a disincentive howd the Broncos do it 4 times and visibly give Cam a concussion on the last hit? 15 yard penalties don't matter if Derek Anderson is in on the next snap.

There is a difference between not having a disincentive and not having a sufficiently high disincentive.

Do you speed? Is there a disincentive for speeding? Is it high enough to make you stop? If you don't stop speeding, does that mean there is no disincentive?

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

twisted_steel2":1rr2euq3 said:
http://brobible.com/sports/article/here-all-the-times-cam-newton-took-vicious-blows-to-the-head-during-tonights-game/2/

http://imgur.com/Mn1z9Ld?r

Rough night for Cam... some of those look really intentional. That one by #54 Marshall?? Damn... unno:

That Marshall one was bad. But I don't have a problem with Von Miller's.

mrt144 · Sep 9, 2016

HawkGA":dsm9pj13 said:
mrt144":dsm9pj13 said:

HawkGA":dsm9pj13 said:

There is an in-game disincentive, right? A 15 yard penalty? Maybe that is insufficient but don't say it is nothing.

As to the play at the end of the game, from the clip I saw, I see nothing wrong with it and I don't even think it should have been a penalty. Now, as I said, I didn't see the whole game so perhaps it was a trend and at some point a trend becomes intentional. But on the play shown above:

1) Cam ducks his head
2) The defender would have hit him in the shoulder or below if Cam hadn't been hit in the legs
3) Cam was also throwing a pass so it is perfectly reasonable to expect the defender to go up in the air to try to deflect the pass or at least get in the way of throwing lanes.

One thing you could maybe do is have it be a non-offsetting penalty. That would mean though that it isn't offset but also that it doesn't offset anything else. Basically treat any helmet to helmet like a dead ball foul. So in this case the intentional grounding call would stand but then the 15 yard personal foul would be tacked on after that.

Oh, and it is generally assumed the player will get fined. How is that no disincentive?

Click to expand...

If there was a disincentive howd the Broncos do it 4 times and visibly give Cam a concussion on the last hit? 15 yard penalties don't matter if Derek Anderson is in on the next snap.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between not having a disincentive and not having a sufficiently high disincentive.

Do you speed? Is there a disincentive for speeding? Is it high enough to make you stop? If you don't stop speeding, does that mean there is no disincentive?

I don't speed, the bus drivers sometimes do

I see your point though - the disincentive is not high enough to dissuade taking shots at an opposing QB where the talent drop off is perceived to be steep enough. To complete your analogy, the disincentive exists in the abstract, the cops are just too chicken to apply it because they don't want to make the populace late for their jobs.

ivotuk · Sep 9, 2016

HawkGA":mundq266 said:
253hawk":mundq266 said:

Seems familiar...Avril went out and went through the proper protocol while Edelman didn't know what planet he was on and later referred to us as 'St. Louis.'

If Edelman comes out, he doesn't get that 21-yarder to set up the TD and isn't in for the next drive to score what would be the game-winner. And if we let Avril keep going, he probably causes enough havoc to not let any of that happen.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The concussion protocol did exactly what it was supposed to do, it helped the Patriots win a Super Bowl. I don't know what all the bitching is about. :rumble:

Biggest reason the Hawks lost that game was Avril going out. The dline was wrecking the Patriots' oline before that happened.

So a team who would do anything to win a Superbowl could head shot someone on the opposing team and thus improve their odds?

HawkGA · Sep 9, 2016

Oh, if only the cops were too chicken to apply them! But that's another discussion, for another time, in a forum that doesn't exit.

Concussion Protocol abject failure

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member