Pollard: NFL will be gone in 30 years

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

I guarantee there would be people lining up if there were millions of dollars involved.

I think there already is :D

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

I guarantee there would be people lining up if there were millions of dollars involved.

There were millions of dollars involved in the last CBA negotiation, which didn't involve anything as volatile as a waiver of liability for ownership, and the players hung together.

As for the other people lining up... If the CFL and Arena League were watchable, more people would watch them.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

Because a waiver like that is a one sided affair and they have no pressure to sign it. Why in the world would anyone agree to give up a legal right (albeit one I already showed you was all but impossible to actually give up) to sue their employer if they get hurt on the job and had reason to believe said employer shared a degree of responsibility?

Would you? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And what could the owners do if they refused? Lock them out? Over the right to not be sued for negligence? They'd be utterly CRUSHED in both the courthouse and the court of public opinion. All that aside, they can't add something like this until the new CBA goes up for ratification in 2020.

It's a moot point anyway, but you're getting kind of far away from your original point of "no chance".

Me signing my rights to sue away for me desk job and me signing my right to sue away for a job where I get paid (millions) to run 20 mph into another guy running 20 mph is entirely different.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 11:41 AM

How am I getting away from my point of "No chance"?

There is no chance the current players (or the players of 2020) would ever sign away their right to sue the league for devastating injuries brought about as a result of or in conjunction with, negligence or misconduct on the league's part. I would bet every penny of my life savings on that.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

How am I getting away from my point of "No chance"?

There is no chance the current players (or the players of 2020) would ever sign away their right to sue the league for devastating injuries brought about as a result of or in conjunction with, negligence or misconduct on the league's part. I would bet every penny of my life savings on that.

Misconduct on the league's part is a different argument that me getting injured in a game.

I think it's ridiculous to sue the league for me getting injured because of violent hits, when I am the one doing the hitting. That's what I am talking about. Getting guys to sign a waiver (which enforceable or not is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation) to say, you can't sue us for injuries you sustain fro a violent hit you inflect, would not be hard to do. Especially when they are do it it now anyway.

And while technically they could still sue, does any guy really sign a NFL contract saying, yes I want the millions from this contract, but damn I hope I get injured so I can sue these bastards!

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 12:07 PM

I brought up the misconduct/ negligence angle when it was implied that simply signing a waiver would make the lawsuits (and thus the annoying flags and fines) go away. I pointed out that the flags and fines would have to stay because stopping a safety measure like that could very easily be construed as negligence or misconduct on the part of the league. So even IF they got a waiver, it would be meaningless because they'd have to keep up all of these anti-head injury efforts, OR they could design a waiver that doesn't require such efforts, but the players would never agree to it.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

I brought up the misconduct/ negligence angle when it was implied that simply signing a waiver would make the lawsuits (and thus the annoying flags and fines) go away. I pointed out that the flags and fines would have to stay because stopping a safety measure like that could very easily be construed as negligence or misconduct on the part of the league. So even IF they got a waiver, it would be meaningless because they'd have to keep up all of these anti-head injury efforts, OR they could design a waiver that doesn't require such efforts, but the players would never agree to it.

Personally, I don't think a waiver is the way to go, or flags etc.

When I've presented my ideas (not that anyone would pay attention) on how to try to eliminate head injuries and/or serious hits everyone always says, you'd be changing or destroying the game. The point is it is changing anyway and it won't be wha tit is now. The NFL just doesn't want to admit it so they're doing it back asswards by penalties and indefinable rules of "defenseless receiver".

Just come out and say, "you have to tackle, wrap up, no more dislodging the ball from the receiver when he catches it" etc. I know "they're a part of the game" but if those things don't change then Pollard just might be right.

**ActualSpamBot** · 01-28-2013, 12:23 PM

I agree with you on that actually. I just don't think it will ever happen.

But if the league could, I think they would erase all those "Jacked up" segments from the 90s and early 2000s. And focus on marketing defensive plays of guys like London Fletcher and Ray Lewis who made careers out of squaring up and form tackling (sometimes with great violence, but always with great form and control) rather than guys like the late Sean Taylor or Rodney Harrison who simply drove their heads into people.

**Paintballguy** · 01-28-2013, 12:26 PM

Even if you eliminate the big hitters, it still doesn't change the amount of impacts the brain receives in a game. Look at the linemen, they are hitting on every single play. I can't imagine that those constant hits over a career will be good.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-28-2013, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Paintballguy

Even if you eliminate the big hitters, it still doesn't change the amount of impacts the brain receives in a game. Look at the linemen, they are hitting on every single play. I can't imagine that those constant hits over a career will be good.

It does and it doesn't. It doesn't change the amount of hits, but it does change the amount of significant hits it takes.

I also guarantee if you had requirements on guys being out if they had signs of a brain injury or concussion, guys would change the way the play or hit.

For example. Whether the guy is the hitter or the hitee If a guy gets up wobbly he's out the rest of that game and the next. If he is down and needs medical attention (and it's a concussion type injury) he's out the rest of that game and two weeks. Steven Ridely would be out a month.

That may not be the exact scale, but something like that would have guys stop (or decrease the amount) blowing each other up and just have form tackling. Or at least I think it would...

**Ravenswintitle** · 01-28-2013, 12:38 PM

First off - remember that hits to a running back's head, i.e. the AFCC game hit by Pollard, are perfectly legal.
Secondly - the NFL Network featured their version of the 'play of the game' being the hit on Pitta where his head snapped back. How that wasn't a penalty I will never understand but it certainly is how the brain gets bounced around in the skull.

They're trying to have it both ways.

**Paintballguy** · 01-28-2013, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

It does and it doesn't. It doesn't change the amount of hits, but it does change the amount of significant hits it takes.

I also guarantee if you had requirements on guys being out if they had signs of a brain injury or concussion, guys would change the way the play or hit.

For example. Whether the guy is the hitter or the hitee If a guy gets up wobbly he's out the rest of that game and the next. If he is down and needs medical attention (and it's a concussion type injury) he's out the rest of that game and two weeks. Steven Ridely would be out a month.

That may not be the exact scale, but something like that would have guys stop (or decrease the amount) blowing each other up and just have form tackling. Or at least I think it would...

Yeah I agree. It's just going to be a tricky situation for the NFL to navigate in the future.