Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that the NFL should enforce a rule requiring players to sit out an entire game after leaving a game due to a concussion-related injury.
Football is a contact sport, and injuries, as unfortunate as they may be, are an unavoidable byproduct.
Because injuries are a very real and regular occurrence, each NFL team employs a staff of very highly trained medical personnel which exist solely to care for the health of the team. When you consider the serious injuries that have taken place to players such as Dennis Byrd and Kevin Everett, it becomes clear that player’s safety should be a top priority of the league. There are times, however, when rules can become excessive, and the impact of those could actually be detrimental to the league.
One example of an excessive rule would be the proposed policy of requiring players to miss time whenever they suffer a concussion-related injury. The reasoning behind this proposed rule is to protect the players from possible long-term problems (such as depression) by preventing them from returning to the game too soon after suffering a head injury. It sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, this is a situation where the solution fails to address the REAL problem at hand.
“You can’t make the club in the tub.”
The mentality among many in the NFL is that there is a difference between being hurt and being injured. Being hurt means that you are sore or scratched, whereas an injury will constitute missed playing time. Comments such as “you can’t make the club in the tub” are heard in every NFL locker room, because injuries are often viewed as liabilities. As mentioned in the debate intro, many players will question a teammate’s toughness if an injury is perceived to be less than life-threatening. Even leadership among the NFL has been known to challenge a player’s decision to miss games because of health-related reasons. Last year, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones went so far as to publicly criticize running back Marion Barber for missing a game because of a toe injury.
The real problem at hand is not that concussions create the potential for long-term health issues. Instead, it is the perception of injury as a weakness or liability. If the NFL wants to eliminate the problem of players coming back to the game too soon after an injury, it should start by addressing this mentality. When a person such as Jerry Jones or Hines Ward publicly criticizes a player for lacking toughness, it demeans the necessity of taking the appropriate time to heal from injury. THAT is where the problem begins.
The scope is too small
Along with failing to address the root cause of this injury-themed problem, the proposed rule of forcing a full missed game due to a concussion is far too limited in scope. Concussions are not the only injuries sustained in the NFL. Because of the physical nature of football, many different injuries can occur, and many may require extended healing time. The problem is that players, regardless of the type of injury they have sustained, will likely minimize the injury in order to return to play as quickly as possible. That means someone with a bad knee may claim they are fine, when in fact, they are not.
An example of the NFL’s seeming lack of interest in any other type of injury is with Pittsburgh Steelers safety Ryan Clark. Clark, who has a blood condition known as sickle-cell trait, suffered life-threatening complications after playing a game in Denver in 2007. Once again in 2009, the Steelers were slated to play in Denver, and the NFL had no problem with allowing Clark to choose for himself if he would participate in the game, even though there was a very real potential for fatal complications if he played. It is hypocritical to prevent a player who suffers a blow to the head from playing in a game when the NFL would willingly allow Clark to risk his life by playing in Denver!
The NFL is focusing solely on concussions in an effort to reduce long-term issues from playing football when knee, arm, and back injuries produce just as many long-term ill effects. If the NFL is truly committed to protecting the long-term well being of its players, then this rule does not even BEGIN to scratch the surface!
Impact to the team
Imagine the Indianapolis Colts are facing the San Diego Chargers in an AFC Divisional Playoff game. During the game, Shawn Merriman breaks through the Colts’ offensive line and clobbers Peyton Manning. Manning does not lose consciousness, and after sitting out a few plays he demonstrates focus, awareness, and stable control of his extremities. He simply had his bell rung as the result of a big hit. Because Manning was stunned by the head injury, though, this new rule would prevent him not only from returning to this game, but ALSO from playing in the AFC Championship a week later. The negative impact to the team, merely as precaution, would most likely DEVASTATE the Colts in that regard.
Rather than let health-care professionals do their job, the NFL is taking measures to prevent players from participating in games EVEN THOUGH that player may be perfectly fit. If the player is willing to walk back onto the field, and medical personnel sees no threat in allowing him to continue playing the game, then the NFL should not question that decision.
While I applaud the NFL in its attempt to minimize the long-term risks that players face as a result of injuries, it is going about the rule in the wrong way. This proposed rule fails to address the root cause and it fails to encompass the full scope of the problem that exists in the league.
