I do not think there should be a lawsuit but.....yes the players know the risk going in. Just like a high steel worker putting up buildings. The employer still has to have policies in place that present a safe work space (of course within reason considering the sport). The culture of players playing injured runs very deep. As a hockey coach with A level kids I saw kids playing injured. We also made sure that if a kidd took a hit to the head that he did not play until we, the parents, and a doc said he was OK.
Pros should be the same. There is a world of difference having a culture where you play with a broken arm and one where you feel you have to play after recieving a concussion.
Yes, it is part of the sport and I am at the top of the list that calls Sidney Crosby a whiner and cry baby (hockey player). But if indeed his concussion was that severe then he did set the right example for NHL players, which are role model for kids, to speak up and say I need more time off.
Again, it is personal responisbility, but that falls on the coach, medical staff, and owners of professional clubs and trickles down to youth sports.
Ultimately it's the players call as to whether he's able to play or not.
If the coach insists you go out and play when you're injured; then you have to decide if the money and fame is worth it or not.
If you decide it is...then it's your decision and you can't have it both ways.
EDIT: Just a steel worker...a boss can not ask him to go up to work without a safety harness and helmet. If the person is injured on the job the boss can not force him to work until he is recovered (in general). Like it or not sports is the same thing. It is a job for them.
BTW: theier is another profession that I know of where folks perform injured, sometimes don't have the appropriate equipment, and they volunteered for the job: the military. I am not equating soldiers to athletes, just saying if you want to bring up personal responsibility then a private should be telling his sergeant that he can't do this or that because he is injured or sick. But most likey they will not because they do not want to be viewed as weak.
Same is true for the athlete. Forget about getting wrapped up in the flag about the jobs service members do. It is the same analogy. And I am talking about in garrison, not in combat. Ever go to Ranger school? Guess how many guys are going to tell the cadre they might have a concussion.....NONE. It is a culture.
That's their decision to make, not mine, not the coach not the franchise owner. It's their health, career and money on the line.
You weigh the risks, make your choice, live with the consequences (if there are any).
And no, I wouldn't play someone who had a concussion but it's very hard to determine when a person is well enough to play. It's not cut and dry.
What it boils down to in this law suit is they want to blame someone for putting the conditions in place that made the guy kill himself.
Nobody is saying that players need to be played while they may be recovering from injuries, it just is a risk of the occupation that exists. Could it be that his contract had exclusions if he doesn't play, he doesn't get paid? That would make a player take larger risks to further an injury? Maybe that needs to be addressed, his players contract.
RGIII is a great example of a coach being an idiot and his decision to continue to play RGIII costs them the game, possibly how well he will be able to play in the future, and possibly how the franchise will fare in the coming years. It was not a concussion but the theory is still the same. The coach said the player said he could play so he played him and now his knee is totally messed up and will take months to recover from.
BTW: This is not my Monday morning QB'ing here on this one. Almost every fan and sports announcerin the world watching the game was totally confused why he still had him playing even in the 2nd quarter.
The coaches need to look at the long term and not the short term. Savard of the Boston Bruins can not play, and has not played in a couple of years because he returned to early. Now, they Bruins are stuck with a player with a long term contract that most likely will never play again.
^^Bovine fecal matter^^^^^^^^^
What about all the people who commit suicide, and have never picked up a football, let alone had head trauma.
Just another family looking for a handout the easy way.
Nobody was negligent, nobody forced him to play, life is not certified safe.
IMHO, they would be farther ahead to juggle a hot cup of coffee from the drivethru @ mickey D's between their legs.
Suicide is a very complicated matter, not unlike the reasons why some go off on shooting rampages. We just can't get into the minds of some people to see what is stirring around. If we could, then think of the stuff that could be prevented or even stopped cold.
The fact is we have no clue what some people are planning to do. There could be some external influence or injuries that contribute to what they do but unless we have proof positive, we are simply guessing. There is not a lot one can do when someone may just be determined to kill themselves and an intervention only prolongs the inevitible.
I don't know what the answer may be, I think his family via this law suit are searching for them.
Lawyers pretty much ruin everything. Obviously football is an extremely popular industry with a lot of national attention, and the legal aspects of player safety are complicated, but this stuff all seems overblown.
This may not be relevant, but when I hear about this stuff, I think of all the 19 year olds who volunteered to serve and got blown up for $18k a year. Take a visit to Walter Reed sometime, and all you'll see a bunch of people missing limbs who still just want to go back to their unit and continue serving. Pro athletes are in their 20's and 30's and get paid hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to play a game. The litigious society we live in is bothersome.
1. The volunteer
2. They know the risk
3. They will hide injuiries and work injured/wounded becuase they feel they need to tough it out.
That is all. Point is coaches in the NFL and management have the same responsibility as NCO's and Officers in the miitary (talking specificlly about this issue, not the roles of NOC's and officers) about making sure their athletes/soldiers are physically fit to play/fight. By ignoring injuries and having an atmosphere of being super macho can hurt the player and team/soldier and mission.
It was not a comparisn about who's jobs are mmore important or whether they should join or quit the military or anything like that.
Point being, the roles (job, athlete, soldier) aren't all that different, in terms of the motivating reasons why someone pushes through the pain, attempts to perform the role while hurting (or even injured), performs when asked/commanded.