PATRIOTSFANINPA

While we are on the brink of a new CBA and what changes it should include,How about the IR rules that have been going on forever?

Shouldn't the IR rules be changed to rules like the other sports where a player who is injured goes on the disabled list and comes back when cleared by doctors.....Why does an injury that MAY heal fully before the end of the season cause a player to miss the whole year?

I am a baseball and limited basketball fan and I think the rules regarding injured players are working well for those sports leagues.

Do you think it would be an advantage to have the IR rules changed?...for example it might not work out for us if a division rival player like Revis gets injured and then comes back in time for the playoffs but it also might help us if a guy like Mayo was injured and was able to return later?

I think teams put players prematurely on IR lists every year without 100% probability that they are not able to return and that certain player could definately make a difference to whether a team wins in the playoffs or even gets there.

I think there is also a safety issue for that players health and well being for one of the reasons for ignoring a change to the policy,but they are payed to play a violent game anyways....why not change it before the new CBA is said and done?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

cstjohn17

Yes, I have always thought that a player injured in week 2 should have the chance to return later in the year or even start with a clean slate in the playoffs.

Another change, allow players of any age and experience to be placed on the practive squad.

PATRIOTSFANINPA

Thats another reason why the IR should change is the practice squad...why put a player out there almost forced to finishing the season when he could just go out there,play a few weeks until the original starter gets back and healthy all while giving the PS player some experience in real game time action?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

37Harrison

I am in full support of changing the IR rule. I really like the way the MLB uses a DL list. How many times has a player been placed on IR due to the constraints of the roster size and need for the position? I'm thinking of Gostkowski.

The NFL should adopt the MLB DL list and work it so it is beneficial for the NFL and it's players.

__________________
S.H.E.S.

capetide

I would be in favor of adapting the IR rule so that a certain number of players would be eligible to return during the season. However, the rule was adopted in the first place to prevent teams from hiding players on their roster and preventing other teams from claiming them. Imagine, you have a 53 man roster limit and place all of your lower round draft picks on IR so that, having the adavntage of sitting and learning the system and playbook, you can activate them later in the season when they could inserted into your active roster as players got injured..

Oswlek

Rosters were originally increased from 45 to 53 to create a defacto "injury list" of 8 guys you could carry around. Of course, it isn't just limited to injuries, teams use those spots for youngsters and specialists as well. But from the conversations I've heard of BB on this subject, he seems to think that those 8 spots are enough.

__________________
"They have one objective," said Washington cornerback Shawn Springs. "They whoop people's [backsides]. If you understand that, it answers all your questions. They might not lose [this year]."

Calciumee

It could be adapted that if a player is put on, they must stay on for a minimum number of weeks!

Say Player A is injured in week 2, he is placed on IR, and spend 8 weeks before can come off!

If the injuries' rehab time is 6 weeks, it's worth putting him on for the 8 weeks, and gain a roster spot, then keep him on the roster for 6 weeks, knowing he can't play!

__________________

ctpatsfan77

I'm not sure about "any experience," but I would change it so that:
(1) any player who has not reached unrestricted free agency through accrued seasons (i.e., not merely by clearing waivers or not being drafted) would be eligible, and
(2) if a PS player is paid at least 75% of the salary he would receive if he were on an active roster, then that player is not subject to waivers, and can immediately be resigned to a team's practice squad. [Note that this would not prohibit players from signing with other teams as allowed currently, but merely prevent teams from "poaching."]

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AzPatsFan

i'd like to see several changes that would also protect the players while still eliminating 'stashing'.

Any player can return from IR after 8 games, if cleared by the doctors. This would discourage "stashing".

Any player is able to return after the regular season, if cleared by the doctors. The Playoffs are considered a 'second season', so some injured players that are now healthy could return to play then.

All players on the 53 man roster are allowed to play in the game, not just 45 designated ones.

All three rules changes serve to help players health. No player need "gut it out' because his substitute is inactive on the 53, and risk further injury.

Some players will not have to "gut it out" when a healthy player could return from IR.

To insure no 'stashing' via the IR list, an independent or league doctor would provide the clearance for an IRed to return.

ctpatsfan77

The only problem with this is the idea of "walking wounded," which is why the 53/45 rule is in place to begin with.

Agree on this one.

__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.