BradyFTW!

NFL Players Association rejects rule changes to injured reserve, trade deadline - ESPN

Very strange- I was in favor of both of these changes, and especially liked the IR change. The IR rejection, in particular, surprises me, since they've made no bones about working almost entirely for the benefit of the elite, highest paid players, and those are the guys who stand to most benefit from being able to come back in week 9. The only sort of rationale that I can come up with is that every player on IR = one more member earning a paycheck, but that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in any meaningful way.

Deus Irae

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

woolster22

Ir makes sense. You still get your salary if on ir correct? This assumed, it would certainly be in any severely injured players best interest to take the time heal fully. While fans (and coaches even) may want that elite talent back asap, the risk to the individual of returning at day, 75% for the playoffs would be much greater than waiting out the season and returning completely healed, healthy, and rehabbed. Hell, even if they don't get full compensation this would be in many players favor, assuming they are not long in tooth, so to speak.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

nashvillepatsfan

Not surprised. These were the only two changes in the past decade, that I actually liked. I jinxed em

Gumby

Well a "severely" injured player wouldn't be coming back after 6-8 weeks anyway.

If the player wants (in his limited nfl career span) to contribute to a potential championship season, to add to his personal stats/reputation, or to earn playing/achievement bonuses - he now can't do that per the nflpa.

Not sure how the details of the proposed rules were written (how much coercion a team could put on a player to come back early), but I think this decision does not reflect the majority of players view of these two rules (in isolation).

This is purely the nflpa trying to use these not so controversial changes as bargaining chips to get something else. Which although their right, is detrimental to the game as a whole (imo).

Frankly, I would like to see some of the players start up a separate union and elect better leadership than what they have.

(Aside - for my own info, does anyone know is membership by nfl players mandatory? If not, what is the participation percentage? ).

UK_Pat37

This surprised me. They were highly beneficial changes for both parties....I still think the players have way too much control in this league and it winds me up. I couldn't give to hoots if the NFLPA or players didn't like this move...if this was the English Premier League the Football Association would say 'tough *****' and go do it anyway.

__________________

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



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



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

peterforpats

apparently you fail to grasp the concept of a union. if you would implement this without giving "two hoots" than why bother with a union at all? of course, over here in the "colonies" we should get more guidance from the english premier league.

Va_Pats_Fan

If you read the last line of the article, it states that the changes were linked to alterations of the rules around practice.

Since we don't know what was being asked there, its hard to gauge why the NFLPA rejected these.

__________________
=======================================
ʞɔıɥɔılǝq llıq uo uıǝɥɔs ɯɐpɐ
˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ lɟu ʇou s,ʇɐɥʇ ˙ʎɹoʇsıɥ sʇɹods uı sǝɥɔɐoɔ ʇsǝʇɐǝɹƃ ǝɥʇ ɟo ǝuo sı ʞɔıɥɔılǝq ʞuıɥʇ ı

ForThoseAboutToRock

ESPN LINK

I don't know what to make of mysterious "in-season practice rules" being included in the rule change and not (specifically) mentioned, but apparently they're the dealbreaker.

UK_Pat37

That's my point? I understand fully what a Union is and I would be all for it if the union and it's representatives didn't have the level of control or the hold they do over the league.

I'm using the EPL as an example because it is the most watched and one of the most lucrative leagues in the world...the players within the league (and all professional leagues in Britain) aren't part of a union. They don't even get a say in what goes on.

I like the fact the NFL has a Union but I can't comprehend the level of control they have over simple league changes. It's pathetic. The NFL may as well bend over.

Players don't like it? They know where they can go. I'd play for pittance.

__________________

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



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



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