NFLPA rejects rule changes for IR and trade deadline

[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]

A source told FOXSports.com the league office has sent notification to NFL executives that the rules proposals weren’t approved. The source also said the NFLPA unsuccessfully tried to get concessions from the NFL related to other negotiations in exchange for accepting the new trade and IR rules.

Another source told FOXSports.com that the proposed NFL rules changes were tied to a league proposal trying to amend in-season rules for practices. The NFLPA wasn’t going to accept the changes under those terms, the source said.

NFL, players' union clash over trade deadline, injured reserve - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

 

[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 :bricks:

 

[Gumby]

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

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.

 

[peterforpats]

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.

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.

The proposed rule changes were linked to changes to in-season practice rules, a source told FOXSports.com. Under that scenario, the NFLPA refused to accept.

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

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

The proposed rule changes were linked to changes to in-season practice rules, a source told FOXSports.com. Under that scenario, the NFLPA refused to accept.

"The changes would have meant one step forward and one step back," NFL executive George Atallah said in an email to FOXSports.com.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

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.

The flip side of that coin is they wouldn't ~have~ that level of control if the owners didn't give it to them in negotiations. The owners looked at their bottom line, and were willing to give that up to make $$$.

Why blame the union for exercising its rights under a bargained contract?

 

[patfanken]

This is just another example of the NFLPA being confrontational for confrontation's sake. They are still upset about a number of things that THEY agreed to in the new CBA. Its like they want a "do over", and are taking every opportunity to do so. This is just one of them. The new IR rule was something the players wanted and the teams could use. There is no reason this new rule shouldn't be in place.....EXCEPT the stubbornness of the NFLPA.

BTW- Please do not call this group a "union". I belonged to a union, back in the day, and this isn't one.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This is just another example of the NFLPA being confrontational for confrontation's sake. They are still upset about a number of things that THEY agreed to in the new CBA. Its like they want a "do over", and are taking every opportunity to do so. This is just one of them. The new IR rule was something the players wanted and the teams could use. There is no reason this new rule shouldn't be in place.....EXCEPT the stubbornness of the NFLPA.

I would agree with you IF I knew that the bundled owner's request for new in season practice rules wasn't a factor. I could see the NFLPA objecting to some changes, not that I necessarily agree with them.

Why did the owners complicate the request? Was it because they felt they were giving something with the IR rules and wanted a quid pro quo in terms of in season practice rules changes? We simply don't have the details.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I would agree with you IF I knew that the bundled owner's request for new in season practice rules wasn't a factor. I could see the NFLPA objecting to some changes, not that I necessarily agree with them.

Why did the owners complicate the request? Was it because they felt they were giving something with the IR rules and wanted a quid pro quo in terms of in season practice rules changes? We simply don't have the details.

I'm not sure they did. It's debatable based on the semantics of the reporting who bundled what. Some reports sound like the NFLPA wanted some concessions on in season padded practice rules concessions the league was attempting to negotiate with them seperately in exchange for giving the OK to the rules changes on IR and the trade deadline that the league was also proposing. So it's not clear who muddied the waters on the two easier changes. They negotiate changes to the CBA on a case by case basis over the term of the agreement. Always have. Just lately it seems they can't agree on what color the sky is. Though it's fairly apparent we know what that emanates from.

 

[Joker]

This is just another example of the NFLPA being confrontational for confrontation's sake. They are still upset about a number of things that THEY agreed to in the new CBA. Its like they want a "do over", and are taking every opportunity to do so. This is just one of them. The new IR rule was something the players wanted and the teams could use. There is no reason this new rule shouldn't be in place.....EXCEPT the stubbornness of the NFLPA.

BTW- Please do not call this group a "union". I belonged to a union, back in the day, and this isn't one.

if anything, it's a disunion...seems some of the members are not only not on the same page, they're not even in the same book.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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).

Bingo. On both sides of these negotiations, even the changes that both sides should be able to agree on seem to get rejected from the outset, simply because the other side wants to receive some concession in return. It's a workable strategy if you accept as a foregone conclusion that all negotiations are inherently zero-sum. On the other hand, zero-sum negotiations tend to yield the worst overall outcomes.

 

[lamafist]

I'm not sure they did. It's debatable based on the semantics of the reporting who bundled what. Some reports sound like the NFLPA wanted some concessions on in season padded practice rules concessions the league was attempting to negotiate with them seperately in exchange for giving the OK to the rules changes on IR and the trade deadline that the league was also proposing. So it's not clear who muddied the waters on the two easier changes. They negotiate changes to the CBA on a case by case basis over the term of the agreement. Always have. Just lately it seems they can't agree on what color the sky is. Though it's fairly apparent we know what that emanates from.

So far, all the reports about the changes to in-season practice rules originate from the FOXSports.com story, which says:

Another source told FOXSports.com that the proposed NFL rules changes were tied to a league proposal trying to amend in-season rules for practices. The NFLPA wasn’t going to accept the changes under those terms, the source said.

So there's really nothing ambiguous about it being a league proposal, as opposed to the NFLPA's.

 

[lamafist]

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

Actually, the way it works now, players push themselves to come back to soon, or continue to play through injuries they shouldn't, in order to avoid being put on the IR. Coaches can't have players taking up roster spots who can't contribute, so players know they have to get back on the field if they don't want to be shelved for the season.

While players still get their base salary on the IR, they do stand to lose some incentive, but the real danger for them is a sharp decline in perceived value. Since players on the IR aren't allowed to practice with their team, they're essentially away from football for up to a season.

This is particularly bad for players in their first couple of years, as it can stunt their development and derail their whole careers. Meanwhile, vets need to worry about being Wally Pipped -- if you go on the IR, and your (likely cheaper) backup has a break-out year, you stand to get cut in the offseason and enter free agency with a big question-mark over you.

 

[JJDChE]

Typical political tactic. Propose a bill that appears like a slam dunk, win-win on the surface then attach a questionable rider that would otherwise be shot down on it's own. Sometimes it works and the proposer gets additional value, but even if it doesn't the proposer can use it against the other party when the issue comes up again: 'You voted against this WIN-WIN proposal last time we presented it! You are against common sense governing!!!".

 

[Joker]

Typical political tactic. Propose a bill that appears like a slam dunk, win-win on the surface then attach a questionable rider that would otherwise be shot down on it's own. Sometimes it works and the proposer gets additional value, but even if it doesn't the proposer can use it against the other party when the issue comes up again: 'You voted against this WIN-WIN proposal last time we presented it! You are against common sense governing!!!".

This post has a scent of anti-Goodell to it...please...elaborate