TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 North first then (maybe) south. Football is ubiquitous in Texas and several other southern states. Whole towns empty out to go to high school football games some places. Up where I am you see parents and girlfriends in the stands and not many others. The real death knell comes when amature programs begin to see lawsuits, and as a result become uninsurable. Once that happens, youth organizations and high schools will be forced to stop offering the sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The real death knell comes when amature programs begin to see lawsuits, and as a result become uninsurable. Once that happens, youth organizations and high schools will be forced to stop offering the sport. I don't believe this will happen. All programs will update their waiver forms and will all have standardized protocols for concussions or suspected concussions. Parents will sign or not participate. As long as accepted protocols are in place and followed, the youth organizations should be well insulated from losing a suit. The rest will be assumed risk by the player and parent. Same will be true in college and the pros. As long as there are football sholarships offered by colleges, there will be an endless supply of players for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I don't believe this will happen. All programs will update their waiver forms and will all have standardized protocols for concussions or suspected concussions. Parents will sign or not participate. As long as accepted protocols are in place and followed, the youth organizations should be well insulated from losing a suit. The rest will be assumed risk by the player and parent. Same will be true in college and the pros. As long as there are football sholarships offered by colleges, there will be an endless supply of players for the NFL. You believe that the courts will take no issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children? That's ridiculous. If it were an issue of consenting adults, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However it is not. Pro football will wither away in our lifetimes because it will lose it's feeder pools. Liability and uninsurability in relation to child rights will ensure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You believe that the courts will take no issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children? That's ridiculous. If it were an issue of consenting adults, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However it is not. Pro football will wither away in our lifetimes because it will lose it's feeder pools. Liability and uninsurability in relation to child rights will ensure it. Wait, your saying the parents will be the subject of lawsuits? Who's bringing the suits, the kids? Talk about ridiculous. Parents consent to all manner of risky events/processes/procedures on behalf of their children. They have unnecessary cosmetic surgery. They let them play hockey. They let them ski competitively. They let them play baseball, where more children have been killed on the field (line drives to the chest) than in pop warner football. They let them ride horses. And ATV's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You believe that the courts will take no issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children? That's ridiculous. If it were an issue of consenting adults, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However it is not. Pro football will wither away in our lifetimes because it will lose it's feeder pools. Liability and uninsurability in relation to child rights will ensure it. I think you're overstating your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You believe that the courts will take no issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children? That's ridiculous. If it were an issue of consenting adults, I'd be inclined to agree with you. However it is not. Pro football will wither away in our lifetimes because it will lose it's feeder pools. Liability and uninsurability in relation to child rights will ensure it. Parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their kids, can refuse to get them vaccinated etc. It would take a big change to do what you are suggesting is a given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 http://deadspin.com/5979629/chris-kluwe-rickrolled-roger-goodell-in-the-commissioners-reddit-qa chris kluwe chimes in with a question about safety on the commissioners reddit Q&A today..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) Wait, your saying the parents will be the subject of lawsuits? Who's bringing the suits, the kids? Talk about ridiculous. Parents consent to all manner of risky events/processes/procedures on behalf of their children. They have unnecessary cosmetic surgery. They let them play hockey. They let them ski competitively. They let them play baseball, where more children have been killed on the field (line drives to the chest) than in pop warner football. They let them ride horses. And ATV's. The children, once they become adults, will sue the institutions fostering the football programs. It will take exactly one verdict in favor of the plaintiff, even if many lawsuits are filed and found in favor of the defendant, to change the way the liability is assessed by insurers. It will take exactly one criminal verdict of criminal negligence won by the the plaintiff before youth coaching starts drying up. Once this happens, the pools will be completely dry in about 10 years. Five to ten years after that, we'll either be watching football played in countries with different legal protections, comprised of foreign players; or we won't be watching it at all. I think you're overstating your case. Not at all. Parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their kids, can refuse to get them vaccinated etc. It would take a big change to do what you are suggesting is a given. It won't have to shift much at all. We're already swiftly moving in that direction in our litigious society. Edited January 28, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 The children, once they become adults, will sue the institutions fostering the football programs. It will take exactly one verdict in favor of the plaintiff, even if many lawsuits are filed and found in favor of the defendant, to change the way the liability is assessed by insurers. It will take exactly one criminal verdict of criminal negligence won by the the plaintiff before youth coaching starts drying up. Once this happens, the pools will be completely dry in about 10 years. Five to ten years after that, we'll either be watching football played in countries with different legal protections, comprised of foreign players; or we won't be watching it at all. . You said the courts would "take issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children". Now you're saying something about children suing later as adults. There would be no basis for their suits if the parents consented on behalf of the children. Just like not getting vaccinated. That's how it works. Criminal negligence would/could not be charged in my scenario (at least based on the current definition. Perhaps you have another?). There is no "reckless act" of providing football for youngsters. Where are these lawsuits now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You said the courts would "take issue with parents consenting to known brain trauma risks for their under age children". Now you're saying something about children suing later as adults. There would be no basis for their suits if the parents consented on behalf of the children. Just like not getting vaccinated. That's how it works. Criminal negligence would/could not be charged in my scenario (at least based on the current definition. Perhaps you have another?). There is no "reckless act" of providing football for youngsters. Where are these lawsuits now? The current lawsuits against the NFL are just the opening salvo, and they will serve as guideline and precedent for thousands of future lawsuits. Adults who suffer mental debilitation will sue the institutions who administered the football programs they played in as youths, and families of former athletes who die will do the same. A court somewhere will establish legal precedent by ruling that a child does not forfeit legal redress because their parents signed a waiver. Once this happens the liability will become so great that it will break insurer's actuarial tables and they will refuse coverage. The wise institutions will at this point stop offering football, the not so wise will be bankrupt and defunct after several lawsuits are lost. Criminal negligence will come into play when youth coaches have charges brought against them by grieving parents who alledge that the coaches allowed their child to play, or worse, forced them to play, with a concussion. Like it or not, the writing is on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The current lawsuits against the NFL are just the opening salvo, and they will serve as guideline and precedent for thousands of future lawsuits. Adults who suffer mental debilitation will sue the institutions who administered the football programs they played in as youths, and families of former athletes who die will do the same. A court somewhere will establish legal precedent by ruling that a child does not forfeit legal redress because their parents signed a waiver. Once this happens the liability will become so great that it will break insurer's actuarial tables and they will refuse coverage. The wise institutions will at this point stop offering football, the not so wise will be bankrupt and defunct after several lawsuits are lost. Criminal negligence will come into play when youth coaches have charges brought against them by grieving parents who alledge that the coaches allowed their child to play, or worse, forced them to play, with a concussion. Like it or not, the writing is on the wall. The writing must be in crayon... Look, anyone can sue anyone for anything, they say. But some old timer who has Alzheimer's who wants to sue his Pop Warner league will never win such a case. He would have to prove that the Pop Warner league both knew that youth football was prohibitively dangerous and withheld this info from parents and children AND he would have to prove that he was injured in some way while he was playing football in that Pop Warner league. Your example is as ridiculous as it sounds. As for children later suing after parental waiver, many states are changing their laws to allow parents to waive the minor's right to sue--specifically for this reason, sports and recreation liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The writing must be in crayon... Look, anyone can sue anyone for anything, they say. But some old timer who has Alzheimer's who wants to sue his Pop Warner league will never win such a case. He would have to prove that the Pop Warner league both knew that youth football was prohibitively dangerous and withheld this info from parents and children AND he would have to prove that he was injured in some way while he was playing football in that Pop Warner league. Your example is as ridiculous as it sounds. As for children later suing after parental waiver, many states are changing their laws to allow parents to waive the minor's right to sue--specifically for this reason, sports and recreation liability. I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right. I'm betting on me, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Vernon Davis: NFL might be flag football in 20 years: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/nfl-monday-qb/21622478/vernon-davis-nfl-might-be-flag-football-in-20-years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 NFLPA will sue then claiming flags cause rug burns and all practices will be two man touch due to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 My brain was damaged on this board...who can I sue ? I never worked a day in my life but I appreciate you all for paying my taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right. I'm betting on me, though. Don't go to vegas or represent yourself legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eme123 Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 Well, if you want to get technical about it, the term "CTE" was first used in medical journals in 1996 and became the preferred medical term vs. "pugilistic dementia." The point is that the pathology of the disease has been studied since the 1920s. I think your description of Boston University's research into the disease as just a way to "make money" is rather cynical and short-sighted. Whether or not anyone relates their research to bolstering a case in a lawsuit has nothing to do with the fact that what they are finding out is a great public service to those who never considered that concussions, especially in other sports and in young children, can have such devastating effects on the brain. GO BILLS!!! It was brought up. I believe it was SDS who envisioned that our world would eventually not include tackle football as we know it. At the time, I mentioned that at one point earlier in this century, that boxing, baseball, and horse racing were the three most popular sports. Things do change and football however wildly popular is not immune to societal forces. It's a problem? I think it's merely reality. For the longest time now our society has revolved around business and law. The tobacco industry has survived massive litigation. I don't think litigation is the biggest threat to the NFL. I believe the health threat to players (diminishing the talent pool) is. There's no saying that the NCAA won't be a defendant in future legal actions if they haven't already been. With the pretty recent increase in documentation of head injuries and the accompanying protocols, I foresee the NCAA definitely being defendants and/or co-defendants with the NFL in these cases. Your anger and emotion while real and understandable don't really have any place in the discussion. This is business and law. Cases with zero merit will probably be thrown out. Cases with strong merit will be heard. Some cases will reach a verdict and others will be settled out of court. The NFL denied that concussions were a threat to the players' health. They even said that there was no increased risk of another concussion in the aftermath of a first concussion. EVERYONE now knows that this is untrue. The NFL lied repeatedly and suppressed studies which conflicted with their own "studies" for over a decade. The other thing that people need to understand but largely don't is that when you talk about NFL players, you're talking about many different "classes." The people bringing up boxing in the 20s etc are missing that it was a given that boxing caused brain injuries but that football didn't have the same linkage. Guys used to wear leather helmets. They tackled with their shoulders. It wasn't until fairly recently (perhaps the Jack Tatum era circa 1970-80) that the nature of pro football changed towards a more violent and ruthless model. The use of the helmet as a weapon has been on the rise and with it concussions have slowly increased. My point about classes is that there are at least three different eras (classes) of players: 1) Those from eras who had zero understanding of head injuries. Every once in awhile you "got your bell rung" and your teammates would joke about it and tease you. Reading books like Instant Replay and Paper Lion, this was the extent of players understanding of head injuries at least through the early to mid 70s. 2) Those players who perhaps had some inkling about the seriousness of head injuries but were in denial about it both because they needed the job (money, prestige, ego) AND because the NFL told them that there was nothing to worry about. 3) Players who've come into the league within the last 5 years who would have to be as gullible and naive as Manti Te'o to think that head injuries are no big deal. I believe that there were some players including POSSIBLY Junior Seau who didn't realize the seriousness of head injuries until later in their careers. Remember, Seau was a rookie in 1990. That's over 20 years ago. I put Seau in the second class. Also in this second class were guys like Troy Aikman and Steve Young who both retired around 1999-2000. These guys suffered repeated concussions and were smart enough to leave the game. They clearly had some inkling and were not in denial like some of their contemporaries. This is another broad and deep issue which does not lend itself to shallow takes. The brain is like any other part of the human body. It can and will get injured when hit hard enough. American culture from the 1920's until 1996, 2008, or whenever didn't need research to describe it. "CTE" is a simple thing and will NEVER be prevented! No pill or helmet is ever going to stop brain damage from extreme trauma. So why study it? For one, Boston University sees a great opportunity to gather all sorts of funding and prestige. Two, its just another opportunity to advance the rhetoric of what I consider the entitled class in our society. University's, Media, Lawyers and Politicians all team up to create the next "victim". The victim here is Junior Seau. He was driven to suicide by the all powerful NFL. They knew about "CTE" and failed to properly inform their players. They are to blame and they should be forced to pay $$. Seau, Lawyers, & Media all cash in. Professors, Media, and Politicians further their rhetoric that a free society is a dangerous society. This is hardly a shallow take. Our judicial system was not set up to paint a victim and then extract the benefits. It was set up to punish those who oppress others. In my opinion it is a crime to twist the language in the laws of our society for financial gain. That would make the NFL the victim. If the NFL made a concerted effort to mislead their players(employees) about the dangers of full contact that is one thing. In that case they should be punished. But if they offered players a chance to play a game that generations of players have played I don't see any fault. They are in the business of selling football. They are not in the business of doing medical research and dancing in and out of courts. Junior Seau made a bigger mistake in my opinion. He chose to put his body in positions that are dangerous and every choice has a consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 A positive development: @CollinsworthNBC Independent neurologists on the sidelines of NFL games next year. Finally! I have been pushing this one for years. Major step forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 Seemed relevant - nflpa pressuring to remove SD team doctor..... With an atrocious résumé (multiple malpractice liabilities and a dea investigation) http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/31/nflpa-asks-for-chargers-team-doctor-to-be-removed/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 The brain is like any other part of the human body. It can and will get injured when hit hard enough. American culture from the 1920's until 1996, 2008, or whenever didn't need research to describe it. "CTE" is a simple thing and will NEVER be prevented! No pill or helmet is ever going to stop brain damage from extreme trauma. So why study it? For one, Boston University sees a great opportunity to gather all sorts of funding and prestige. Two, its just another opportunity to advance the rhetoric of what I consider the entitled class in our society. University's, Media, Lawyers and Politicians all team up to create the next "victim". The victim here is Junior Seau. He was driven to suicide by the all powerful NFL. They knew about "CTE" and failed to properly inform their players. They are to blame and they should be forced to pay $$. Seau, Lawyers, & Media all cash in. Professors, Media, and Politicians further their rhetoric that a free society is a dangerous society. This is hardly a shallow take. Our judicial system was not set up to paint a victim and then extract the benefits. It was set up to punish those who oppress others. In my opinion it is a crime to twist the language in the laws of our society for financial gain. That would make the NFL the victim. If the NFL made a concerted effort to mislead their players(employees) about the dangers of full contact that is one thing. In that case they should be punished. But if they offered players a chance to play a game that generations of players have played I don't see any fault. They are in the business of selling football. They are not in the business of doing medical research and dancing in and out of courts. Junior Seau made a bigger mistake in my opinion. He chose to put his body in positions that are dangerous and every choice has a consequence. Why study any aspect of medicine for that matter? We know people will have heart attacks and cancer for instance. No need for cardiology or research into leukemia I guess. And just when I think your grasp of the importance of medical research can't be any more off track, you top it with your even shallower grasp of the tort system in the United States. Cynical doesn't begin to describe your take on the situation. To each his own I guess. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts