Mickey Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Big Blitz said: So why aren't we talking about hockey and soccer being at risk? Solution. Plastic bubbles. Also, "Last April, researchers at the Veterans Administration Boston Healthcare System and Boston University reported that participating in tackle football before age 12 "appears to increase vulnerability to the effects of CTE and other brain disease or conditions." That's red flag b.s. city to me. Has anyone seen an 8/9 or 10/11 yo park and rec football practice? I've been coaching them for 7 years. I guess its bc I have a functional brain, the 2 or 3 times we practice a week actual "head contact" is a limited practice (because THEY DONT REALLY KNOW HOW TO HIT AND MOST WANT NO PART OF CONTACT and old school garbage like bull in the ring is extinct....I protect the kids while still playing the game the right way); so to just say playing under 12 puts you at risk.....wth does that even mean? What positions? How frequently the contact? I'm still not 100 percent in on this. Still can only see it in the deceased who may very well had a lot of things going on perhaps wired to be more susceptible.....I dont know....and dont misunderstand...I'm not blowing it off either. I have a 13 and 10 year old that play. I have ZERO reservations. They love the game. It is not a case of Dad makes me play. The NFL itself has admitted and accepted the link even if you have not. Though you may have no reservations, the sharp decline in the number of kids playing football, even in the south, shows that an increasing number of parents have reservations about their kids playing football. I love the game as is but at the same time, I have zero interest in people permanently injuring themselves and each other for my entertainment. That is what makes all of this so hard. We all love the game and none of us want to see people permanently injured. Can we have one without the other? I don't know.
papazoid Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 47 minutes ago, Mickey said: In general, you can't contract away freedom from the consequences of your own negligence and self insurance is not a financially viable option for most organizations. For pro football, the existence of the labor law exemption coupled with the basic reality that anyone who straps on a football helmet now knows or should know the risk of playing tackle football makes insurance against head-trauma lawsuits largely irrelevant because no modern player will have a leg to stand on in a concussion lawsuit, absent the kind of deliberate and intentional misconduct that would fall beyond the scope of most insurance policies, anyway. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/17/insurance-is-the-new-existential-threat-to-football-supposedly/ the NFL can afford to self insure. it obviously doesn't want to, but at some point, it may have to set aside reserves. the NFL can change language in its player contracts....obviously the nflpa will resist. limited, no fault and broad form hold harmless clauses are very common.,,,,have you ever participated in any of the following activities.....you probably signed one... home contractors charity walk, run or bike race skiing, parasailing, amusement parks, parachuting, horse back riding, wall climbing car or boat rental
Mickey Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, papazoid said: For pro football, the existence of the labor law exemption coupled with the basic reality that anyone who straps on a football helmet now knows or should know the risk of playing tackle football makes insurance against head-trauma lawsuits largely irrelevant because no modern player will have a leg to stand on in a concussion lawsuit, absent the kind of deliberate and intentional misconduct that would fall beyond the scope of most insurance policies, anyway. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/17/insurance-is-the-new-existential-threat-to-football-supposedly/ the NFL can afford to self insure. it obviously doesn't want to, but at some point, it may have to set aside reserves. the NFL can change language in its player contracts....obviously the nflpa will resist. limited, no fault and broad form hold harmless clauses are very common.,,,,have you ever participated in any of the following activities.....you probably signed one... home contractors charity walk, run or bike race skiing, parasailing, amusement parks, parachuting, horse back riding, wall climbing car or boat rental I've had a good laugh in court with defendants who thought those clauses would save them from the consequences of their own negligence. NY law specifically prohibits this defense. https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-obligations-law/gob-sect-5-326.html: "Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with, or collateral to, any contract, membership application, ticket of admission or similar writing, entered into between the owner or operator of any pool, gymnasium, place of amusement or recreation, or similar establishment and the user of such facilities, pursuant to which such owner or operator receives a fee or other compensation for the use of such facilities, which exempts the said owner or operator from liability for damages caused by or resulting from the negligence of the owner, operator or person in charge of such establishment, or their agents, servants or employees, shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable." Hold harmless clauses are used, not to win cases, but to dupe people into thinking they can't sue. Trust me, if you get on a roller coaster and it flies off the track because the owner hasn't inspected the ride for 5 years, you won't lose your case because on the back of the ticket there is an assumption of risk or hold harmless clause printed on it. Even if there were no statute directly on point (there are ways around it), this is the same kind of loser defense the cigarette industry used, the asbestos industry, etc. It doesn't work. The best argument you have is assumption of risk as an athlete can be said to have assumed the risk inherent in a given sport. However, someone else's negligence is never a risk "inherent" in any sport. And even if it were, you can't pin assumption of risk on to a 12 year old. Can the NFL afford to self insure? Maybe. Maybe not. With a reported $1 billion settlement, I am not so sure. That is why I referred to "most organizations", not just the NFL. School districts, pop warner and colleges don't have NFL money, is it viable for them to self insure? I don't think the NFL is going to be able to contract their way out of this problem. Even more fundamental changes than they already have made to the game may be necessary. Edited January 22, 2019 by Mickey 1
Kirby Jackson Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Mango said: I think he’s talking about more so, how much will it cost in 10 years for the town of Tonawanda to insure KAT, TTFA, and high school football teams. Filled with underaged kids, not adults making millions. Do most townships have it in the budget to fit that bill down the road/is it worth it? I coached a kid in a different sport with 5 concussions from football. It’s been about 6 years since he played football. It took him an extra two years to graduate high school because he can’t sit through class, read, or sleep through the night for that matter. What happens when that kid comes from a very well off family and ties up the district in costly litigation? What happens if that family happens to win a large settlement because of negligence from the district employed head coach? Do other townships take note and bow out of the sport because premiums go up through the roof? Absolutely! And they compete with more “white bread” sports like hockey, rowing, and lacrosse? (Not that there isn’t serious risk in any of those) Yeah, I commented on the school end later. There are still plenty of programs that do it but the costs are rising. My buddy actually won a school last year on this exact issue. Their program had an exclusion for mental anguish and the example was exactly what you are referrring to. If a family sued the district over the hardship of a kid that struggled from football related injuries they would have been coming out of pocket. The other thing that hasn’t been mentioned (and a real insurance issue) is that these injuries develop over time. It’s the asbestos example. It’s an “occurrence” issue. When does it take place? It is a series of events that lead to these injuries and the claims may not arise until years later. They basically have to have the insurance in place for YEARS after they stop playing or take the chance that no claims will arise. 1
BobbyC81 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 19 hours ago, Mango said: I have been beating this drum for a while. Football will drastically diminish or go away entirely because it becomes too expensive to insure for schools and municipalities. Sure there will be some drop because more parents won't want their kids to play given the CTE issue. But eventually there will be hugely won court cases, and insurance companies will make it so expensive for middle america and below, that football won't even be an option for a lot of kids. Not without a hefty price tag at least. Even so, those white collar areas will have to heavily compete with sports like row/crew, hockey, lacrosse, etc. People won't stop playing the sport in large numbers because people are running from the head injury risk. Insurance companies will make that decision for them in a lot of places. I am fairly confident in saying that my grand kids most likely won't grow up playing football or even with the NFL. I am in my early 30's and no kids. Probably 40 years at least from being a grandpa. I worked for a company that built a basketball court on campus and leagues were being organized. They never happened though due to insurance issues.
BeginnersMind Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, papazoid said: For pro football, the existence of the labor law exemption coupled with the basic reality that anyone who straps on a football helmet now knows or should know the risk of playing tackle football makes insurance against head-trauma lawsuits largely irrelevant because no modern player will have a leg to stand on in a concussion lawsuit, absent the kind of deliberate and intentional misconduct that would fall beyond the scope of most insurance policies, anyway. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/01/17/insurance-is-the-new-existential-threat-to-football-supposedly/ the NFL can afford to self insure. it obviously doesn't want to, but at some point, it may have to set aside reserves. the NFL can change language in its player contracts....obviously the nflpa will resist. limited, no fault and broad form hold harmless clauses are very common.,,,,have you ever participated in any of the following activities.....you probably signed one... home contractors charity walk, run or bike race skiing, parasailing, amusement parks, parachuting, horse back riding, wall climbing car or boat rental The NFL can afford to insure, probably. Maybe the NCAA at the top levels can too. Below that, not many have big budgets. I would call this something to watch.
Orlando Buffalo Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 19 hours ago, gjv001 said: Why southern schools? Do you know of a difference that people in the south have about their children vs other parts of the country? In the south we allow our kids to play football and in the north you allow kids to sit on a couch and play video games while clogging arteries- both have major long term implications but we allow anyways. 19 hours ago, Buffalo Barbarian said: Thats because insurance agency's are nothing but crooks. All they want is to take your money and then not cover what they are supposed to . Nothing but legalized extortion forced on us by our worthless government. This sounds personal so i will tread lightly but when are you forced to buy insurance right now by the government? You can go with health insurance, without home insurance and you only need car insurance if you drive.
gjv001 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said: In the south we allow our kids to play football and in the north you allow kids to sit on a couch and play video games while clogging arteries- both have major long term implications but we allow anyway What data do you have to support your claim?
Bill from NYC Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 13 hours ago, SDS said: Outside a few southern states - the sport is losing ground. When school systems see rates go up with the high risk and less competition, school planners will look to save money. I live in one of the wealthiest counties in the country with overcrowded schools and one of our 12 high schools could not field a varsity team this year (1600 kids in the school). Football as we know it is a dead man walking. Maybe, but it will take some time. Kids with money usually don't want to play football or go into boxing, and who can blame them? Would you, with a pocket full of money, want to get hit by Khalil Mack, or punched by a young Mike Tyson? I certainly would not. I think it is impressive that the other 11 schools could field teams. Games like the ones yesterday are good for the sport. The owners are guaranteed profits like no other business that I have ever heard about. It is hard for me to imagine them letting this slip away but who knows?
BillsVet Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 1 hour ago, BeginnersMind said: The NFL can afford to insure, probably. Maybe the NCAA at the top levels can too. Below that, not many have big budgets. I would call this something to watch. I think it's ironic that in the early 20th century when football was far more brutal, the forward pass was a big part of the solution to making it more humane. This is a quote from an article I posted earlier in the thread from the 5/29/2014 edition of the Washington Post: "The new rules allowed for forward passing of the ball - adding the position now known as wide receiver and turning football into the sport we're now familiar with. Allowing the forward pass opened up the game, spreading the players out across the entire field. It was a change designed to eliminate packs of players scrambling and viciously vying for the football, which is where many injuries were sustained. The new rules stopped the game when a player fell on the ball in order to eliminate heaps of men trying to get the ball, and allowed the ball to be kicked down the field. It took a few years for the rules to shake out, Miller said. In 1913, a university in rural Indiana cemented its football legacy by demonstrating a proficiency at the passing game, establishing the gridiron legend of Notre Dame. In 1920, the National Football League was founded." The more things change, the more they remain the same. 1
billsfan_34 Posted January 22, 2019 Posted January 22, 2019 21 hours ago, Nextmanup said: This topic has been discussed, from Day 1, by everyone's favorite radio host: Mike Schopp. He brought it up again a few days ago for the first time in a while. He and you are right. This is not going to happen overnight. It will be a slow, cultural shift. Like the slow shift going from "colored drinking fountains" to the average American thinking that policy is insane, stupid, and disgusting. That didn't happen overnight. And the thing is, the segment of society that will be able to afford the high costs of football is not the segment playing football anyway, for the most part. They are doing other things. So the long term future of football, as we know it, is definitely uncertain. That segment in Williamsville NY (my town) plays hockey- thats the big one here.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 Was this already posted? http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/25841974/nfl-says-concussions-238-percent-last-season The NFL says that the number of concussions in games and practices dropped 23.8 percent in 2018. According to figures the league released Thursday, there were a combined 214 recorded concussions in 2018, during the preseason and regular season, compared to a record-high 281 in 2017. League executives said Thursday that they were still analyzing the data but were hopeful that their wide-ranging "call to action," issued in response to the 2017 numbers, had put the league on a better path regarding one of the most significant challenges the league faces
RoyBatty is alive Posted January 24, 2019 Posted January 24, 2019 On 1/21/2019 at 11:49 AM, MJS said: This is overblown. Even if tons of schools stop having a football program, do you think any of those southern schools will stop? In many of those areas high school football is bigger than any other sport, including college and NFL football. They'll pay what it takes to keep the programs going, and have plenty of boosters and doners to ensure it. Not overblown at all. Gradually over time yes they will. I can tell you living in the state for high school football, probably a third of the parents i know wont let their kids play football. 10 yearS ago it was maybe 10%. Trend is inexorable and only head in one direction.
Recommended Posts