fg
Unicron
Gaming
Posts: 2,920 
|
Post by fg on Aug 11, 2019 22:16:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Aug 16, 2019 19:14:51 GMT -5
Dumbass. Someone please put him in touch with a concussion doctor. A good one, not that idiot NFL and WWE both hired.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,275
|
Post by Push R Truth on Aug 16, 2019 20:08:30 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of making things safer and protecting people from themselves...
But there reaches a point where if an adult is of sound mind and wants to take a risk, you kinda let them because he's only putting himself in danger. I'd feel more sorry for the defensive guy that hurts AB than I would be for AB if he insists on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by S-Chrome on Aug 18, 2019 18:00:40 GMT -5
But there reaches a point where if an adult is of sound mind and wants to take a risk, you kinda let them because he's only putting himself in danger. I'd feel more sorry for the defensive guy that hurts AB than I would be for AB if he insists on this. That's the thing. I sincerely don't think that Brown is of sound mind at all. |
|
|
|
Post by arrogantmodel on Aug 18, 2019 21:36:53 GMT -5
Let him get popped in his f***ing head, be forced to retire, and let him try to go on a "feel bad for me" campaign.
No, dude. You want to roll the dice with a less safe helmet, you get no sympathy. I know, I spelled it wrong. Scott Steiner will come after me. 😊
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,016
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2019 5:05:20 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of making things safer and protecting people from themselves... But there reaches a point where if an adult is of sound mind and wants to take a risk, you kinda let them because he's only putting himself in danger. I'd feel more sorry for the defensive guy that hurts AB than I would be for AB if he insists on this. It's not a risk though. It's a fact. And the organisation has a duty of care to not let people do things they know will injure them. Otherwise, what would be the difference if someone said they didn't want any pads? Or an older, less protective style? As for only a danger to themselves, well, this is primarily a wrestling board, of all places, around here we know it's not only themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Aug 19, 2019 6:55:07 GMT -5
I'm a big fan of making things safer and protecting people from themselves... But there reaches a point where if an adult is of sound mind and wants to take a risk, you kinda let them because he's only putting himself in danger. I'd feel more sorry for the defensive guy that hurts AB than I would be for AB if he insists on this. It's not a risk though. It's a fact. And the organisation has a duty of care to not let people do things they know will injure them. Like playing professional football? Because there are a great number of neurologists who would vehemently argue that no amount of NFL football at that size and speed is safe for your brain. Is it the team's responsibility to not let them play? And that's not playing devil's advocate, there's a really true argument to be made there that doctors would advise you not to do something meanwhile these teams are profiteering on the back of this head trauma. There has always been a reasonable amount of responsibility on the player to adhere to safety rules at their own risk. Look at Craig MacTavish in the 90's. |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,016
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2019 7:01:03 GMT -5
It's not a risk though. It's a fact. And the organisation has a duty of care to not let people do things they know will injure them. Like playing professional football? Because there are a great number of neurologists who would vehemently argue that no amount of NFL football at that size and speed is safe for your brain. Is it the team's responsibility to not let them play? And that's not playing devil's advocate, there's a really true argument to be made there that doctors would advise you not to do something meanwhile these teams are profiteering on the back of this head trauma. There has always been a reasonable amount of responsibility on the player to adhere to safety rules at their own risk. Look at Craig MacTavish in the 90's. That's a bit of a separate debate, banning something v making it as safe as possible. As for MacTavish, he was grandfathered in because that's what the NHL allowed, the NFL is saying it isn't, it comes back to what the governing body puts in the rules. MacTavish was following the rules, Brown's refusing to. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Aug 19, 2019 7:29:00 GMT -5
Like playing professional football? Because there are a great number of neurologists who would vehemently argue that no amount of NFL football at that size and speed is safe for your brain. Is it the team's responsibility to not let them play? And that's not playing devil's advocate, there's a really true argument to be made there that doctors would advise you not to do something meanwhile these teams are profiteering on the back of this head trauma. There has always been a reasonable amount of responsibility on the player to adhere to safety rules at their own risk. Look at Craig MacTavish in the 90's. That's a bit of a separate debate, banning something v making it as safe as possible. As for MacTavish, he was grandfathered in because that's what the NHL allowed, the NFL is saying it isn't, it comes back to what the governing body puts in the rules. MacTavish was following the rules, Brown's refusing to. It's not a separate debate. You're saying the safety of the player is the responsibility of the team, but the very nature of the game is incredibly unsafe. There's no real way to undo that marriage, especially as it pertains to the health of your brain, which both of them entirely do. The point with MacTavish is you're saying safety should be paramount, not the rules. If there wasn't a rule about new helmets, that would still be what the team should do in the name of safety, right? The NHL wasn't in the right because of the letter of the law if we're talking about safety being paramount. |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,016
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2019 8:00:03 GMT -5
That's a bit of a separate debate, banning something v making it as safe as possible. As for MacTavish, he was grandfathered in because that's what the NHL allowed, the NFL is saying it isn't, it comes back to what the governing body puts in the rules. MacTavish was following the rules, Brown's refusing to. It's not a separate debate. You're saying the safety of the player is the responsibility of the team, but the very nature of the game is incredibly unsafe. There's no real way to undo that marriage, especially as it pertains to the health of your brain, which both of them entirely do. The point with MacTavish is you're saying safety should be paramount, not the rules. If there wasn't a rule about new helmets, that would still be what the team should do in the name of safety, right? The NHL wasn't in the right because of the letter of the law if we're talking about safety being paramount. No, the NHL wasn't and they got very lucky he didn't get smashed in the head, but on a technicality, he was allowed to. Banning v making it safe are too different debates. Sports can and do change to reflect new information, so football could be changed. Look at it's closest relative, rugby, no where near the level of damage is sustained. There could be ways to minimise risk, but this is all they're prepared to do now. Beyond safety, there's money. The NFL will only do things if they thing it will help them make money. If CTE hadn't become an issue, they'd have done nothing, but the danger makes them look bad so they'll take a step to make it safer. If things stay bad, they'll take another little step, and another little step. Banning is removing something altogether, making it safer changes the sport. Same as you watch a game from 1940, it's similar but a different game. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Aug 19, 2019 8:27:59 GMT -5
It's not a separate debate. You're saying the safety of the player is the responsibility of the team, but the very nature of the game is incredibly unsafe. There's no real way to undo that marriage, especially as it pertains to the health of your brain, which both of them entirely do. The point with MacTavish is you're saying safety should be paramount, not the rules. If there wasn't a rule about new helmets, that would still be what the team should do in the name of safety, right? The NHL wasn't in the right because of the letter of the law if we're talking about safety being paramount. No, the NHL wasn't and they got very lucky he didn't get smashed in the head, but on a technicality, he was allowed to. Banning v making it safe are too different debates. Sports can and do change to reflect new information, so football could be changed. Look at it's closest relative, rugby, no where near the level of damage is sustained. There could be ways to minimise risk, but this is all they're prepared to do now. Beyond safety, there's money. The NFL will only do things if they thing it will help them make money. If CTE hadn't become an issue, they'd have done nothing, but the danger makes them look bad so they'll take a step to make it safer. If things stay bad, they'll take another little step, and another little step. Banning is removing something altogether, making it safer changes the sport. Same as you watch a game from 1940, it's similar but a different game. I agree about the NHL, but that shit was way crazier than AB using a helmet that was deemed safe last year. What I replied to was a quote from you of: Which appllies to both. I'm not saying they're the same debate individually, what I'm saying is that what you said could (and arguably should) be applied to both. It isn't a risk, it is a fact. Playing pro football is detrimental to your brain. The NFL is trash and I won't support the product. They don't care about the players, at all. Which is why they fought to bring down the settlement of the initial lawsuit where it came out how evil villain-y bad they are. They do it now as a way to cover their ass from future lawsuits and from getting bad PR. |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,016
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2019 9:04:50 GMT -5
No, the NHL wasn't and they got very lucky he didn't get smashed in the head, but on a technicality, he was allowed to. Banning v making it safe are too different debates. Sports can and do change to reflect new information, so football could be changed. Look at it's closest relative, rugby, no where near the level of damage is sustained. There could be ways to minimise risk, but this is all they're prepared to do now. Beyond safety, there's money. The NFL will only do things if they thing it will help them make money. If CTE hadn't become an issue, they'd have done nothing, but the danger makes them look bad so they'll take a step to make it safer. If things stay bad, they'll take another little step, and another little step. Banning is removing something altogether, making it safer changes the sport. Same as you watch a game from 1940, it's similar but a different game. I agree about the NHL, but that shit was way crazier than AB using a helmet that was deemed safe last year. What I replied to was a quote from you of: Which appllies to both. I'm not saying they're the same debate individually, what I'm saying is that what you said could (and arguably should) be applied to both. It isn't a risk, it is a fact. Playing pro football is detrimental to your brain. The NFL is trash and I won't support the product. They don't care about the players, at all. Which is why they fought to bring down the settlement of the initial lawsuit where it came out how evil villain-y bad they are. They do it now as a way to cover their ass from future lawsuits and from getting bad PR. Ok, should have phrased that as they SHOULD have. My mistake. But beyond changing the sport massively and losing money and fans because the more exciting parts are more appealing to a viewer, there's nothing stopping them.  They could make tons of rules about tackling and protection etc. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Aug 19, 2019 9:58:33 GMT -5
I agree about the NHL, but that shit was way crazier than AB using a helmet that was deemed safe last year. What I replied to was a quote from you of: Which appllies to both. I'm not saying they're the same debate individually, what I'm saying is that what you said could (and arguably should) be applied to both. It isn't a risk, it is a fact. Playing pro football is detrimental to your brain. The NFL is trash and I won't support the product. They don't care about the players, at all. Which is why they fought to bring down the settlement of the initial lawsuit where it came out how evil villain-y bad they are. They do it now as a way to cover their ass from future lawsuits and from getting bad PR. Ok, should have phrased that as they SHOULD have. My mistake. But beyond changing the sport massively and losing money and fans because the more exciting parts are more appealing to a viewer, there's nothing stopping them. They could make tons of rules about tackling and protection etc. At first the NFL not existing in the same capacity in 20 years really seemed crazy. Now, it seems very possible. |
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,016
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Aug 19, 2019 10:03:39 GMT -5
Ok, should have phrased that as they SHOULD have. My mistake. But beyond changing the sport massively and losing money and fans because the more exciting parts are more appealing to a viewer, there's nothing stopping them. They could make tons of rules about tackling and protection etc. At first the NFL not existing in the same capacity in 20 years really seemed crazy. Now, it seems very possible. I think it'll hang on. The talent pool is going to dry up as more and more parents don't want their kids getting into it, because of that the level of play will go down, there will be less money which will spiral. But as long as they can get a few hundred people they'll cling on to dear life. |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,889
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Aug 23, 2019 18:33:26 GMT -5
It's not a risk though. It's a fact. And the organisation has a duty of care to not let people do things they know will injure them. Like playing professional football? Because there are a great number of neurologists who would vehemently argue that no amount of NFL football at that size and speed is safe for your brain. Is it the team's responsibility to not let them play? And that's not playing devil's advocate, there's a really true argument to be made there that doctors would advise you not to do something meanwhile these teams are profiteering on the back of this head trauma. There has always been a reasonable amount of responsibility on the player to adhere to safety rules at their own risk. Look at Craig MacTavish in the 90's. |
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on Aug 23, 2019 19:47:18 GMT -5
Like playing professional football? Because there are a great number of neurologists who would vehemently argue that no amount of NFL football at that size and speed is safe for your brain. Is it the team's responsibility to not let them play? And that's not playing devil's advocate, there's a really true argument to be made there that doctors would advise you not to do something meanwhile these teams are profiteering on the back of this head trauma. There has always been a reasonable amount of responsibility on the player to adhere to safety rules at their own risk. Look at Craig MacTavish in the 90's. Damn, that's true and also not a bad song. I could see that playing after Soul Asylum on a 90's station. |
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,351
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Sept 5, 2019 22:34:35 GMT -5
Based on his behavior, I’m beginning to think his old helmet didn’t protect his brain well enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by minorleagueguy on Sept 6, 2019 14:14:11 GMT -5
....make him sign a waiver that holds him responsible so he cant sue the team/league
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,351
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Sept 7, 2019 12:18:49 GMT -5
Now he’s free to wear his old helmet while doing sit-ups in his driveway.
|
|
