Another Far-Reaching Lawsuit in the NFL

[Marshal Dillon]

This is getting very interesting.

Imagine: Players suing players. Players suing opposing coaches.

Out of the question?

Not if former NFL player Barrett Green wins his day in court against the Washington Redskins, former Redskins assistant coach Gregg Williams and former Redskins tight end Robert Royal because of a career-ending knee injury he suffered as a New York Giant during a game in 2004]

Click here for link

[SUPERCOACH]

If he has any sort of proof that there was a bounty program in place when he took that cheap shot that ended his career, then I think he has a pretty good case.

[pmull]

Any lawsuit of this type would open the door for future lawsuits after any injury.

Football is a big boy game. Unfortunately injuries happen.

[SUPERCOACH]

Any lawsuit of this type would open the door for future lawsuits after any injury.

Football is a big boy game. Unfortunately injuries happen.

I agree, but if there is proof of a bounty to take him out, I think he has a good case.  It was clearly a cheap shot that ended his career.

[pmull]

Any lawsuit of this type would open the door for future lawsuits after any injury.

Football is a big boy game. Unfortunately injuries happen.

I agree, but if there is proof of a bounty to take him out, I think he has a good case.  It was clearly a cheap shot that ended his career.

I understand your thinking on the proof of bounty. In theory I agree with you. In reality I think this could open up any cheap shot, intentional or not, to a future lawsuit.

[SUPERCOACH]

I am surprised that their contract doesn't include a waiver against lawsuits like this and the concussion lawsuit.

[Catch Prothro]

I am surprised that their contract doesn't include a waiver against lawsuits like this and the concussion lawsuit.

That was exactly my thinking.  The usual defense would be called, "Assumption of the Risk."  For example, if you get injured jumping out of an airplane, it's probably your own fault.  However, without a waiver, and proof of intentional acts, something like this might fly.  I agree with pmull about opening the door to other lawsuits.  So this case would likely be limited to planned, intentional acts, assuming it is allowed at all.

[ALTideUp]

I believe that we hold players and management to different standards. When owners make moves to increase their profit by letting players go, moving a team to a new city, etc., we easily accept that "hey, it's a business". When players act as businessmen, to protect their major assets, which are their bodies and their abilities, we are critical of them.

I agree with those who say that if evidence of a bounty is found, that the player is entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages. In fact, a successful law suit with a significant settlement will do more than any lame NFL front office policies can to curb excessive violence.

Lastly, to all the folks who employ the "this is a man's game", or "if you wanna play with the big boys....." rhetoric, please consider what's really going on in the NFL. People, predominantly poor and minority, are tempted with the possibility of playing professional sports and earning in a year what everyone on their block, combined, won't earn in their lifetimes. The catch is you have to risk serious mental or physical injury. This system compels poor kids from all over the country to try their hand at football, and from the hundreds of thousands who try, the cream of the crop emerge through high school and college competition. Along the way some experience injuries and are out of the game before they see a penny. The ones who make it typically do so at the expense of everything else, including education and training for alternative careers. What we end up with is a class of modern-day gladiators who are essentially coerced into a situation in which they risk their mental and physical health for money in order to provide entertainment for the rest of us. You might not agree with that analysis, but I don't think it can dismissed out of hand.

Here is a comparison situation that might shed light on what's really going on in sports like football or boxing. Let's image that a university was going to do medical research on topics like the effects of two people knocking their heads together, or the effects of having a 300lb sack of potatoes slammed into the side of someone's legs. Such research would never be approved by the research ethics committee under any circumstances. The reason would be that it is inhumane to subject people to such dangers even if it might benefit others. But the other point is coercion. If a researcher proposed studying the effectiveness of several new types of hypodermic needles (slightly painful but not harmful), and planned to pay people 2 million dollars each to participate, the study wouldn't be approved by the ethics board. The board would argue that the incentive was so high that people were not actually free to choose whether they would participate. In comparison, in football we are comfortable with subjecting players to outcomes that would be unacceptable in medical research under any circumstances, and employ levels of compensation that would be regarded as too coercive even for a procedure that involves only minor pain and no serious risk of harm.

I am a football fan, and I really enjoy the game as it is currently play, with fast, daring play, and big hits. But I am uneasy about the risks that players subject themselves to for my entertainment, and about the sociology of it all.

[ricky023]

I believe that we hold players and management to different standards. When owners make moves to increase their profit by letting players go, moving a team to a new city, etc., we easily accept that "hey, it's a business". When players act as businessmen, to protect their major assets, which are their bodies and their abilities, we are critical of them.

I agree with those who say that if evidence of a bounty is found, that the player is entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages. In fact, a successful law suit with a significant settlement will do more than any lame NFL front office policies can to curb excessive violence.

Lastly, to all the folks who employ the "this is a man's game", or "if you wanna play with the big boys....." rhetoric, please consider what's really going on in the NFL. People, predominantly poor and minority, are tempted with the possibility of playing professional sports and earning in a year what everyone on their block, combined, won't earn in their lifetimes. The catch is you have to risk serious mental or physical injury. This system compels poor kids from all over the country to try their hand at football, and from the hundreds of thousands who try, the cream of the crop emerge through high school and college competition. Along the way some experience injuries and are out of the game before they see a penny. The ones who make it typically do so at the expense of everything else, including education and training for alternative careers. What we end up with is a class of modern-day gladiators who are essentially coerced into a situation in which they risk their mental and physical health for money in order to provide entertainment for the rest of us. You might not agree with that analysis, but I don't think it can dismissed out of hand.

Here is a comparison situation that might shed light on what's really going on in sports like football or boxing. Let's image that a university was going to do medical research on topics like the effects of two people knocking their heads together, or the effects of having a 300lb sack of potatoes slammed into the side of someone's legs. Such research would never be approved by the research ethics committee under any circumstances. The reason would be that it is inhumane to subject people to such dangers even if it might benefit others. But the other point is coercion. If a researcher proposed studying the effectiveness of several new types of hypodermic needles (slightly painful but not harmful), and planned to pay people 2 million dollars each to participate, the study wouldn't be approved by the ethics board. The board would argue that the incentive was so high that people were not actually free to choose whether they would participate. In comparison, in football we are comfortable with subjecting players to outcomes that would be unacceptable in medical research under any circumstances, and employ levels of compensation that would be regarded as too coercive even for a procedure that involves only minor pain and no serious risk of harm.

I am a football fan, and I really enjoy the game as it is currently play, with fast, daring play, and big hits. But I am uneasy about the risks that players subject themselves to for my entertainment, and about the sociology of it all.

 , that well placed ATU. I seems to reason our players are getting bigger and stronger and more gladiator type. For instance: Remember the days when no helmet was used. I can not imagine that on today's' football field. RTR!

[pmull]

I believe that we hold players and management to different standards. When owners make moves to increase their profit by letting players go, moving a team to a new city, etc., we easily accept that "hey, it's a business". When players act as businessmen, to protect their major assets, which are their bodies and their abilities, we are critical of them.

I agree with those who say that if evidence of a bounty is found, that the player is entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages. In fact, a successful law suit with a significant settlement will do more than any lame NFL front office policies can to curb excessive violence.

Lastly, to all the folks who employ the "this is a man's game", or "if you wanna play with the big boys....." rhetoric, please consider what's really going on in the NFL. People, predominantly poor and minority, are tempted with the possibility of playing professional sports and earning in a year what everyone on their block, combined, won't earn in their lifetimes. The catch is you have to risk serious mental or physical injury. This system compels poor kids from all over the country to try their hand at football, and from the hundreds of thousands who try, the cream of the crop emerge through high school and college competition. Along the way some experience injuries and are out of the game before they see a penny. The ones who make it typically do so at the expense of everything else, including education and training for alternative careers. What we end up with is a class of modern-day gladiators who are essentially coerced into a situation in which they risk their mental and physical health for money in order to provide entertainment for the rest of us. You might not agree with that analysis, but I don't think it can dismissed out of hand.

Here is a comparison situation that might shed light on what's really going on in sports like football or boxing. Let's image that a university was going to do medical research on topics like the effects of two people knocking their heads together, or the effects of having a 300lb sack of potatoes slammed into the side of someone's legs. Such research would never be approved by the research ethics committee under any circumstances. The reason would be that it is inhumane to subject people to such dangers even if it might benefit others. But the other point is coercion. If a researcher proposed studying the effectiveness of several new types of hypodermic needles (slightly painful but not harmful), and planned to pay people 2 million dollars each to participate, the study wouldn't be approved by the ethics board. The board would argue that the incentive was so high that people were not actually free to choose whether they would participate. In comparison, in football we are comfortable with subjecting players to outcomes that would be unacceptable in medical research under any circumstances, and employ levels of compensation that would be regarded as too coercive even for a procedure that involves only minor pain and no serious risk of harm.

I am a football fan, and I really enjoy the game as it is currently play, with fast, daring play, and big hits. But I am uneasy about the risks that players subject themselves to for my entertainment, and about the sociology of it all.

Football is a violate sport. It always has been. I agree with using technology to improve equipment such as helmets and knee braces. I like some of the new rules that limit head to head contact and protect the QB. However, you can not stray too far from the original rules without changing the game.

In regard to lawsuits that is a slippery slope. When you agree to play the game you assume a certain amount of risk.   

[SUPERCOACH]

I believe that we hold players and management to different standards. When owners make moves to increase their profit by letting players go, moving a team to a new city, etc., we easily accept that "hey, it's a business". When players act as businessmen, to protect their major assets, which are their bodies and their abilities, we are critical of them.

I agree with those who say that if evidence of a bounty is found, that the player is entitled to both compensatory and punitive damages. In fact, a successful law suit with a significant settlement will do more than any lame NFL front office policies can to curb excessive violence.

Lastly, to all the folks who employ the "this is a man's game", or "if you wanna play with the big boys....." rhetoric, please consider what's really going on in the NFL. People, predominantly poor and minority, are tempted with the possibility of playing professional sports and earning in a year what everyone on their block, combined, won't earn in their lifetimes. The catch is you have to risk serious mental or physical injury. This system compels poor kids from all over the country to try their hand at football, and from the hundreds of thousands who try, the cream of the crop emerge through high school and college competition. Along the way some experience injuries and are out of the game before they see a penny. The ones who make it typically do so at the expense of everything else, including education and training for alternative careers. What we end up with is a class of modern-day gladiators who are essentially coerced into a situation in which they risk their mental and physical health for money in order to provide entertainment for the rest of us. You might not agree with that analysis, but I don't think it can dismissed out of hand.

Here is a comparison situation that might shed light on what's really going on in sports like football or boxing. Let's image that a university was going to do medical research on topics like the effects of two people knocking their heads together, or the effects of having a 300lb sack of potatoes slammed into the side of someone's legs. Such research would never be approved by the research ethics committee under any circumstances. The reason would be that it is inhumane to subject people to such dangers even if it might benefit others. But the other point is coercion. If a researcher proposed studying the effectiveness of several new types of hypodermic needles (slightly painful but not harmful), and planned to pay people 2 million dollars each to participate, the study wouldn't be approved by the ethics board. The board would argue that the incentive was so high that people were not actually free to choose whether they would participate. In comparison, in football we are comfortable with subjecting players to outcomes that would be unacceptable in medical research under any circumstances, and employ levels of compensation that would be regarded as too coercive even for a procedure that involves only minor pain and no serious risk of harm.

I am a football fan, and I really enjoy the game as it is currently play, with fast, daring play, and big hits. But I am uneasy about the risks that players subject themselves to for my entertainment, and about the sociology of it all.

I think your analysis is fairly accurate.  However, as someone who played the game in high school and even suffered some broken bones, I'm OK with it.

Now... as for letting my son play... I struggle with that.  I may let him play 7 on 7 or flag football until he gets to high school, then revisit it then.  I will probably let him when he gets older, if he wants to do it and he understands what he is getting himself into.  It is a risky game, but it is a great way to turn young boys into young men.  It teaches courage, discipline, hard work, perseverance, team work, respect, and all sorts of other desirable attributes that we want to instill in a young man.

Your analogy to modern day gladiators is spot on.  Normally all of these things would be taught in the military in past generations, but fortunately there aren't really any large scale wars these days that require a significant percentage of the male population to be involved.  With the technology and training we have in the military today, we can successfully defend our nation with a force that is just a small fraction of 1 percent of the population.

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...