KC running back Jamaal Charles avoids concussion protocol

[Mojo Ram]

The season Alex got benched he led the league in Wins, Passer Rating and Completion Percentage. Takes one shot to the dome in ST Louis, gets back up, throws a ****ing strike to the end zone to take the lead. Goes to the sideline, complains of blurred vision, and never takes another meaningful snap for the 49ers. GOOD ****ING GAME HARBAUGH YOU PIECE OF ****ING crap.

And those 49ers runner ups would've had a Lombardi by now if they had stuck with A.Smith.
JMO

Love that their window is closing. Anyway...resume thread! :coach:

 

[CodeMonkey]

---------
Dude is too much of a dumb jock to remember this is just a rigged performance. /ramtard
---------

Has this guy been lurking over here?

 

[Greg Stone]

I disagree with most of the posts. This is on the coaching staff. You do not rely on the self-diagnostic skills of someone that just had a concussion. They should have checked him out no matter what he said after that hit.

 

[Athos]

If you hear a player talk like that.....it's on the coaches to lock him down, test him, and if symptomatic, to sideline him until he's in the clear.

If Goodell, the parody of fake interest in player safety, really cared about the players, they'd be sidelined for this shit. Agree with the one who said they should sign waivers where if they hide concussion symptoms or coaches cover it up, they lose benefits.

 

[RhodyRams]

I think he should be forced to sit out one game by the NFL, but common sense he would appeal and be on the field this week anyway

 

[thirteen28]

Wouldn't matter.

It wouldn't necessarily prevent future lawsuits, but a good lawyer (and I'm going to guess that the NFL could afford one) could write one in such a way that it would increase the burden over which a future plaintiff had to overcome.

 

[Mikey Ram]

Because you're a medical professional Jamal :huh:

The flashing lights and shit were OK... He had just watched Close encounters of the third kind and didn't realize he was in a football game and not his home theater

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/22/chiefs-say-charles-was-checked-for-concussion/

Chiefs say Charles was checked for concussion
Posted by Michael David Smith on October 22, 2014

AP

Chiefs running back Jamaal Charles says he tried to avoid having to go through the league’s concussion protocol after a collision on the field Sunday. But the Chiefs say Charles was, in fact, checked out on the sideline before being allowed to go back in the game.

Chiefs head trainer Rick Burkholder said Charles was checked during Sunday’s game and has been checked this week and did not get a concussion in the collision, which did cause a concussion for Chargers cornerback Brandon Flowers.

“When he got hit, I obviously checked with him,” Burkholder said. “I know coach talked to him a bit there. I came back and consulted with the team physician; he was absolutely asymptomatic, wasn’t complaining about anything. . . . Obviously, we check on those guys as they come off the field almost every series. I know coach spent time with him on the plane after the game.”

Burkholder’s statement that Charles was “absolutely asymptomatic” contradicts Charles’s statement that he “was seeing light bulbs, like, light bulbs around my eyes.” Seeing flashing lights is one of the symptoms of a concussion.

Charles may not have told Burkholder that he was seeing flashing lights, and Charles may not have exhibited any other symptoms of a concussion when he was examined. But Charles has said since that he had a symptom associated with concussions. And whether he actually had a concussion or not, it’s alarming that he indicated he wanted to avoid being diagnosed.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/22/chiefs-say-charles-was-checked-for-concussion/

Chiefs say Charles was checked for concussion
Posted by Michael David Smith on October 22, 2014

AP

Chiefs running back Jamaal Charles says he tried to avoid having to go through the league’s concussion protocol after a collision on the field Sunday. But the Chiefs say Charles was, in fact, checked out on the sideline before being allowed to go back in the game.

Chiefs head trainer Rick Burkholder said Charles was checked during Sunday’s game and has been checked this week and did not get a concussion in the collision, which did cause a concussion for Chargers cornerback Brandon Flowers.

“When he got hit, I obviously checked with him,” Burkholder said. “I know coach talked to him a bit there. I came back and consulted with the team physician; he was absolutely asymptomatic, wasn’t complaining about anything. . . . Obviously, we check on those guys as they come off the field almost every series. I know coach spent time with him on the plane after the game.”

Burkholder’s statement that Charles was “absolutely asymptomatic” contradicts Charles’s statement that he “was seeing light bulbs, like, light bulbs around my eyes.” Seeing flashing lights is one of the symptoms of a concussion.

Charles may not have told Burkholder that he was seeing flashing lights, and Charles may not have exhibited any other symptoms of a concussion when he was examined. But Charles has said since that he had a symptom associated with concussions. And whether he actually had a concussion or not, it’s alarming that he indicated he wanted to avoid being diagnosed.

 

[jrry32]

It wouldn't necessarily prevent future lawsuits, but a good lawyer (and I'm going to guess that the NFL could afford one) could write one in such a way that it would increase the burden over which a future plaintiff had to overcome.

I doubt it. It's not the way that it's written so much that matters(it matters but it's not going to be the difference maker in this scenario). Courts tend to look unfavorably on exculpatory agreements. In this relationship, it would be considered a contract of adhesion between parties in an unequal bargaining position and would likely be considered in violation of public policy.

The thing the NFL has going for them in future lawsuits is that players from here on out will have a tough time arguing failure to warn against them because all of the news on the effects of concussions pretty well warn them of the consequences.

 

[thirteen28]

I doubt it. It's not the way that it's written so much that matters(it matters but it's not going to be the difference maker in this scenario). Courts tend to look unfavorably on exculpatory agreements. In this relationship, it would be considered a contract of adhesion between parties in an unequal bargaining position and would likely be considered in violation of public policy.

The thing the NFL has going for them in future lawsuits is that players from here on out will have a tough time arguing failure to warn against them because all of the news on the effects of concussions pretty well warn them of the consequences.

That would be the whole point of making them sign a waiver though - to put a warning in front of their face of the long term consequences of playing, with their signature being the acknowledgement.

 

[jrry32]

That would be the whole point of making them sign a waiver though - to put a warning in front of their face of the long term consequences of playing, with their signature being the acknowledgement.

Fairly unnecessary on the failure to warn front. You can't deny it anymore. But I'm sure the NFL already has waivers acknowledging the risk that the players sign.

 

[Dodgersrf]

I disagree with most of the posts. This is on the coaching staff. You do not rely on the self-diagnostic skills of someone that just had a concussion. They should have checked him out no matter what he said after that hit.

I think Charles just did a pretty good job of showing their incompetence.
I doubt the organization is happy that Charles has made this public.

 

[Boffo97]

Fairly unnecessary on the failure to warn front. You can't deny it anymore. But I'm sure the NFL already has waivers acknowledging the risk that the players sign.

The smartest thing would be to insert said waivers into the standard contract "skeleton", which I assume they have before specifics of pay, length and incentives (and such) are added in to customize it.

 

[jrry32]

The smartest thing would be to insert said waivers into the standard contract "skeleton", which I assume they have before specifics of pay, length and incentives (and such) are added in to customize it.

As I said before, not going to matter if it's an exculpatory clause. In fact, you'd be better off making the waiver it's own document if it's an exculpatory clause. Courts take the issue of conspicuousness with those clauses very seriously. If it's simply an acknowledgement of the risk, they end up signing it either ways.

 

[Thordaddy]

I doubt it. It's not the way that it's written so much that matters(it matters but it's not going to be the difference maker in this scenario). Courts tend to look unfavorably on exculpatory agreements. In this relationship, it would be considered a contract of adhesion between parties in an unequal bargaining position and would likely be considered in violation of public policy.

The thing the NFL has going for them in future lawsuits is that players from here on out will have a tough time arguing failure to warn against them because all of the news on the effects of concussions pretty well warn them of the consequences.

Exactly why if it was part of the union contract it could hold water

 

[jrry32]

Exactly why if it was part of the union contract it could hold water

I don't know much of anything about collective bargaining so I can't agree or disagree.

 

[Thordaddy]

I don't know much of anything about collective bargaining so I can't agree or disagree.

The union makes the parties equal in bargaining power