Art Monk vs. NFL

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe CRedskinsRule has a brother who's a lawyer or something

How quirky is that, I just happen to know this guy on this board, he's like a lawyer, and his mom and dad are the same as mine. But you know that guy is pretty shy, and doesn't like to type explanations... :yeahright

[CRedskinsRule]

or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:

Originally Posted by wikipedia via google

Lead plaintiff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a class action lawsuit, a lead plaintiff (also called class representative, named plaintiff, or representative plaintiff) is the named party. The court officially appoints this individual when it certifies the lawsuit as a class action.

The lead plaintiff must be able to represent the interests of all the members of the class. He or she is responsible to hire the attorney, file the lawsuit, consult on the case, and agree to any settlement.

[los panda]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think the talk about wrap up tackling isn't as easy as it sounds. You reference back to Pop Warner football. I understand the point you're triyng to make with that example, but it's not applicable to the pro game.

The offense constantly get rules in their favor that limits what the defense can really do to stop the offense. I think the focus of NFL defenses have changed from trying to stop the opposing teams in 3 downs and forcing a punt by solid defense to forcing turnovers being the best option for stopping an offense that has all the rules in their favor. Big hits on QBs and on the ball carriers are the best way to stop an offense in today's game.

I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before. There were concussions before the change in philosophy to promiting dominant offenses, but I'm talking more about saying "just wrap up" isn't fair anymore.

right, it's not fair to say that making a great form tackle is easy. punching through the ball while wrapping up is a lot harder than just rolling full steam down the train tracks

[CRedskinsRule]

another interesting article on being a lead plaintiff.

What’s In It For the Lead Class Action Plaintiff?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I think the talk about wrap up tackling isn't as easy as it sounds. You reference back to Pop Warner football. I understand the point you're triyng to make with that example, but it's not applicable to the pro game.

The offense constantly get rules in their favor that limits what the defense can really do to stop the offense. I think the focus of NFL defenses have changed from trying to stop the opposing teams in 3 downs and forcing a punt by solid defense to forcing turnovers being the best option for stopping an offense that has all the rules in their favor. Big hits on QBs and on the ball carriers are the best way to stop an offense in today's game.

I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before. There were concussions before the change in philosophy to promiting dominant offenses, but I'm talking more about saying "just wrap up" isn't fair anymore.

Well actually, with the rule enforcement on helmet to helmet, hitting defenseless players and the QB, it is actually doing the opposite. Defenses can't hit the QB too low or high anymore without getting the flag, so it causes them to have to wrap 'em up more so rather than to go for the big hit. Same can be said for hitting a defenseless player. Look at a guy like London Fletcher - he's textbook with his tackling. He still goes for a big hit, but within textbook rules and nine times out of ten, he wraps the ball carrier up in a good solid tackle. Very seldom, if ever, do any ball carriers get out of a London Fletcher tackle. Of course, we're talking about a solid linebacker as opposed to a smaller defensive back, but I think putting more emphasis on going for the big hit it counter-productive if defensive players want to stay within stricter guidelines and to avoiding concussions.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

or i could trust google/wiki and give a simple answer, allowing that the aforementioned sibling may add several substantial inclusions and addendums to the simple one:

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Yeah getting back to the fundamentals of tackling would go a long way, and this mentality of going for the kill shot is what I think Goodell is trying to curb. Either way you'll never completely eliminate concussions, but I do think more can be done to reduce them.

LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.

[zeesson]

Originally Posted by Daseal

So should you be able to sue a doctor 20 years after an operation because there's more information about the disease and they have better methods? No, it's part of the medical process. When it comes down to it, most of these guys are looking for a payday after mismanaging their money.

Football is a tough sport. It's tough on both body and mind to play -- and that's why I don't complain that they get paid a kings ransom. It is a violent sport that causes long term damage. We've known that for a long time. You can't possibly think that slamming your body into someone else at full speed hundreds or thousands of times a year isn't going to have lasting effects. We don't need modern medicine to reaffirm that.

It's too bad that so many of the old players are having issues. I have a lot more understanding for the guys that had to work another job while playing football. Who made the league on their back before the big contracts. But Art got paid a lot of money to sacrifice his body. Give them the collectively bargained health care and thank them for their service.

Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

But how does the court choose? I guess that's really my question

I don't know - class actions is one of those areas where a lot of special procedural rules apply that don't apply in standard litigation. I did some basic legal research and can't find the answer. I don't know any attorneys who hand class actions to call and check. I'll keep looking and, if I run across the answer, I will let you know.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

LIke what? They've already moved the kickoffs up and pretty much eliminated one of the most exciting plays in football, they've gone overboard with all the head to head contact and constantly throwing the 15 yarders and fining guys, they put in the defensless wr rule, might as well put flags on the QB's... in general they really can't make it any safer than it already is.

They could get rid of kickoffs altogether.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by zeesson

Please listen carefully. Your analogy is a bad one. They are not simply filing suing because there is new knowledge that wasn't available 20 years ago, they are suing because the knowledge that WAS available 20 years ago was intentionally kept from them by the NFL. They denied, right up until 2010, that there was any link at all between concussions suffered from NFL play, and the dementia and other various ailments that past veterans had suffered. They denied it because they didn't want to pay for it. The same greedy ****ers that initiated a lockout because 65 percent of the profits were not enough for them; and then played a public relations game that made that lockout look like a strike. It's people like yourself that fell for this trick, because you... you know what? I'm not going to start throwing personal insults. That isn't the direction I want this post to go. I just get frustrated when misinformation is spread by people who don't have all the facts. Not knowing all the facts is forgivable. Being aware of your lack of knowledge, and not doing anything to correct it is a crime against having a brain.

It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate here.

[CrustyRedskin]

I wonder if this guy ever had a head injury??

John Riggins, The Next Celebrity Chef | ThePostGame

[zeesson]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It's simplistic to lay this only at the feet of the NFL, certainly players colliding at full force would not think there were no lasting effects. Proof of that is that players today are far more aware, and still choose to play the game. We haven't seen a mass exodus of players as medical facts are released to confirm the common sense facts of yesteryear. Stories of the Raiders taking all sorts of grab bag meds to first hyper strengthen and then dull the pain afterwards have existed since the 70's.

I am not relieving the past NFL of burden for any time where they specifically refused to release proven science, but I doubt that is as far reaching as you claim it is.

As for the lockout diatribe, that's ridiculous but you are welcome to relive that debate here.

I don't know how old you are, but you have to remember prior to the 21st century, there was no internet as we know it today. There was know twitter, google, and facebook. There was no 24 hour a day news. Knowledge was not at your fingertips. Players did could not simply reach out to each other and ask "are you losing your mind?". I agree, certainly that they were aware that they were playing a dangerous game, but they certainly couldn't have known the long term effects of head injuries. However, the NFL had medical records, as well as medical claims by former players. They were, at the very least, aware that there was a correlation between the concussions and the dementia. They denied this right up until a few years ago.

[SolidSnake84]

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

[zeesson]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I feel sad for all the players that are legitimatley affected by concussion issues today, but sometimes i question the validity of their claims and wonder if they are truly ailing or are they just trying to make a buck now that this lawsuit thing is taking off like hotcakes.

I wonder the same thing about some of them. I also laugh when I hear people form their generation try to tell me that everything was better back then. Because they played for the "love of the game". Now they want money.