Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

Is anyone sueing any of the Hockey or Soccer leagues,Rugby.....basketball,point is all the sports players ,male and female have gotten concussions.....anyone take a 90mph fastball into one of those batting helmits? I might even understand if you're sueing the helmit makers ...Rydel but the NFL?If they(ex-players) want health coverage I understand that and agree with it ,retires should be coverd but to sue and say the NFL are responsible ,sorry I don't get it.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Giantone;916731][B]Is anyone sueing any of the Hockey or Soccer leagues,Rugby.....basketball[/B],point is all the sports players ,male and female have gotten concussions.....anyone take a 90mph fastball into one of those batting helmits? I might even understand if you're sueing the helmit makers ...Rydel but the NFL?If they(ex-players) want health coverage I understand that and agree with it ,retires should be coverd but to sue and say the NFL are responsible ,sorry I don't get it.[/quote]

Unfortunately, it just does not matter. Not sure if this law suit is justified or not but in this country, you can sue for anything.........
Damn, that McDonalds coffee is just tooo hot....I'm gonna' sue they're ass.
Looking for righteousness in our legal system is like looking for fiscal stability while playing the lottery......

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Giantone;916485]These are grown men who made a choice to play football and could say no.I don't understand how you hold the league responsible ,anyone playing knows there is a chance they can get hurt at anytime.....or worse.
[B]Most of these men have college degrees and surly were smart enough to know that concussions can cause brain injuries.[/B]The NFL changed what they did be it helmits or the way they test the players when the information changed
So if someone I knew dies from an illness and 20 years later they find a cure......can I sue becuase these Doctors should have learned about this illness sooner?[/quote]

Unless MAYBE you are a bio, anatomy, maaaybe kinesiology major of some sort, or pre-med, you are not going to learn one dime about details of concussions as a undergraduate, not even nowadays. Hell, they might not teach that stuff for those who major in that subject.

And NFL culture(and other sport culture) treated physical pain as merely something in which you bite your teeth, get a painkiller, and go back out there. Not doing so would be considered soft.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=NC_Skins;916496]Did they? Probably not. Would it have changed their decision? Probably not.



If I'm correct, people that smoked their whole lives won major lawsuits against the tobacco industry even though there wasn't any evidence at the time of lung cancer and smoking. (or that I know of)[/quote]
Highly unlikely if your "just a guy" or "group of guys" doing the suing and the lawsuit was filed in the early 90s or before . The following article was written in 2000.
[url=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2000/04/a_tobacco_lawsuit_primer.html]A Tobacco Lawsuit Primer - Slate Magazine[/url]
[quote]Individual smokers. Smokers have been suing tobacco companies since the 1950s. Until recently, they have been almost entirely unsuccessful--mainly because tobacco companies argued effectively that smoking is a personal choice and that people have known of its harmful side effects for years. That argument is proving less effective these days as plaintiffs produce documents proving that cigarette makers have known all along their product is addictive. The next logical inference--if cigarettes are addictive, then people don't choose to smoke them--has led to a couple of multimillion-dollar jury awards in recent months. In February, a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a woman who said she developed inoperable lung cancer from smoking, and a month later, a state jury in Oregon awarded $81 million to the family of a man who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for 40 years before his death. Both awards were cut in half by the trial judges, and the cases are still on appeal.
Advertisement

Groups of many smokers. Class-action suits are brought by a few plaintiffs on behalf of many. In Miami, three plaintiffs sued Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Lorillard, the Liggett Group, and Brown & Williamson on behalf of as many as 500,000 addicted Floridians who suffer from certain smoking-related illnesses. Estimates suggest that various cigarette makers currently face as many as 125 similar suits across the country. Big Tobacco has been quite successful defending against these lawsuits; in 1995, for example, a federal appeals court threw out one class-action suit filed on behalf of more than 100 million smokers nationwide.
[/quote]


The tobacco industry was dealt a huge death blow when Jeffery Wigand decided to come out and talk about the details on how cigarettes were addictive and the like. Getting him to talk wasn't easy, as he experienced much coercion to stay silent. And the whole ordeal wrecked his personal life in the process.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Hog1;916734]Unfortunately, it just does not matter. Not sure if this law suit is justified or not but in this country, you can sue for anything.........
Damn, that McDonalds coffee is just tooo hot....I'm gonna' sue they're ass.
Looking for righteousness in our legal system is like looking for fiscal stability while playing the lottery......[/quote]



lol....now on this we agree,ever read the warnings on a lawn mower or a ladder,maybe they should put warnings like "Play at your own risk" or "Being hit or hitting anyone while wearing this helmit may cause a concussion" on the equipment.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

I think they should just give them all leather helmets again. That will keep the players from leading with their head. :)

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mayor;917068]I think they should just give them all leather helmets again. That will keep the players from leading with their head. :)[/quote]

Concussions were apart of the game even in the days of leather helmets. But in those days a lot of the players who sustained concussive injury played without a leather helmet.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

You don't even need to hit your head on anything to sustain a concussion. The helmets aren't the problem, it's the high speed collisions.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;916534]^ Got some stats to back that up?[/quote]

I don't need stats. It's common sense.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=skinsfan69;916530]how many former players actually have brain damage from playing football? a very very small number. it's just that the guys that actually did or do have it, it's been overplayed by the media. what about the thousands of guys that had numerous head hits and are fine?[/quote]


....Not trying to be smartass here but did you ever play orginized football,high school or higher?Point is that we only see the games how many do you think got these concussions in practice or in scrimages etc?
First one one I got(from football) was in 7th grade playing for a rec team according to the coach..."I just got my bell rung".If you have played contact full tackle football over any amount of time you have had a concussion my be a small one ,might just seem like a small headach but you have had one.This is why I ask the question why blame and how do you prove it was all the NFL's fault I have no qualms with the players saying they have this condition at all.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=skinsfan69;917094]I don't need stats. It's common sense.[/quote]

Brilliant.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

I used that in my last interview.......

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917079]You don't even need to hit your head on anything to sustain a concussion. The helmets aren't the problem, it's the high speed collisions.[/quote]

This.

Not sure why people keep saying some of the stuff they do.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917079]You don't even need to hit your head on anything to sustain a concussion. The helmets aren't the problem, it's the high speed collisions.[/quote]

The helmets are part of the problem. Not that they are insufficient but they are in fact too good. They entice players to make big hits because they offer a sense of security that players in yester-years didn't have.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Giantone;917096]....[B]Not trying to be smartass here but did you ever play orginized football,high school or higher?Point is that we only see the games how many do you think got these concussions in practice or in scrimages etc?[/B]
First one one I got(from football) was in 7th grade playing for a rec team according to the coach..."I just got my bell rung".If you have played contact full tackle football over any amount of time you have had a concussion my be a small one ,might just seem like a small headach but you have had one.This is why I ask the question why blame and how do you prove it was all the NFL's fault I have no qualms with the players saying they have this condition at all.[/quote]

Yes I did....for many years. I got a concussion, took some smelling salt and was fine. Football is dangerous, these guys could've done something else w/ their lives. IF we know what we know now everys single one of the people that are suing would've still played. So I guess next we're going to see boxers, UFC fighters, firefighters and so on...start suing? Give me a break. So tired of this entire concussion deal. The trickle down effect is killing football.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=skinsfan69;917120]Yes I did....for many years. I got a concussion, took some smelling salt and was fine. Football is dangerous, these guys could've done something else w/ their lives. IF we know what we know now everys single one of the people that are suing would've still played. So I guess next we're going to see boxers, UFC fighters, firefighters and so on...start suing? Give me a break. So tired of this entire concussion deal. The trickle down effect is killing football.[/quote]


lol... I actually think we agree but our reasons are different.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=FRPLG;917119]The helmets are part of the problem. Not that they are insufficient but they are in fact too good. They entice players to make big hits because they offer a sense of security that players in yester-years didn't have.[/quote]

Exactly. Kind of gives the players a since of invincibility. Seems like I do remember a player saying those exact words a couple of years ago when all this stuff about concussions really started becoming a huge topic.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=FRPLG;917119]The helmets are part of the problem. Not that they are insufficient but they are in fact too good. They entice players to make big hits because they offer a sense of security that players in yester-years didn't have.[/quote]
Mike Ditka has been proclaiming this for several years now. Take away the helmet and the guys cannot "use it as a weapon".........

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

You could put guys out there with no helmets and there's still going to be concussions.

It's not getting at the root of the problem.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917124]You could put guys out there with no helmets and there's still going to be concussions.

It's not getting at the root of the problem.[/quote]

They're hitting each other...there's always going to be concussions no matter what.

It's probably impossible to ever know but I wonder if there are more now or less? And are they worse now than they used to be?

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

The players keep getting bigger and faster which = bigger collisions, I would guess the # of concussions have risen over the years.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917124]You could put guys out there with no helmets and there's still going to be concussions.

It's not getting at the root of the problem.[/quote]


Yes it's just this simple ...it's a contact sport,be it contact with another player or the ground,you can try and soften the blow but in the end the only way not to get hit by contact is not to play the game.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917124]You could put guys out there with no helmets and there's still going to be concussions.

It's not getting at the root of the problem.[/quote]

Yeah. The following article talks about researchers simulating "typical hits" that are not James Harrsion-esque. Neither leather helmets nor modern ones do a really good job protecting against concussions.

[url=http://www.pittsburghmagazine.com/Best-of-the-Burgh-Blogs/Pulling-No-Punches/March-2012/Death-by-a-Thousand-Cuts/]Death by a Thousand Cuts - Pulling No Punches - March 2012 - Pittsburgh, PA[/url]

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917124]You could put guys out there with no helmets and there's still going to be concussions.

It's not getting at the root of the problem.[/quote]

Well, football is a violent, collusion sport. So, eliminating concussions altogether is not going to happen unless they tie huge pillows to the players' helmets.

With that said, personally, I think the root of the problem is that players have gotten away from the basic fundamentals of tackling, and have migrated more toward the big, highlights showing hit. And, I DO think that is greatly contributed to the modern helmets giving the players a since of being invincible. Not saying they should go back to old technology or leather helmets, just saying I think players have learned to use themselves more as weapons than tackling machines.

For instance, I went back and watched one of the Super Bowls, and it appeared to me that everybody on defense concentrated more on wrapping up the ball carrier rather than the big hit. There were still big hits back then, mind you, but it wasn't how it seems today where the defensive backs were trying to sling themselves at the ball carrier like they do often today. I think that is the biggest issue with the concussions in modern times; players just need to concentrate on the fundamentals of tackling again instead of trying to get on the highlight reel.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

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.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Mattyk;917162]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.[/quote]amen.
i remember in pop warner practice making a wrap-up tackle and the coach making a huge deal out of it. going back to exhibit it again at half speed. i was 10 years old but i was so proud because coach made a big deal, i made sure to try to repeat it as often as possible.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

Art Monk just made the College FB Hall of Fame, wonder if they are going to sue the NCAA as well....hm

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/ricky-williams-dismisses-concussion-data-favor-mind-over-004846043.html]Ricky Williams dismisses concussion data in favor of ‘mind over matter’ approach | Shutdown Corner - Yahoo! Sports[/url]


The saying.....[I]It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.[/I]...comes to mind right about now.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

I have heard, through pretty reliable people, that it was not Monk's decision to be the lead plaintiff and he's pretty upset that he's been thrust to the forefront of this lawsuit.

So my question is...how is it decided who the lead plaintiff is?

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SmootSmack;917343]I have heard, through pretty reliable people, that it was not Monk's decision to be the lead plaintiff and he's pretty upset that he's been thrust to the forefront of this lawsuit.

So my question is...how is it decided who the lead plaintiff is?[/quote]

Is it because he's the most notable and would garner public support? Much like Tom Brady, Manning, and Brees were on the lawsuits against the NFL during the lockout deal.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SmootSmack;917343]I have heard, through pretty reliable people, that it was not Monk's decision to be the lead plaintiff and he's pretty upset that he's been thrust to the forefront of this lawsuit.

So my question is...how is it decided who the lead plaintiff is?[/quote]is the lead plaintiff any different from any other plaintiff or just a title?

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=NC_Skins;917342][url=http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/ricky-williams-dismisses-concussion-data-favor-mind-over-004846043.html]Ricky Williams dismisses concussion data in favor of ‘mind over matter’ approach | Shutdown Corner - Yahoo! Sports[/url]


The saying.....[I]It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.[/I]...comes to mind right about now.[/quote]

He should just stick to playing football.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=los panda;917345]is the lead plaintiff any different from any other plaintiff or just a title?[/quote]

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

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

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.

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SmootSmack;917348]Honestly, I don't know. Maybe CRedskinsRule has a brother who's a lawyer or something[/quote]

One can only hope, that if such a brother exists, that he may also be a member of this forum who can answer this question.

Personally, I would presume lead plaintiff is mostly just a title, and there might be more responsibility in it than of all the other plaintiffs (i.e. lead plaintiff has to show up in court whereas others don't, etc.).

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=SmootSmack;917348]Honestly, I don't know. Maybe CRedskinsRule has a brother who's a lawyer or something[/quote]

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

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

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:

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Daseal;917350]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.[/quote]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

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

another interesting article on being a lead plaintiff.

[url=http://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/class_actions/class-action-lead-plantiff.htm]What’s In It For the Lead Class Action Plaintiff?[/url]

Re: Art Monk vs. NFL
 

[quote=Daseal;917350]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.

[B]I believe a lot of the rule changes have forced defensive players to headhunt more than ever before.[/B] 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.[/quote]

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.