"NFL streamlined policy for reporting an injured player's game status during the regular season, a move that addresses the rise of gamesmanship among teams that want to limit that information for competitive purposes."

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17361...esignation

 

Basically probable designation no longer exists.

---

Interesting. This should in theory stop teams like New England from listing people like Brady as probable when we know he's gonna play with his minor toe cramp.

---

I can't speak for anyone else.  But for me this is going to make the already difficult challenge of predicting NFL games even more challenging.    The amount of players listed as Questionable for a team in a given week will likely hit double digits on many occasions this season.

---

I always hated it when teams listed players as probable whose chances of playing were 100 percent. Why even list them? The removal of that designation will make injury reports more honest.

 

Something I would have liked to see in the amendment (which apparently is not included) is the exclusion of listing players who took Wednesday off work. Many healthy veterans only practice twice a week.

---

I think there are multiple possible outcomes of this. 

 

Players safety could increase by hiding an nagging injury. If a player is going to play through an injury no matter, you don't have to list it and reveal to the opponents what that injury is. You always hear retired players talk about how if someone has an injury shoulder they would hit that first to see how bad it really is. That could be limited.

 

I'm not sure teams will use it like that, or just list everyone as questionable. I know it seem like there already too many rules and regulations, but you cannot make teams use any injury designation completely correctly unless there is some sort of punishment for gaming the system. Not sure how to do that, maybe if at the end of the year like 75% of players listed as questionable played during the game, then team faces some sort of fine? I know it gives Goodell even more punishment power, but it would be the only thing that would work.

---

Interesting. This should in theory stop teams like New England from listing people like Brady as probable when we know he's gonna play with his minor toe cramp.

instead they'll list him as questionable


I think it's all ridiculous anyway.

 

Why should I, an opponent, know anything about my opponents injuries or weaknesses by right?

I mean... watch tape, study, game plan, and put your best guys out there and beat the other team... no matter who is or isn't playing, who is or isn't dinged up.

 

We shouldn't be giving out advantages or disadvantages.

I don't understand the NFLs injury transparency rules.

 

Teams should have to report major injuries to the NFL, and if stuff gets leaked then whatever, but a team HAS to post (and update up to game day) injuries on the entire team so the opponents know if they have the first or second stringer to worry about? So they know who to hit a little harder in the area where someone has a thigh contusion or whatever...

 

Meh!

---

I always hated it when teams listed players as probable whose chances of playing were 100 percent. Why even list them? The removal of that designation will make injury reports more honest.

 

Something I would have liked to see in the amendment (which apparently is not included) is the exclusion of listing players who took Wednesday off work. Many healthy veterans only practice twice a week.

Belicheat will just list everyone as questionable if they have any sort of ding or dent, IMO.

Why even make the injury report public?

 

The league needs to know if someone has a concussion, or if something like that, but that's about it.

---

instead they'll list him as questionable


I think it's all ridiculous anyway.

 

Why should I, an opponent, know anything about my opponents injuries or weaknesses by right?

I mean... watch tape, study, game plan, and put your best guys out there and beat the other team... no matter who is or isn't playing, who is or isn't dinged up.

 

We shouldn't be giving out advantages or disadvantages.

I don't understand the NFLs injury transparency rules.

 

Teams should have to report major injuries to the NFL, and if stuff gets leaked then whatever, but a team HAS to post (and update up to game day) injuries on the entire team so the opponents know if they have the first or second stringer to worry about? So they know who to hit a little harder in the area where someone has a thigh contusion or whatever...

 

Meh!

 

It's about betting. The idea is to be transparent - so some "insider" doesn't have more information than the general public.

 

But then you have some teams that play games with the injury report anyway.

---

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

I think there are multiple possible outcomes of this. 

 

Players safety could increase by hiding an nagging injury. If a player is going to play through an injury no matter, you don't have to list it and reveal to the opponents what that injury is. You always hear retired players talk about how if someone has an injury shoulder they would hit that first to see how bad it really is. That could be limited.

 

I'm not sure teams will use it like that, or just list everyone as questionable. I know it seem like there already too many rules and regulations, but you cannot make teams use any injury designation completely correctly unless there is some sort of punishment for gaming the system. Not sure how to do that, maybe if at the end of the year like 75% of players listed as questionable played during the game, then team faces some sort of fine? I know it gives Goodell even more punishment power, but it would be the only thing that would work.

 

The NFL already fines trams big money for injury report violations. The Broncos were fined for not listing John Elway once. I can't remember how much, but it was a lot of money at the time.

---

It's about betting. The idea is to be transparent - so some "insider" doesn't have more information than the general public.

 

But then you have some teams that play games with the injury report anyway.

Well now, THAT makes sense.

 

It's about the NFL making money on some kickbacks from Vegas.

---

The NFL already fines trams big money for injury report violations. The Broncos were fined for not listing John Elway once. I can't remember how much, but it was a lot of money at the time.

 

I know this. I was talking fines for overstating a players injury for no reason but gamesmanship.

---

I know this. I was talking fines for overstating a players injury for no reason but gamesmanship.

 

I think that would be hard to enforce. Some players wimp out and others will do anything to play.

---

I think that would be hard to enforce. Some players wimp out and others will do anything to play.

 

I agree. It also couldn't be like on case by case basis. Only way I could think of would be for the NFL to tally how often players for each team play when they are listed as questionable. If teams are significant outliers from the rest of the league in percentage of those players who play, then you could look to punish those teams somehow. 

---

Now we are going to see hundreds of "questionable" listings that used to be "probable."

---