Mandatory Knee Braces

[*bfine32*]

(02-17-2021, 10:56 AM)PhilHos Wrote: And what bfine looks for in his women, too. 

Me and Rex Ryan. 

[fredtoast]

(02-17-2021, 09:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No they don't. They players have representation.

I don't think they are allowed to go against the recommendation of a team doctor.

If a team doctor says a player has to wear a cast or a brace in order to play I don't think the player can refuse.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2021, 01:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think they are allowed to go against the recommendation of a team doctor.

If a team doctor says a player has to wear a cast or a brace in order to play I don't think the player can refuse.

Of course they are. Players get independent medical opinions all the time. 

Now an owner could probably say: "You cannot play unless you follow the advice of our doctors" but I don't know how long that would fly....now if the NFL mandated it; that's different. Those things are agreed upon by the owners and NFLPA. 

[Au165]

(02-18-2021, 01:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think they are allowed to go against the recommendation of a team doctor.

If a team doctor says a player has to wear a cast or a brace in order to play I don't think the player can refuse.

The CBA specifically calls out a player's right to a second opinion. The player then has the right to follow the recommendations of the second physician as long as they notify the club physician they are choosing to pass on their recommendation in favor of the second opinion. Any attempt to prevent a player from following the medical advice of the second opinion would be grounds for the Union to file a grievance.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2021, 02:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course they are. Players get independent medical opinions all the time. 

Now an owner could probably say: "You cannot play unless you follow the advice of our doctors" but I don't know how long that would fly....now if the NFL mandated it; that's different. Those things are agreed upon by the owners and NFLPA. 

(02-18-2021, 11:04 AM)Au165 Wrote: The CBA specifically calls out a player's right to a second opinion. The player then has the right to follow the recommendations of the second physician as long as they notify the club physician they are choosing to pass on their recommendation in favor of the second opinion. Any attempt to prevent a player from following the medical advice of the second opinion would be grounds for the Union to file a grievance.

I admit I don't know all the details about this.  Certainly players are allowed to seek second opinions and regarding treatment, but I would guess that team still has final say on what a player has to do to play.

I just can't imagine a situation where a team doctor says a player needs a cast or brace in order to play and the player being allowed to say he doesn't.  Cordy Glenn was fined by the Bengals when he refused to accept the decision of team doctors on his ability to play.

Mandatory knee braces to prevent injuries could be an issue that needs to be resolved in the CBA.  But as it stands right now I assume teams could make players wear them in order to play.

[Au165]

(02-18-2021, 11:48 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I admit I don't know all the details about this.  Certainly players are allowed to seek second opinions and regarding treatment, but I would guess that team still has final say on what a player has to do to play.

I just can't imagine a situation where a team doctor says a player needs a cast or brace in order to play and the player being allowed to say he doesn't.  Cordy Glenn was fined by the Bengals when he refused to accept the decision of team doctors on his ability to play.

Mandatory knee braces to prevent injuries could be an issue that needs to be resolved in the CBA.  But as it stands right now I assume teams could make players wear them in order to play.

Nope, CBA specifically leaves the final say up to the player. The kicker? The team has to pay for the surgery/care from the second opinion even if they don't agree.

As for Glenn, he was actually fined for missing practices, not traveling, etc. This came on the heels after he returned to practice and got into a fight with a coach over feeling rushed back. That being said there is no indication, at least reported, that he ever sought out a second opinion. The NFL has very specific rules for returning to the field after a concussion so it would seem if he did actually have a second opinion counter to that of the team's medical staff a grievance would have been filed. When Glenn had issues with his foot in Buffalo he got a second opinion, so he is well versed in the process.

It may be possible to require it, but I don't think it would be under the guise of a medical claim you had laid out earlier. I think it could fall under the equipment rules and requirements, however, I think much like everything with the CBA if a player absolutely didn't want to wear them they could file a grievance and the team would probably just say it isn't worth it.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2021, 12:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Nope, CBA specifically leaves the final say up to the player. 

The player tells the team when he is healthy enough to play?  I have never heard of such a thing.  

Why aren't more players filing grievences when they think they re ready to return but the team disagrees?

[Au165]

(02-18-2021, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The player tells the team when he is healthy enough to play?  I have never heard of such a thing.  

Why aren't more players filing grievences when they think they re ready to return but the team disagrees?

If a team is saying he isn't, and a second opinion says he is, the player would potentially have a grievance to file if the team still refused to let him play. Now "let him play" can mean a lot of things, the team could dress him and not play him. They could make him a "healthy" inactive. Really all it would do is remove any sort of injury designation from the player and allow him to practice. 

Usually, both sides come to an agreement on these things and it never gets that far. Most guys are still getting paid so they don't mind getting shut down when they are banged up, there have been grievances filed by players however over being sent to IR for injuries that did not necessarily require an IR designation as a means to stash them rather than cut them to make room for another guy. 

As I said before though if a player absolutely refused to wear a brace, it is going to be really hard to require one using a medical excuse.

[Sled21]

(02-18-2021, 01:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: If a team is saying he isn't, and a second opinion says he is, the player would potentially have a grievance to file if the team still refused to let him play. Now "let him play" can mean a lot of things, the team could dress him and not play him. They could make him a "healthy" inactive. Really all it would do is remove any sort of injury designation from the player and allow him to practice. 

Usually, both sides come to an agreement on these things and it never gets that far. Most guys are still getting paid so they don't mind getting shut down when they are banged up, there have been grievances filed by players however over being sent to IR for injuries that did not necessarily require an IR designation as a means to stash them rather than cut them to make room for another guy. 

As I said before though if a player absolutely refused to wear a brace, it is going to be really hard to require one using a medical excuse.

Well, I think New England has already set the precedence on the matter.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2021, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The player tells the team when he is healthy enough to play?  I have never heard of such a thing.  

Why aren't more players filing grievences when they think they re ready to return but the team disagrees?

You could just say "I was mistaken on this matter".

It's why the NFL established a concussion protocol. These things are mandated between the NFLPA and Owners. 

If a teams tells a player to wear anything not mandated by the NFL and the player refuses; the team has sit themselves up for a payout; if they do anything more than suggest. 

Just goggle "Alejandro Villanueva Alwyn Cashe"

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2021, 01:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: If a team is saying he isn't, and a second opinion says he is, the player would potentially have a grievance to file if the team still refused to let him play. Now "let him play" can mean a lot of things, the team could dress him and not play him. They could make him a "healthy" inactive. Really all it would do is remove any sort of injury designation from the player and allow him to practice. 

Usually, both sides come to an agreement on these things and it never gets that far. Most guys are still getting paid so they don't mind getting shut down when they are banged up, there have been grievances filed by players however over being sent to IR for injuries that did not necessarily require an IR designation as a means to stash them rather than cut them to make room for another guy. 

As I said before though if a player absolutely refused to wear a brace, it is going to be really hard to require one using a medical excuse.

All folks have to do is goggle "Trent Williams. helmet".