Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Art Monk vs. NFL

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-16-2012, 02:36 PM   #76
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,691
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
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
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 05-16-2012, 02:40 PM   #77
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,691
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:
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.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 02:44 PM   #78
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,060
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
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
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 03:07 PM   #79
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,691
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

another interesting article on being a lead plaintiff.

What’s In It For the Lead Class Action Plaintiff?
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 03:39 PM   #80
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,523
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
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.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 04:11 PM   #81
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,671
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
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
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 07:12 AM   #82
Franchise Player
 
skinsfan69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arlington, VA.
Posts: 9,494
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
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.
skinsfan69 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 08:48 AM   #83
Camp Scrub
 
zeesson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 42
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daseal View Post
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.
zeesson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 09:08 AM   #84
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,625
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
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.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 09:36 AM   #85
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,723
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsfan69 View Post
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 10:55 AM   #86
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,691
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeesson View Post
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 (8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues).
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 10:57 AM   #87
Playmaker
 
CrustyRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: RatherbeinDC, TX
Posts: 2,538
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

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

John Riggins, The Next Celebrity Chef | ThePostGame
__________________
Lafayette, we're here.
CrustyRedskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 06:22 PM   #88
Camp Scrub
 
zeesson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 42
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
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 (8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues).
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.
zeesson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2012, 10:15 PM   #89
The Starter
 
SolidSnake84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stephens City, VA
Posts: 1,871
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

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.
__________________
Time to nut up or shut up
SolidSnake84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2012, 08:52 AM   #90
Camp Scrub
 
zeesson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 42
Re: Art Monk vs. NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnake84 View Post
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.
zeesson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.32690 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25