Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

NFL Rules for Covid 2021 / positive tests ( merge)


runthepost

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 724
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I have zero problem with forfeits, and no-pay for positives. 

I do think they should keep the larger PS and relaxed elevation rules to help if some do test positive. 

I'm still a bit surprised they didn't install one or two weeks purely for make up games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

I have zero problem with forfeits, and no-pay for positives. 

I do think they should keep the larger PS and relaxed elevation rules to help if some do test positive. 

I'm still a bit surprised they didn't install one or two weeks purely for make up games.

I think I read that the larger practice squads and IR rules may end up being permanent because teams really liked how it worked. I hope it does because I think the rules really help when injuries happen.

 

They didn’t have any added weeks last season just postponing games and switching games around. There shouldn’t be a issue this year either I would hope.

 

I do think things could get messier and more confusing this year though with having two sets of rules for players therefore easier to have a slip up.

 

Cole Beasley basically said on Twitter he isn’t going to follow any of the rules. He says he will get tested everyday and after that no rules. He is either dumb and doesn’t understand or was flaunting he was going to break the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

There is also going to be a lot of pert pressure. If a team has to forfeit because of unvaccinated covid cases neither team gets paid. That is goinf to make the other team that didn’t have the outbreak really ticked off.

 

There is also fine and draft picks on the line.

Yeah.. they know what they're doing just say yes sir and get it done.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those Irsay quotes are the strongest position I've seen from anyone on the Colts. Not sure if it will mean much to the players. There is still some time but chances are we are still going to be among the teams with lowest vaccination rates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Those Irsay quotes are the strongest position I've seen from anyone on the Colts. Not sure if it will mean much to the players. There is still some time but chances are we are still going to be among the teams with lowest vaccination rates. 

Zak Keefer said they are already going up. I like what Irsay is saying. It’s a fine line because if you push to hard they will be stubborn. But its important to educate and make them aware of the consequences.

 

Deandre Hopkins just tweeted he is questioning is future in the NFL because they are putting players in a position that could hurt the team if they don’t get vaccinated. That is kind of the idea. Players need some peer pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read some of the rules the NFL is implementing. They are hitting real hard. If a game gets forfeited and is not played, NOONE gets paid. Not just the players who got the virus and were the reason for the cancelation. They are trying to push all sorts of buttons. 

 

I've been on the position that 2 things are incredibly important in this situation - education/giving the best information and incentivizing the players to do the right thing. No idea how they are doing on the first part, but the league is cracking down about as hard as I could imagine them doing it on the incentives part. They are taking no prisoners. Seems like they are putting pressure not just on individual players, but also incentivizing peer pressure. In a way they have made the distribution of liability similar to that of the way the virus impacts communities - they are making it more than just a personal choice. Now the players that don't get vaccinated are quite possibly impacting the paychecks for all their teammates and even opponents. 

 

The reality seems to be that most teams have high enough vaccination rates that even if they get some cases, there won't be a need to forfeit games(much more lax rules for vaccinated players). So it's possible it really matters only for the teams with low vaccination rate(Colts being one of them is worrying on that part).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

Just read some of the rules the NFL is implementing. They are hitting real hard. If a game gets forfeited and is not played, NOONE gets paid. Not just the players who got the virus and were the reason for the cancelation. They are trying to push all sorts of buttons. 

 

I've been on the position that 2 things are incredibly important in this situation - education/giving the best information and incentivizing the players to do the right thing. No idea how they are doing on the first part, but the league is cracking down about as hard as I could imagine them doing it on the incentives part. They are taking no prisoners. Seems like they are putting pressure not just on individual players, but also incentivizing peer pressure. In a way they have made the distribution of liability similar to that of the way the virus impacts communities - they are making it more than just a personal choice. Now the players that don't get vaccinated are quite possibly impacting the paychecks for all their teammates and even opponents. 

 

The reality seems to be that most teams have high enough vaccination rates that even if they get some cases, there won't be a need to forfeit games(much more lax rules for vaccinated players). So it's possible it really matters only for the teams with low vaccination rate(Colts being one of them is worrying on that part).  

I think everything you said here is exactly right. I am actually shocked they are coming down this hard. Peer pressure is goinf to be hard for the players to avoid bur could also create locker room issues. Imagine having to forfeit a game. Players that are vaccinated are going to be so mad.

 

Irsay said they are doing everything possible to get the numbers up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, stitches said:

Just read some of the rules the NFL is implementing. They are hitting real hard. If a game gets forfeited and is not played, NOONE gets paid. Not just the players who got the virus and were the reason for the cancelation. They are trying to push all sorts of buttons. 

 

I've been on the position that 2 things are incredibly important in this situation - education/giving the best information and incentivizing the players to do the right thing. No idea how they are doing on the first part, but the league is cracking down about as hard as I could imagine them doing it on the incentives part. They are taking no prisoners. Seems like they are putting pressure not just on individual players, but also incentivizing peer pressure. In a way they have made the distribution of liability similar to that of the way the virus impacts communities - they are making it more than just a personal choice. Now the players that don't get vaccinated are quite possibly impacting the paychecks for all their teammates and even opponents. 

 

The reality seems to be that most teams have high enough vaccination rates that even if they get some cases, there won't be a need to forfeit games(much more lax rules for vaccinated players). So it's possible it really matters only for the teams with low vaccination rate(Colts being one of them is worrying on that part).  

Per pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m with the league on this.  And that’s kind of rare for me.

 

It would clearly be a problem for them to mandate vaccination.  But a policy like this is the next best thing - and I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t lead to a wave of new vaccinations among players.

 

There really isn’t a good argument not to get the stab - especially with the new data coming out showing that most new symptomatic infections are among unvaccinated people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s weird for me to be on the league side of this but I am. I am all for freedom and players should have the choice. But I think the players have some pretty silly arguments on why not to get it. Maybe if they had legit reasons I could be on their side. But it’s just a vaccination. They are making way to much of a big deal about this. Especially when they play such a dangerous game of football and put so much into their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, luv_pony_express said:

I’m with the league on this.  And that’s kind of rare for me.

 

It would clearly be a problem for them to mandate vaccination.  But a policy like this is the next best thing - and I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t lead to a wave of new vaccinations among players.

 

There really isn’t a good argument not to get the stab - especially with the new data coming out showing that most new symptomatic infections are among unvaccinated people.

Dad works with IU health and they have been averaging about 57 unvaccinated hospitalization per 1 vaccinated hospitalization 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is where the “Colts Culture” comes under the microscope.  We’ve all heard/read how Irsay & Ballard want “team first” and high character guys.  Those guys play for one another and put personal goals (more or less) aside for the good of the team.  No one wants to let the team down, yada, yada.

 

Hard test of it here…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both teams will not get paid and the team with the plaque will pay for all expenses for the opposing team. My question is: Team A plays Team B and Team A shows infected players later in the week after both were cleared to play. The players infected on team A are hospitalized for two months and lose games. What then???  Commissioner, what say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wentzszn said:

It’s weird for me to be on the league side of this but I am. I am all for freedom and players should have the choice. But I think the players have some pretty silly arguments on why not to get it. Maybe if they had legit reasons I could be on their side. But it’s just a vaccination. They are making way to much of a big deal about this. Especially when they play such a dangerous game of football and put so much into their bodies.

 

And the players still have the choice.  That hasn't been taken away from them.  But the stakes are now higher and your actions will more directly affect your teammates, even if you don't give them Covid.  

 

I have no problem with this.

 

I remember when I was in the military we had to take all sorts of shots and vaccines.  If you didn't there would be disciplinary consequences.  I am not saying these guys should be treated like the military but it is ironic that the organizations that fight for our freedoms live in what is more like a dictatorship.  In 20 years the only one I remember where people pushed back was the anthrax vaccine when there was evidence that it was screwing people up.  I don't even remember all the details just that the Air Force backed off if making people deploying overseas from taking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Now

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I think I need to clarify something…,  I’m NOT suggesting Irsay isn’t filthy rich.  That the Colts aren’t sound financially.     All I’m saying is that from time to time the Colts might have cash flow problems.  Life as a small market team.   Nothing wrong with that.  The Colts do this (The “0” singing bonus) for a reason.  It benefits them.  And I think it’s smart business.   That’s all.   
    • I don't believe any of this post-hoc spin. He took less to play home. And even if we did believe it - OK... he did take less. What about the 100 other FAs we could have gotten?      This is exactly it... it feels like Ballard is not proactive... he's grabbing to the status quo and holding onto it for dear life. Like the status quo has actually given us anything to brag about? The Texans let go of one of their best defensive linemen... to replace him with a better one. The Chiefs let go of one of their best receivers... to replace him a better one... Those are teams that are not happy with what they had(and they were better than us) and tried to actually improve. Could that backfire? Sure. But at least they are trying to compete. What are we trying for?    I wasn't the biggest fan of the idea of giving record setting contract to Sneed while also giving up significant draft compensation too. IMO you should only do that for elite players and as good as Sneed is IMO he's not quite at that level. But with that said -yes, there aren't many high level FAs remaining on the market. Because while other teams were busy chasing the high level FAs, Ballard was busy giving 14M contract to a backup nose tackle and resigning his PED implicated 31 year old starting nose tackle 40M contract.  I wouldn't hold my breath quite honestly. With the OL there was precedent of them being great previously. With this DL there really hasn't been. We've been at the bottom of the league in creating pressures and affecting the QB for years. And the personnel will be the same more or less. A lot of people putting a lot of hope into the new DL coach. I liked that hire too, but you have to give the guy something to work with and apart from Buckner the rest of the group has never been more than... solid, and in a lot of cases much less than solid.    Yep... it always comes back to this... hoping our draft picks will pan out. The problem with that of course is that over the long term most teams in the league have about the same success rate in the draft. And while other teams use all avenues to improve their team(draft, trades, FA), it seems like Ballard has resigned himself to the draft. He will draft and live or die by it. He's just too stuck in his ways and too stubborn to make any significant changes to his approach.  That's the problem with Ballard. It's never exactly doom and gloom. I am never worried with him that this team will be horrible and hopeless. I worry that it will be mediocre... forever! Which it has been. He gives you just enough hope for your to think "maybe this year... maybe this guy will get better... maybe this draft pick will pan out", but in reality we are just treading water.    Yeah, Sneed could have been good for this defense... oh well... 
    • He turned out to be very good, but at the time of the pick, I thought we could have selected other players, as we were in desperate need of defensive players. But Addison played very well, better than I expected.
    • You don’t like Jordan Addison?   I thought he had a very nice rookie season for the Vikings?   
    • Before Werner Houston took Dwayne Hopkins and after Werner Minn took Rhodes.   Werner was the turd between two very good players, one a potential Hall of Famer.  
  • Members

    • Matabix

      Matabix 462

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,791

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,063

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • IinD

      IinD 4,436

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • DoubleE Colt

      DoubleE Colt 309

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • stitches

      stitches 18,662

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Boss7894

      Boss7894 177

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • GoColts8818

      GoColts8818 16,849

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 20,074

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TomDiggs

      TomDiggs 1,636

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...