Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

NFL Rules for Covid 2021 / positive tests ( merge)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, GoColts8818 said:

People can have whatever opinion they want on the vaccines but it’s very clear the NFL wants players to get them.  They are doing everything In their power to incentivize players to get it without requiring it so I have zero problem with it.  

All they have to do is get the Union to sign on making vaccines mandatory to play. All employers have the right to do that. I don't know if the Union would oppose it or not. I predict that the Colts lose multiple games because of this.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, King Colt said:

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?

What it said in this memo there is a lot of discretion the commissioner will have in these matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

I can imagine that it wouldn't be out of the question if teams choose player A over player B for the last roster spot based upon player A being vaccinated and player B is not.

I saw a tweet that said they had it from a agent this is going to happen. With roster bubble guys. Maybe the last few players that make the team.

 

If the colts are indeed over 50% that means over 45 of the 90 players are vaccinated. Which means once the roster cuts  are made to 53 and they get more players vaccinated they very well might be at that 85%.
 

If what Irsay said today is true I feel much better where they are at now then I did 2 two weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

High profile players chiming in... Good start so far! Jalen Ramsey, Fournette, Hopkins. Yeah it's gonna be a great season :thmup: just to name a few

The NFL has lost bigger stars than them and survived.  They aren’t going to change the NFL’s mind on this especially if the NFLPA is on board, which they have been every step of the way so far. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

The NFL has lost bigger stars than them and survived.  They aren’t going to change the NFL’s mind on this especially if the NFLPA is on board, which they have been every step of the way so far. 


Exactly :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irsay said they are using team leaders who are vaccinated to talk to other players. Guess that leaves Leonard out lol. Joking aside Darius very well might be vaccinated just because the protocols. He might of went and got it kicking and screaming.

 

He also said David Thorton is playing a major role. I think the players really respect David so that’s a good move.

 

Irsay said the players that opted out last season got bad advice and he doesn’t understand why they did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GoColts8818 said:

Nothing wrong with that out look as a fan.  I think even the most hardline anti-vaccine person and most hardline vaccine person that are Colts fans would agree they don’t want to see the Colts season impacted by COVID.

I am actually seeing colt fans say they are fine if it costs the colts a game or two because they like the players are standing up for their beliefs. I think that is hogwash. No way can they actually believe that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

Fine.  I would like to know why they simply don't call it a mandate.  If its legal to implement one, then call it one.  

 

Again, my point is that they are doing everything they can to implement a mandate, and avoiding the written word of calling it a mandate.  

 

If implementing a mandate in this area is legal, then why take the labored and circuitous route here?

 

They must feel there is some legal liability in calling it such.  I would like to see a jury discuss it.

1. I highly doubt a jury would be involved in a lawsuit like this. This wouldn't be a criminal proceeding, but a civil one.

 

2. You do know a jury is made of random peers that get randomly selected right? They generally have no more legal knowledge than any of us, so I don't see any useful insight coming from a jury on legal issues like this.

 

3. If they issue a mandate, its the players vs the league and the unvaccinated players will dig in their heels. By not instituting a mandate and placing extremely stern rules/processes like they have, they're relying on peer pressure from vaccinated players to get unvaccinated players to get their shots. They have now turned the tables on unvaccinated players and essentially said that you have the decision to get vaccinated or not, but if you cause an outbreak among your fellow unvaccinated teammates, you could be the reason your team loses and doesn't get paid. 

 

4. You're deeming this a mandate in all but name only, but because the NFL isn't calling it a mandate (because that's just the term you chose to use), there's something illegal going on? A vaccination mandate in itself is not illegal. There are specific ADA laws that come into play with certain exceptions and needing to make reasonable accommodations for those that are exempt from the mandate due to said ADA laws. I can imagine an entity as large and powerful as the NFL would have their policies and procedures reviewed by their legal teams to ensure there won't be any legal issues.

 

@GoColts8818You said pretty much the same thing in much less words...lol

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Wentzszn said:

Here is the interview today did earlier.

 

 

I swear our owner gets better looking and more well spoken as the years go by...

 

I am with Jimmy, things could be special going forward!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fun anecdote about the forfeits is that it specifies losses will counted for playoff seeding, which means the losses doesn't count in any way that could be beneficial to that team like better waiver wire or draft position. It would be interesting to see how that actually plays out, but I hope we don't have to find out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOD NOTE

Please stay on topic to avoid yet again having to lock a thread around vaccinations. Disinformation and political comments have been and will be removed. We'd love to keep this conversation going, especially with the high stakes that an announcement like this could have for this season and possibly next, but if they continue, this thread will be locked.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a fully vaccinated team is now a huge strategic advantage.

 

If the Colts are one of the lowest rates in the league, this could cost them a few games which means no playoffs this year. The AFC is neck and neck as is.

 

What a shame it would be for Wentz to be great but still no playoffs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Wentzszn said:

Tweet I just saw said no team is below 50%. Also there is a lot more to this. Including loss of pay. They are laying the hammer down.

These rules only apply to unvaccinated outbreaks

 

Wait, so if a player is vaccinated but still gets covid, these rules don't apply?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shive said:

A fun anecdote about the forfeits is that it specifies losses will counted for playoff seeding, which means the losses doesn't count in any way that could be beneficial to that team like better waiver wire or draft position. It would be interesting to see how that actually plays out, but I hope we don't have to find out.

From what I was just reading, for waiver wire and draft positioning, they essentially remove the forfeited game from your W-L. If you end up 8-9, but one of those losses is due to a Covid forfeit, for playoff seeding you're 8-9, but for purposes of waiver wire & draft position, you're 8-8, so you would get a worse waiver wire & draft position than a team that is 8-9 without any forfeits.

 

I do wonder what the playoff tie-breakers look like with this implemented, because it most likely would be that a 8-9 team with a forfeit loses the tie-breaker to a 8-9 team without a forfeit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL had this policy in place last season, Tennessee would have forfeited some games. Since both the Titans and Colts ended with 11-5 record, but with the Titans' virus outbreak and games forfeited, the Colts would probably have won the division. 

This shows what the implications could be come playoff time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yikes. For us, I mean. The simple truth is building a team under the protocols for unvaccinated players was already adding a run of hurdles in our way. Hard to build and prepare a team that has to have limited interaction and be spread across 34 or however many different rooms it winds up being… 

 

And now if we catch a foot on one of those hurdles we’re likely to wind up flat on our face. Meanwhile the race continues while we dust ourselves off and try and get going again, all the while losing ground in the race. 
 

What if we have a serious outbreak and let’s just say 10-15 players test positive? Do we have to forfeit two games since the quarantine time is 2 weeks?
 

I can’t help but see those teams at 85% going into the season having to worry about literally none of this and see what a competitive advantage it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing devil's advocate here, if there are 4 vaccinated players that test positive and 2 unvaccinated ones that test positive, and they are all starters, the team would still have to find a way to field a team, no matter which combination of starters are missing the game, right? Have they established quarantine requirements for vaccinated players that test positive because we know it is 14 days and a game check for the unvaccinated ones? What if it is on a Sunday and the vaccinated players still have lingering symptoms on a short turnaround for a TNF game? Technically, both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated players miss both those games but only 1 side gets docked a game check? 

 

Those possibilities/angles should be logically factored in.

 

Just curious. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Wentzszn said:

Yes. Which is how it should be.

 

Elaborate, because I'm not struggling to think of reasons that's an officious, manipulative, not really following the science kinda rule.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have an issue with this, but it should include vaccinated players as well.    It's about being careful.   Vaccinated people can have and spread the virus.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, chad72 said:

Playing devil's advocate here, if there are 4 vaccinated players that test positive and 2 unvaccinated ones that test positive, and they are all starters, the team would still have to find a way to field a team, no matter which combination of starters are missing the game, right? Have they established quarantine requirements for vaccinated players that test positive because we know it is 14 days and a game check for the unvaccinated ones? What if it is on a Sunday and the vaccinated players still have lingering symptoms on a short turnaround for a TNF game? Technically, both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated players miss both those games but only 1 side gets docked a game check? 

 

Those possibilities/angles should be logically factored in.

 

Just curious. 

 

 

- Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated and they test positive, I believe none can play so you will have to bring up players from the PS.

 

- Both vaccinated and unvaccinated will have to quarantine for 14 days to keep from spreading covid. So short turnaround times will field the same PS players

 

- Neither side gets a check but the team that tests positive for unvaccinated will lose the game. Testing positive for being vaccinated will not forfeit the game

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Myles said:

I don't really have an issue with this, but it should include vaccinated players as well.    It's about being careful.   Vaccinated people can have and spread the virus.  

 

My biggest problem with all this is that tolerance is tested regarding folks' stances different than you. No matter how dear a cause is to you, one has to refrain from the "bring out the pitch forks and rules to coerce the ones who don't fall in line" type of thinking which is happening in society with this issue now. One's true tolerance is tested when that dear cause is not adhered to. Personally, I would let it go and everyone knows the consequences depending on which side they are on, let them adapt instead of everyone on the outside making the wedge of division deeper. :2c:

 

Like I said before, would be refreshing to talk just about football soon and some folks on here didn't realize why I was saying that then, it is because of threads like this. :) 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, PRnum1 said:

- Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated and they test positive, I believe none can play so you will have to bring up players from the PS.

 

- Both vaccinated and unvaccinated will have to quarantine for 14 days to keep from spreading covid. So short turnaround times will field the same PS players

 

- Neither side gets a check but the team that tests positive for unvaccinated will lose the game. Testing positive for being vaccinated will not forfeit the game

 

 

 

My understanding is forfeiting comes into the pictures ONLY if the game is canceled. If they have enough PS players to play the game as scheduled, only game checks will be lost for the unvaccinated and no forfeiture. Would that be accurate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, C0LT5 said:

Does someone who previously contracted covid and has immunities from that...are they considered vaccinated or unvaccinated?

If you don't receive a vaccine shot, you're not considered vaccinated. If you're interested in the differences between the two, the NIH put out this piece on their site:

https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/

 

11 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

My understanding is forfeiting comes into the pictures ONLY if the game is canceled. If they have enough PS players to play the game as scheduled, only game checks will be lost for the unvaccinated and no forfeiture. Would that be accurate?

That's what I've come to understand. If you're able to field a team, you're good.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

My understanding is forfeiting comes into the pictures ONLY if the game is canceled. If they have enough PS players to play the game as scheduled, only game checks will be lost for the unvaccinated and no forfeiture. Would that be accurate?

It's certainly an incentive not to tell anyone that you aren't feeling well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Myles said:

It's certainly an incentive not to tell anyone that you aren't feeling well. 

The meltdown that's going to happen when someone shows up with a cold.. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Myles said:

It's certainly an incentive not to tell anyone that you aren't feeling well. 

I believe unvaccinated players are still subject to daily Covid testing, so it would only matter if there was a positive Covid test.

  

1 minute ago, The Fish said:

The meltdown that's going to happen when someone shows up with a cold.. lol

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Shive said:

2. You do know a jury is made of random peers that get randomly selected right? They generally have no more legal knowledge than any of us, so I don't seem any useful insight coming from a jury on legal issues like this.

Haven't you at least watched the movie "My Cousin Vinny"?  Juries and judges listen to experts, then objectively decide which position has merit.  What do you propose, somebody with the "right" credentials deciding on what a mandate is?

 

The rest of your comment is so far off the mark,  I need to respond.

 

What the NFL is trying to avoid, is implementing a legal mandate in case a 45 year old retired Darius Leonard develops heart problems as a result of the vax and demands reparations from those current owners for the actions of the previous owners.  The NFL is hoping that if/when DL sues them, that by the NFL simply removing all other reasonable options...closing all doors except one....that the court will decide that one reasonable option provided is the same thing as a choice.  So that's why that can't describe their collective suite of policies and practices as a mandate.  They want to make it look like there was a choice.

 

One of the point s that COULD be made is , On what basis did the NFL decide to follow CDC guidance?  Guidance is rendered to give advice to people and companies...decision makers...about what might be good for them.  But its the responsibility of all decision makers to look at their specific situation to decide if the guidance is right for them.  There is no CDC mandate, or legal mandate the NFL must follow at this time.

 

What would be the basis.  The NFL is predominately populated by low risk players, both in terms of age and underlying health risks.  So the idea that a bunch of players are going to contract flu like symptoms...fevers....that keeps them away from practice is a low probability.  The risk is that these players spread the virus to older nonplayers within the company.  There are plenty of ways the NFL can keep higher risk employees away from the players.  

 

Why did the NFL decide that a 3% death rate requires quarantine and not the standard 1% death rate.  3 is worse than 1.  But 4% is worse than 3%.  On what basis would DL have to get a vax because of a 3% death rate and not a 1% or 4%.  Seems like an arbitrary line that many have simply accepted for whatever reason.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Wentzszn said:

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.

As timing would have it, I think they were already changing some of the PS rules. Not sure about the size, but they did change rules around "who" could be on the PS (allowing more vets with 2+ years). 

 

Overall I like it, but I also think they need to think hard about "protection". 

20 hours ago, Wentzszn said:

 

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.

Purely my opinion, but I think a lot of the rules are pure silliness. Especially if they can rapid test daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PRnum1 said:

- Whether vaccinated or unvaccinated and they test positive, I believe none can play so you will have to bring up players from the PS.

 

- Both vaccinated and unvaccinated will have to quarantine for 14 days to keep from spreading covid. So short turnaround times will field the same PS players

 

- Neither side gets a check but the team that tests positive for unvaccinated will lose the game. Testing positive for being vaccinated will not forfeit the game

 

 

I wanted to correct my post above. Vaccinated players can return much sooner needing only 2 negative tests 24 hours apart.

 

Unvaccinated must go though the full 10 day quarantine. 

 

"According to Thursday's memo, vaccinated players or staff who test positive and are asymptomatic can return to duty after two negative tests 24 hours apart. For non-vaccinated persons who test positive, the 2020 protocols remain in place, requiring a 10-day isolation."

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-covid-19-outbreaks-unvaccinated-players-forfeit-cancelled-game

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Shive changed the title to Reich tests positive for Covid
  • Nadine changed the title to NFL Rules for Covid 2021 / positive tests ( merge)
  • NFLfan pinned this topic
  • NFLfan locked this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sorry brother. Didn't look at your time stamp, and we've known about TY returning for a bit, so assumed...   I do like the thought of Coutee sticking though if TY retires. If he can stay healthy, I think he'd be good with Wentz after a full off season. He and Campbell would make a nice 1-2 speed punch.
    • I agree we need to see more. But if he continues the level of play and stays healthy, it's a no brainer.
    • Well, yeah.  That's actually the joke.
    • Overall WR Grade - B  Pittman - B+ 73.6 YPG, on track for 1250 yards for the season Leads the team in 1st downs, and no drops Note - I don't see him (or X in general) as a #1 WR, but he's doing enough to be a #1, and more than enough as a #2. Pascal - C+ 40.8 YPG, on track for almost 700 yards. Leads the team in drops (3), but also leads the team in receiving TDs (3) Note - He's a starter and getting top 2 snaps, so his grade is what it is. He does do all the little things well despite not having the stats Campbell - C+/B- 27.8 YPG, on track for about 500 yards, and no drops A lot less targets and snaps than Pittman or Pascal, but has a yards per touch similar to Pittman, and better than Pascal.  Seems to be staying healthy so far (huge knock on wood) Note - You can see him improving. Best used in slants and gos, but we just don't run those routes a lot. I hope that changes. Great game last week. Strachan  No grade as we haven't seen a lot, but has caught 2 on 3 targets and no drops. I understand he may need route work, but no reason not to use him on simple possession routes on 3rd or in the RZ. Like MAC, just a waste of elite traits due to our conservative play calling, especially in the RZ. Dulin No grade here either, but did look pretty good last game. The guy has nice speed that we just don't take advantage of on slants and gos... Harris No grade either, just saw him a little on 2 temp elevation weeks. Another waste of elite traits. Hilton - NA Really hope he adds a new dimension to our offense, or at minimum takes some doubles to open up Pittman or others. Overall TE Grade - B Mo Alie-Cox - B+ Only 9 catches but highest yards per touch on the team, zero drops, 7 1st downs, and 2TDs The lack of use is still a headscratcher Doyle - B Only 11 catches, but 6 were for 1st downs. Grading well (career best) We're just not using TEs a lot in the receiving game.  Grasnon - NA No grade here due to lack of usage.  In his few targets, used a lot like Burton (shallow targets) with a very low ADOT (3.5) Note - I've mentioned it before, but he was used vertically in college, now more or less a getting short slot like passes. Overall RB Grade - B  Taylor - B+  Leading the team in yards from scrimmage (524 yards) and has a 4.5 AVG 65.4 YPG rushing, 39.4 receiving. On track for 1100+ rushing and 650+ receiving.  12.3 yards per target, which is WR like...... (almost twice as much as Hines' 6.5) Note - slow start rushing, but have to cut him some slack for lack of carries, and bad OL play. Still needs to improve vision/patience in zone running Mack - B 4.3 AVG in limited snaps, and it hasn't been during clean up time late in games Hines - C+ Still good, but his AVG has taken a step back (no shock with the OL), his catch % has declined a little (plus on drop), and his YPT is half of what JT's is. Note - I think his use will increase as the OL improves. Right now, it's just harder to run him as a between the tackles RB. Willkins  No grade due to little use     WR Note  M Pittman WR -  97% / 90% / 93% / 86% / 88% /  60.8 / 68.8 / 72.7 / 69.7 / 71.2 /  Z Pascal WR - . 91% / 91% / 89% / 82% / 86% /  64.9 / 62.0 / 57.7 / 57.4 / 58.5 /  P Campbell WR -  61% / NA / 80% / 44% / 55% /  62.6 / NA / 56.9 / 53.8 / 60.1 /  M Strachan WR - .  24% / 51% / NA / 7% / 3% /  75.2 / 62.3 / NA / 61.9 / 61.8 /  A Dulin WR -   8% / 39% / 11% / 17% / 33% /  NA / 59.5 / 58.6 / 64.4 / 65.9 /  D Harris WR NA / 3% / NA / NA / NA /  NA / NA / NA / NA / NA /  TE Note -  J Doyle TE - 59% / 70% / 57% / 30% / 72% /  64.7 / 71.2 / 68.1 / 72.1 / 75.1 /  M Alie-Cox TE -   51% / 40% / 46% / 69% / 45% /  50.0 / 51.2 / 56.1 / 61.4 / 65.2 /  K Granson TE -   9%  / 9% / 20% / 42% / 12% /  NA / NA / NA / 49.9 / 51.6 /  RB Note -  J Taylor RB -   55% / 45% / 48% / 51% / 52% 60.3 / 60.5 / 64.1 / 71.2 / 73.8 N Hines RB -  45% / 37% / 56% / 31% / 38% /  69.6 / 60.9 / 67.9 / 64.2 / 64.7 /  M Mack RB -   NA / 19% / NA / 31% / 14% /  NA / 53.8 / NA / 57.9 / 60.8 / 
    • Lol, yeah but imagine in today's league you'd just get notified of anything like that. If he makes it to your practice squad no one else wanted him. 
  • Members

    • RollerColt

      RollerColt 3,161

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solon

      Solon 109

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Colts.sb41

      Colts.sb41 27

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • EastStreet

      EastStreet 14,041

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • indyagent17

      indyagent17 951

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • bluephantom87

      bluephantom87 90

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • PRnum1

      PRnum1 531

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Hoose

      Hoose 1,412

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • compuls1v3

      compuls1v3 834

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • deedub75

      deedub75 314

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