NFL: Can Players Be Trusted in Deciding What Is Right For Them Regarding Safety

Yesterday afternoon while I was listening to the Lavar Arrington Show with Chad Dukes, both Chad and LaVar were speaking out against the NFL's new policy towards "dangerous" hits.

The majority of the callers were in agreement with Chad and LaVar until one caller phoned in (and I apologize for not remembering his name, but he did identify himself as a pastor) and expressed a very passionate rebuttal to what had been said on the show.

Where I don't necessarily agree with the caller, he made some valid points.

One point (which was counter to LaVar saying that the players should decide on safety since they're the ones getting hurt) was that you can't trust the players to properly assess safety issues.

And you know what, the caller was right.

The majority of the league are guys in their twenties and early thirties, men at that age (and I should know I'm only 27) aren't too worried about health issues. They think they're invincible, even after taking a big hit if the player walks away from it—for the most part, it doesn't worry them.

Washington Redskin tight end Chris Cooley got a concussion in Sunday night's loss to the Colts, yet he spoke of it like it was no big deal and to him, it might not be at this time but overall it is a big deal.

I'm sure if you asked him about big hits, he would tell you he doesn't worry about them and I'm sure 99% of the league's players don't worry about them because if they did they wouldn't play football (the 1% are kickers).

So for guys willing playing a sport where the can receive not only concussions, but paralysis and possibly death are extreme, but one we came very close to seeing when Chris Simms had his spleen punctured after a very legal hit a couple of seasons ago.

So, these men who play this game are probably not the best ones to look out for their own safety.

Outside of the gladiator nature that is the modern NFL player, we've seen a form of solidarity amongst the NFL Player's Association (NFLPA) during this collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Week 1 had New Orleans Saints and Minnesota Vikings player pointing their index fingers to the sky just after the coin toss to show solidarity. 

So is it far fetched to think that, even though these offensive players may want these dangerous hits to be regulated a bit more, they're less likely to speak out because of union pressure?

I'm not trying to start some NFLPA conspiracy here, but if the union is trying to show that everyone is on the same page during this CBA and a rule comes down from the NFL that would split the players up, one would think the union would be quick to act to keep everyone on the same page.

Also, the union is there to protect the players, health and monetary wise. Since we'll probably see more fines from these hits, the union will probably be more inclined to look out for the defensive players on this issue.

And even though there are probably some offensive players out there who agree with the league, the NFLPA is probably going to do their best to convince them not to voice that opinion.

Outside of possible union pressure, there very well could be indirect pressure from teammates not to go out to the media saying you agree with the fines and suspensions.

Think about it: If there is a bond amongst players stronger than the union, it's the team, and if your team has one of those big hitters these fines and suspension may target, do you really want to go off to the media praising the NFL for doing something that could hurt a teammate?

No, you wouldn't, so even if that particular player didn't say anything to you on it, out of respect and friendship you're not going to say anything to possibly offend them—after all, it's not you who they're hitting anyways.

So where overall on this subject, I tend to agree with Chad and LaVar but I must concede this point to the caller.

The players are too close to the action to delegate safety rules effectively; the responsibility should fall solely on the NFL and the NFL only.

The league shouldn't succumb to outside pressures (which I fear is what they are doing with their knee jerk reaction on Monday) to make the game as safe as possible, but still keeping with the traditions and integrity of the game.

It's a tightrope for the NFL to walk, but as long as they use logic and take their time with this then they can come to a ruling that will make the game safe but at the same time not water it down.

Too many times, the league has seen players get injured on freak accidents and quickly outlawed a type of hit or play when in all reality a player has a better chance of getting struck by lightning than receiving that injury.

Where helmet to helmet hits are dangerous, the NFL needs to realize that not all of them are intentional and that the sheer speed at which the game moves makes it almost impossible to completely avoid those types of hits.

Hopefully after these string of fines, the powers that be in the NFL will rationally look at this issue and bring down a ruling that is both fair and safe.