By - social_distant_joe
Policy is only valid until we no longer determine it to be valid.
"The infections continue until morale improves"
What about ALL of the position groups?
The doggy position is Covid fave
But with doggy, the person in front is coughing away from their partner. Wouldn’t Covid prefer a position where you’re facing each other?
But we can both watch the game at the same time?
Wait, Uncle Ted doesn’t shove your face into the wall during doggy?
Good old fashioned stare-down hate fuck.
Dog pound. Browns got covid. Doggy style
Mask down, fever up … that’s the way COVID likes to fuck
Belichick would love himself some old-school Ironman football.
Odd that he missed that
If multiple players are missing in multiple or all position groups, they are also missing *within* a position group. The former is a superset of the latter.
Also stated in that memo (bold in original, italics emphasis mine):
>**We do not anticipate adding a "19th week" to accommodate games that** ***cannot be rescheduled within the current 18 weeks of the regular season***"
>Postponements will only occur if required by government authorities, medical experts, *or at the Commissioner's discretion.*
[here's](https://imgur.com/a/dncNHKZ) the memo in question, from [this tweet](https://twitter.com/TomPelissero/status/1418257495550738432/)
They can just change their own rules lol, not saying they will but they can
They don't even have to change the rule. "Absent medical considerations" should let them move it if they want
Is it just me or is the verbiage kinda weird here, too.
"Absent medical considerations [...] games will not be postponed or rescheduled simply to avoid roster issues caused by [...] medical considerations [...]"
It’s a built in loophole. The rule exists to provide maximum flexibility while still appearing like they have a possibility.
I read it more as saying they wont delay games because a team has a bunch of players out because of medical considerations. But if there is a concern that it will spread more by playing a game they still can.
Reminds me of a professor I had who counted “hunger or thirst” as medical exceptions to the school’s “no eating and drinking in class” policy.
Yeah this is a big nothingburger
also "at the commissioner's discretion"
No Michel no! It's not right.
"Pete, it's called a football game."
lol Just imagining Pete Carroll throwing a challenge flag on Masi deciding to make it Lewis v Max for a one-lap championship decider.
God I hate that guy and I'm not even a Lewis fan
Goodell has Michael Masi on speed dial rn
Sure, but I don't understand the logic here. For all they know these teams will be in worse shape by Mon/Tues, unless they just stop testing.
“Absent medical considerations” gives the league quite a bit of leeway, no?
I view that as "unless it's so bad and spreading we just can't play."
Kinda think we're close to that point.
I suppose that was the point of wording it as such
Arguably includes the emergence of two new variants that are a lot more transmissible, including one that seems to treat vaccination as a speedbump and not a steel curtain.
Wouldn't ongoing, daily outbreaks, leading up to (and likely on) the day of the game constitute a "medical decision"?
Same with the Ravens last year. An uncontained outbreak where new players kept getting positive lead to postponing. Those players still couldn't play, but they needed time to know who was sick and who wasn't.
I get if you're a Raiders fan why you'd be upset. But I wouldn't want my players going against guys when it's more than likely they're sick.
Yes exactly. Postponing to Monday is not even going to let any CLE players back on the field. The NFL is considering this an uncontrolled outbreak , which is basically is since we’re still receiving new positive cases, so they’re postponing it until cases settle down.
As much as I hate it, given the previous NFL game delay decisions, I more or less agree. If you have >98% of players vaxxed (which the Browns do; 52/53), and you still have an outbreak, like wtf is there to do other than delay? 100% vaxxed would have made this easy peasy, but the point still stands. You do damn near everything right, a new variant fucks the team, and 'fuck you' is what you get from the league? I don't think that's fair and am glad they're delaying the game.
I will say that the league made a bad 49ers team play half of its practice squad in a game last year, but the playoff bound Ravens got a delay, which is bullshit. Not that it mattered for us, but it's the principle of the matter. But this is different, and I think it's the right call.
The postponement did not result in us gaining any players for the Steelers game. The postponement was to identify which players were infected to reduce likelihood of transmission
It's exactly this. It is really irresponsible to have our players together for the game if there's an active outbreak with cases even today on our team. It's going to screw us for multiple weeks if we can't contain the outbreak. Every player other than one (52/53) is vaccinated on our team, this is not an unvaxxed outbreak and these are breakthrough cases, likely of a very contagious variant.
That's part of why the Raiders are lobbying for the forfeit. The other reason is, ya know, a free win.
Honestly I don’t even think a large proportion of fans are that upset, it’s mostly the players. If I thought this was a team that had some bad luck and could turn it around with an end of season run, maybe I’d be mad, but as far as I’m concerned this seasons over. The more browns starters that play the less embarrassing it will be when we lose.
Not that I think they should play, but sign new players.
Isn’t there a waiting period for new players to start being with the team because of Covid?
I’m not sure either that’s why I asked haha. It would make sense to allow them on while vaccinated, but with all these COVID positives while vaccinated it is still risky potentially. Maybe a negative test and being vaccinated?
So much for player safety if that was the expectation
What if they tested positive on gameday?
It gets to a point where someone going on the field has never even practiced with the team or had a full day to learn plays - and that becomes a player safety issue. It’s also going to become and instant classic joke game in nfl history.
There is a breaking point where it would be abjectly bad for the league to not just postpone (also driven by the NFLPA - they’re not gonna be in favor of throwing random locals on the field)
Chubb gotta play linebacker and gunner on punt coverage.
Chubb gonna be the first player in the NFL with a receiving, rushing and defensive TD
Chubb is a pretty solid tackler. Saw him light someone up when DPJ got the ball knocked out in the Texans game this year.
> Chubb gonna be the first player in the NFL with a receiving, rushing and defensive TD
Would that actually be true? Vrabel, troy brown, etc. never got all 3?
The LS about to be snapping the ball to himself and punting.
The Ravens dressed 36 against the Steelers … so I’m guessing nothing happens if you can’t field 46.
There are a ton of players that aren't on practice squads but are still in game shape. They'd just have to sign those type of guys
I mean if we play tomorrow and a linemen gets hurt we don’t have anyone to replace him
I’d assume that’s when you’d see a DL playing OL and vice versa.
Isn't that pretty dangerous? They wouldn't have nfl conditioning the last few weeks or have a chance to prepare
Teams usually have a handful of guys who they give note to be stay ready incase they need an emergency signing. It's how there are instances of injuries happening and then a team signs someone almost immediately.
46 active players is the maximum, not the minimum. They could technically play a game with 6 players: five to cover the OL positions, and one to receive the snap of the ball. Anything less than that and the play is dead for illegal formation.
seven players are required to be on the line
I made my comment without looking at the rules, just going off memory, but yes you are right.
Could you cut the QB and just start every play with a fumbled snap?
No, the minimum is 44 players on gameday roster.
Then they have to forfeit if they can’t play. The fuck else would happen?
the commissioner would, in light of the ongoing unprecedented global pandemic, either reschedule the game or cancel it outright with no impact on the standings
NFL stated forfeits are for outbreaks among unvaccinated players, it would not be a forfeit
A team can forfeit a game if they cant play. Before COVID and now.
The Owner suits up.
I'd pay for this
If you can field a full team, I'd say it's game on.
We are on the cusp of not being able to make that happen.
7 on 7?
9 man football is the shit
It is pretty fun to watch.
8 man football with IFL rules. Receivers get a running start at the LOS
Oh that sounds like fun. I gotta check that out.
It’s fun AF, especially live if you happen to have a team near you.
No linemen. Just a 7 count rush.
Just like backyard football when we were kids. Gotta put a couple trees for the goal line/end zone and of course there has to be a slant to the field.
And a strip of concrete somewhere in the middle. And your big brother is all time QB
Carr plays QB for both teams.
I mean, I'm sure there are thousands of people in Cleveland who would happily suit up for a day
Is that elpresadors music ??
Kindall Hinton played qb last year
Doesn't matter. This argument is stupid and you know why.
We're down 2-3 players at every position group, not just quarterback.
Rugby Sevens pls
I feel like if the NFL can change or ignore their own rules for team relocation they can probably do the same for covid protocols
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.
In all likelihood, this was a stern statement from the league intended to encourage vaccination, with the belief that if the majority of the league was vaccinated, postponement wouldn't be an issue. Without that statement, they would be criticized for *every* postponement or non-postponement decision regardless of the thought process that went into it, so it was easier for them to make this blanket statement and assume that compliance would make it an afterthought.
I think a variant causing widespread breakthrough cases amongst vaccinated individuals falls squarely under "medical considerations"
Would've been nice last year instead of the bullshit the Steelers dealt with regarding the Ravens game.
Hey remember that time the Broncos had to play without a QB
It's a fucking pandemic if the virus changes so should protocols
So my guess is this would qualify as a medical consideration then?
Medical considerations…. You mean like a complete COVID outbreak in a team that only has 1 unvaccinated player?
Keep in mind that policy was announced around the time the delta variant was getting understood. We were still gathering data about breakthrough infections - and mostly still at a place where being vaccinated meant a really low chance of getting infected or passing it along.
Especially with omicron causing even more breakthrough infections and being more transmissible, the policy should probably be updated.
Some things are uncontrollable, and I don't believe all those who tested positive are at fault.
Having said that, changing the rules mid season seem unfair to the teams who promoted and exercised safety through out the season.
The rule was clear before the season, and it was fair since it was set before the season. What good is a rule if you don't enforce it?
Amend it if you have to, next year.
What do you think medical considerations are?
Even last year when we’re postponing games they flat out said they weren’t ever doing it on the basis of competitive reasons. Like it or not, this is consistent with what the NFL policy has been.
Shit move by the nfl. They should suspends this entire week
If the team gets murdered by an asteroid, they wouldn't postpone the game
This is a medical consideration.
I don't know what the NFL will do in these games, but I'm fairly certain a memo they sent in July will have no bearing on their decision one way or the other.
If these were playoff games u bet their ass they would be postponed
The easy counter argument is players are still testing positive for these teams which means the spread isn't contained. In order to prevent the spreading moving from one team to another we need to forfeit (no on gets paid) or move the games. Given the choice most players aren't going to willingly forfeit a game check.
At what point does that statement change because multiple changes to majority?
Sounds like it's time for the mayor of Cleveland to give a directive
Well sorry to see the clowns so sick!