Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

mc52beast

Brown files new grievance over helmet issue

Recommended Posts

On 8/19/2019 at 9:20 PM, Snake said:

He should just be able to sign a waiver and let him use the one he wants. 

This is the solution to this silly situation.. 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


2 minutes ago, CanadianCat said:

This is the solution to this silly situation.. 

It doesn’t work like. The NFL could write up a perfect waiver. But they would still be criminally liable in the end. 

Old Boy wants to wear his old school hardhat to a job site. Everyone is legally liable if he does. Even if there’s a waiver. 

Same thing in this situation, 

Edited by Harbingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harbingers said:

It doesn’t work like. The NFL could write up a perfect waiver. But they would still be criminally liable in the end. 

I'll have to check up on my contract law about that.

...... but by that time the CTE's have set in and Brown wont remember what he signed.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me get this straight. He is complaining about the new helmets because he cannot see out of them the same way as the older ones? Is your view that obstructed from a newer style, that it will affect your performance that much? It just sounds very petty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Devil Doc said:

So, let me get this straight. He is complaining about the new helmets because he cannot see out of them the same way as the older ones? Is your view that obstructed from a newer style, that it will affect your performance that much? It just sounds very petty.

Theoretically, yes. Then he moved to it’s safer. Then it failed the CTE safety test(seriously failed), then he went to grievance. Which he will lose. So he’s in a lose/lose situation. Unless he’s trying to get Oakland to release him so he can go somewhere else(NE, Carolina{ya, he likes Cam. I’m not ruling it out}, GB, LAR,  NO. That he believes is a better SB contender.) on a reduced contract this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Harbingers said:

It doesn’t work like. The NFL could write up a perfect waiver. But they would still be criminally liable in the end. 

Old Boy wants to wear his old school hardhat to a job site. Everyone is legally liable if he does. Even if there’s a waiver. 

Same thing in this situation, 

Obviously you don't understand what a waiver is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snake said:

Obviously you don't understand what a waiver is. 

A waiver indemnifies a person(corporation) from legal recourse. However, when the law dictates otherwise. If it’s an action against the law. It voids the waiver. 

Law > Waiver.

You can’t be a drug dealer and say hey sign this waiver. “Here’s 100 tons of coke now go deal it. You’re under waiver it’s all good.” 

Edited by Harbingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harbingers said:

A waiver indemnifies a person(corporation) from legal recourse. However, when the law dictates otherwise. If it’s an action against the law. It voids the waiver. 

Law > Waiver.

You can’t be a drug dealer and say hey sign this waiver. “Here’s 100 tons of coke now go deal it. You’re under waiver it’s all good.” 

Thats criminal law which is different than this in that example. 

This is different here because unless if the manufacturer actually recalls the helmet its would be deemed safe by the certification agency (i dont live in the states but in canada we have different certification groups that certify different products based on their intent). 

This helmet is only on the 'do not use' list because of his union (Players association) and the NFL. So technically he could absolve both those parties and wear it - unless of course it was never a certified helmet to begin with or has a recall order, which it doesnt sound like that's the issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CanadianCat said:

Thats criminal law which is different than this in that example. 

This is different here because unless if the manufacturer actually recalls the helmet its would be deemed safe by the certification agency (i dont live in the states but in canada we have different certification groups that certify different products based on their intent). 

This helmet is only on the 'do not use' list because of his union (Players association) and the NFL. So technically he could absolve both those parties and wear it - unless of course it was never a certified helmet to begin with or has a recall order, which it doesnt sound like that's the issue. 

I just like the idea of a waiver to begin with as Im not a huge fan of letting governing bodies force me to do things. Advise and consult yes, force no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CanadianCat said:

Thats criminal law which is different than this in that example. 

This is different here because unless if the manufacturer actually recalls the helmet its would be deemed safe by the certification agency (i dont live in the states but in canada we have different certification groups that certify different products based on their intent). 

This helmet is only on the 'do not use' list because of his union (Players association) and the NFL. So technically he could absolve both those parties and wear it - unless of course it was never a certified helmet to begin with or has a recall order, which it doesnt sound like that's the issue. 

No. That’s entirely untrue in this circumstance. Think of it like AB just walked out a kids store with a helmet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not obvious that the dude just doesn’t want to practice? That’s literally all this is. He’s a vet and a headache. It’s fugging hot out there. He doesn’t want to practice cause frankly, he doesn’t need to. He’s the most talented WR on that team regardless. Still, not worth the BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheMostInterestingMan said:

Is it not obvious that the dude just doesn’t want to practice? That’s literally all this is. He’s a vet and a headache. It’s fugging hot out there. He doesn’t want to practice cause frankly, he doesn’t need to. He’s the most talented WR on that team regardless. Still, not worth the BS

Then he shouldn’t play. End of story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CanadianCat said:

Thats criminal law which is different than this in that example. 

This is different here because unless if the manufacturer actually recalls the helmet its would be deemed safe by the certification agency (i dont live in the states but in canada we have different certification groups that certify different products based on their intent). 

This helmet is only on the 'do not use' list because of his union (Players association) and the NFL. So technically he could absolve both those parties and wear it - unless of course it was never a certified helmet to begin with or has a recall order, which it doesnt sound like that's the issue. 

That's a slippery slope.  The NFL has a certain obligation to protect players from serious injury and a waiver would not absolve them in my opinion. 

Edited by CatTower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Harbingers said:

A waiver indemnifies a person(corporation) from legal recourse. However, when the law dictates otherwise. If it’s an action against the law. It voids the waiver. 

Law > Waiver.

You can’t be a drug dealer and say hey sign this waiver. “Here’s 100 tons of coke now go deal it. You’re under waiver it’s all good.” 

There is no federal or state law that says the NFL have to update their helmets or his helmet isn't safe. And I'm sure AB isn't trafficking cocaine in his type of helmets. Dear god some of you people are retarded. Next I guess people are going to bring up seatbelt laws and automatic weapons bans to provide a reasonable response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CatTower said:

That's a slippery slope.  The NFL has a certain obligation to protect players from serious injury and a waiver would not absolve them in my opinion. 

A waiver would do exactly that. Just like a horse rancher knows that inherently a horse can kill you and that's why you sign a waiver. Same reason kids sign a waiver to play peewee football and so on. The NFL gave him the opportunity to use what they saw as a more safe helmet. He disagreed and chose to use his own. My question is what happens if AB gets a concussion with the new helmet without being given the choice to pick his old helmet. Now he has the right to sue because he was forced to use a certain type of helmet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...