Tua out vs Hawks with another concussion? Speculation

[bigskydoc]

Thanks for the very detailed response. Like you said, a lot of it has already been covered, but it's nice hearing it from an MD.

Now, I have another question: If we have established as a fact that Tua is more prone to concussions than others, perhaps due to his genetics, and that his past concussions make future ones more likely and perhaps more severe, should the league consider banning him from the game?

I’m a personal responsibility kind of person. I wouldn’t ban him, but I don’t think he should play. If I were a team, I would be very hesitant about signing a contract with him that didn’t have protections for missed games, and against claims arising from the inevitable long-term consequences.

 

[RiverDog]

I’m a personal responsibility kind of person. I wouldn’t ban him, but I don’t think he should play. If I were a team, I would be very hesitant about signing a contract with him that didn’t have protections for missed games, and against claims arising from the inevitable long-term consequences.

I guess I'm 50/50 on it. Yes, he's an adult and very capable of making his own decisions regarding his health. He's not putting anyone else at risk by continuing to play. If someone told me that I can't have a beer because it's bad for my health, I know how I'd react.

But how many times have players been sidelined against their will due to a medical condition? What's the difference between banning him from playing in next week's game and banning him for life? Why did they hire these independent experts and gave them the authority to hold a player out of a game against their will (re: Jamal Adams) if not for the player's own good? We're using the same logic here, are we not?

 

[bigskydoc]

I guess I'm 50/50 on it. Yes, he's an adult and very capable of making his own decisions regarding his health. He's not putting anyone else at risk by continuing to play. If someone told me that I can't have a beer because it's bad for my health, I know how I'd react.

But how many times have players been sidelined against their will due to a medical condition? What's the difference between banning him from playing in next week's game and banning him for life? Why did they hire these independent experts and gave them the authority to hold a player out of a game against their will (re: Jamal Adams) if not for the player's own good? We're using the same logic here, are we not?

Difference is, when he is held out of games for the rest of the season, he still gets paid. Maybe he doesn’t get his performance bonuses, but he still gets paid.

Hold him out for life, and he may get paid for the season, but he will never sign another contract.

That’s a big difference.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Difference is, when he is held out of games for the rest of the season, he still gets paid. Maybe he doesn’t get his performance bonuses, but he still gets paid.

Hold him out for life, and he may get paid for the season, but he will never sign another contract.

That’s a big difference.

He will be alive.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

It's a moral dilemma. It's Tua's body, his health, and his life. Who am I to tell him he can't do this or that for a living. He's not putting anyone else at risk besides himself.

But if some stranger is threatening to commit suicide. Are you going to intervene, or are you going to sit by and watch? And what about these seat belt and motorcycle laws we've passed. It's no sweat off anyone else's tail if I splatter my head on the pavement like a grapefruit, so why should anyone else care?

Or, suppose you're an employer at a warehouse, and palletizing 50 lb boxes 6' high pays more than any other job, and you have an 8-month pregnant woman who insists on working at it because she'll make more money. Are you going to let her do it?

I can see both sides.

Great points. Sometimes you have that choice. Hope you are well.

 

[RiverDog]

Difference is, when he is held out of games for the rest of the season, he still gets paid. Maybe he doesn’t get his performance bonuses, but he still gets paid.

Hold him out for life, and he may get paid for the season, but he will never sign another contract.

That’s a big difference.

It's a moral dilemma. It's Tua's body, his health, and his life. Who am I to tell him he can't do this or that for a living. He's not putting anyone else at risk besides himself.

But if some stranger is threatening to commit suicide, are you going to intervene, or are you going to sit by and watch? And what about these seat belt and motorcycle laws we've passed. It's no sweat off anyone else's tail if I splatter my head on the pavement like a grapefruit, so why should anyone else care?

Or, suppose you're an employer at a warehouse, and palletizing 50 lb boxes 6' high pays more than any other job, and you have an 8-month pregnant female employee who insists on working at it because she'll make more money. Are you going to let her do it?

I can see both sides.

 

[Torc]

I don't think it would be appropriate for the NFL to dictate that a player can't play in this situation. I do, however, think it would be entirely appropriate for a TEAM to decide that it isn't safe for a player to be in the game. They already do that anyway.

The salary cap situation makes that a challenge for teams, especially with QBs. There is a good article here about Tua's contract specifically. TLDR: If he retires now, he loses a ton of money and Miami can even pull back his signing bonus. If he isn't medically cleared to play it looks like it isn't financially viable for them to release him until 2027. Yikes.

Something really needs to be changed to keep a single player from being able to destroy a team's cap for years on end. At the very least some way for a player to retire medically and reduce the cap impact.

 

[Cyrus12]

He has over 100 million reasons to stick it out...he will be back..and get concussed again...and then come back yet again...

 

[hgwellz12]

A first? hah

Stranger Dumber trades have happened.

 

[hgwellz12]

.....

But if some stranger is threatening to commit suicide, are you going to intervene, or are you going to sit by and watch?

Wow, this just brought up a scenario that I had forgotten all about. I actually encountered this dilemma. I came from work one day and as I walked from the parking lot to my building, I noticed a guy sitting on a turned over shopping cart at the end of the 8' tall hedges/entrance to the hill down to the railroad tracks. So, me feeling good and charitable, and thinking it was just a homeless/down on their luck person, decided to go in the house and put together a nice care package for the poor guy.

About 5 minutes later I come outside with a bag full of bottled water, some crackers, sliced cheese, the rest of the sliced deli ham, my daughter's fruit snacks and some Clorox wipes. As I'm walkimg up I remembered that I had the change from a $20 from lunch and I put that in the bag, too. As I get about 5 or so feet away from the guy, I realized that he had a pistol to his chin! So I eased back and jet back to the entrance of our building and call 911 and tell them that there's a guy with a gun to his head right by our condo! Hurry!

3 or so minutes later SWAT arrives and after about a 30min standoff/negotiation, they finally "talk him down off the ledge". Apparently the poor guy had come home to find out that his girl changed the locks and left all of his belongings on the front porch. That was enough to make him decide to blow his brains out . I just couldn't help but to wonder what would have happened if I didn't happen to come straight home after work, or get caught up in some kind of 15 minute accident traffic on I-5, or what if I was having one of MY bad days and, instead of thinking about someone else, decided to just go my antisocial ass straight into the house and not concern myself with a "random homeless person"?

I don't know what the moral to this story is.

 

[Jegpeg]

While it can be argued Tua is an adult and should be able to make up his own mind whether to accept the risk of playing, it can also be argued that as his employer the Dolphins are responsible for ensuring the safety of their staff.

An interesting fact I read is if the Dolphins decide it is not safe for Tua to continue playing then he gets $124m in injury guarantees, if Tua decides to quit he will not get that money unless the Dolpins decide to give it to him anyway. You can end up with the position that both Tua and the Dolphins know it is not safe for Tua to continue but they each want the other to make the decision.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...spite-numerous-head-injuries-in-recent-years/

 

[IndyHawk]

While it can be argued Tua is an adult and should be able to make up his own mind whether to accept the risk of playing, it can also be argued that as his employer the Dolphins are responsible for ensuring the safety of their staff.

An interesting fact I read is if the Dolphins decide it is not safe for Tua to continue playing then he gets $124m in injury guarantees, if Tua decides to quit he will not get that money unless the Dolpins decide to give it to him anyway. You can end up with the position that both Tua and the Dolphins know it is not safe for Tua to continue but they each want the other to make the decision.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...spite-numerous-head-injuries-in-recent-years/

Sounds like a stupid deal, why even sign him to that huge deal knowing
that he has had multiple concussions?
He never was that great of a QB to begin with before the concussions,
just hyped up by the media from Alabama days.
I think he should be forced to retire, his body is not for the NFL.

 

[Rat]

I know this isn't the important thing here, but wow are we getting fortunate with the QBs we've had on the early season schedule. Week 1: rookie playing his first game, Week 2: Overrated journeyman backup playing on his fifth team in five years, Week 3: Probably Skylar Thompson, Week 4: Goff for now, Week 5: Whatever the hell the Giants are doing...

 

[RiverDog]

While it can be argued Tua is an adult and should be able to make up his own mind whether to accept the risk of playing, it can also be argued that as his employer the Dolphins are responsible for ensuring the safety of their staff.

An interesting fact I read is if the Dolphins decide it is not safe for Tua to continue playing then he gets $124m in injury guarantees, if Tua decides to quit he will not get that money unless the Dolpins decide to give it to him anyway. You can end up with the position that both Tua and the Dolphins know it is not safe for Tua to continue but they each want the other to make the decision.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...spite-numerous-head-injuries-in-recent-years/

That's my point, too. However, I would add that the NFL has some culpability in this dilemma and should be the ones to intervene as they don't have the financial conflict of interest to deal with like the team does. They should step in and say that this is an injury covered under Tua's contract.

And here's another aspect. What about the player's union? Are they not concerned about player safety and unsafe conditions? Why shouldn't they intervene and say no?

 

[Rat]

Didnt the league basically force Jahvid Best to retire over this kind of thing?