Brown files new grievance over helmet issue

[Harbingers]

On 8/20/2019 at 10:11 AM, bull123 said:

and zeke...id cut his sorry tail and pay him nothing

players make millions and still whine dont deserve to be in the league

Why? They can literally keep him for 4 years. The cowboys hold all the cards. Zeke has no leverage what so ever, and he’s looking at a million dollar fine if Jerry Jones wants to right now. 

[CanadianCat]

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.. 

[Harbingers]

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, 

[CanadianCat]

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.. 

[Devil Doc]

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.

[Harbingers]

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. 

[Snake]

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. 

[Harbingers]

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.” 

[CanadianCat]

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. 

[CanadianCat]

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. 

[Harbingers]

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. 

[TheMostInterestingMan]

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

[Harbingers]

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. 

[CatTower]

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.