Aaron Rodgers Back to the IR.

[AZ_Eaglesfan]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

You never hear about it because it's a non-issue. It's only being 'defended' because the entire premise is wrong. The league literally signed off on it. End of story. No rule broken. Nothing.

This is just denial. Yes, the NFL signed off on it, but that doesn't mean a rule wasn't broken.

Quote

NFL rules stipulate that a player needs to have suffered a new injury that would sideline him at least six weeks to be placed on injured reserve. If that is not the case, the team is obligated to release the player once he is healthy.

Is the NFL responsible? You could argue that, but saying that no rule was broken is literally just being defiant for no reason other than you want your team to have the moral high-ground (for whatever reason you would want that).

[TENINCH]

1 minute ago, Pugger said:

Are you always this charming or do you have to work at it?

No it's just a stupid notion that Green Bay would even consider saying ok you're right lets release him. Kind of a useless thread and everybody knows there's at least 7 stoplights in Green Bay.

[incognito_man]

13 minutes ago, AZ_Eaglesfan said:

This is just denial. Yes, the NFL signed off on it, but that doesn't mean a rule wasn't broken.

With all due respect, I don't care what your interpretation of the rule is, the only one that matters is the league's interpretation. And they were presented with all the info on the situation and decided it was appropriate to classify his injury as a major one this time, again.

End of story. No rule violated as determined by those who wrote the rules.

Can we move on yet or no?

[ChazStandard]

26 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

With all due respect, I don't care what your interpretation of the rule is, the only one that matters is the league's interpretation. And they were presented with all the info on the situation and decided it was appropriate to classify his injury as a major one this time, again.

End of story. No rule violated as determined by those who wrote the rules.

Can we move on yet or no?

That's obviously incorrect, rules are solid. Something is against the rules, or it is not. You can't declare something legal after the fact. If a team pays a player under the table to make-up a shortfall in his contract and skirt the salary cap, that is against the rule. The comp. com. declaring it legal after the fact would mean nothing, the rule - as written - was broken.

It's a technical violation, one that all teams commit, but this is a high profile player and therefore a high profile case. It is clearly against the wording of the rule.

[incognito_man]

32 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

That's obviously incorrect, rules are solid. Something is against the rules, or it is not. You can't declare something legal after the fact. If a team pays a player under the table to make-up a shortfall in his contract and skirt the salary cap, that is against the rule. The comp. com. declaring it legal after the fact would mean nothing, the rule - as written - was broken.

It's a technical violation, one that all teams commit, but this is a high profile player and therefore a high profile case. It is clearly against the wording of the rule.

This is obviously incorrect.

The league signed off on the roster transaction. Thus they explicitly stated it was legal. Thus not a violation of any league rules.

The league doesn't sign off on under the table payments, so that is an improper attempt at an analogy.

[Packerraymond]

57 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

That's obviously incorrect, rules are solid. Something is against the rules, or it is not. You can't declare something legal after the fact. If a team pays a player under the table to make-up a shortfall in his contract and skirt the salary cap, that is against the rule. The comp. com. declaring it legal after the fact would mean nothing, the rule - as written - was broken.

It's a technical violation, one that all teams commit, but this is a high profile player and therefore a high profile case. It is clearly against the wording of the rule.

This is like arguing that if a judge ruled someone is innocent, they are still guilty.

The NFL was presented Rodgers situation and allowed the Packers to make the move, therefore no rule was violated. There is a rule in place yes, but the context for which the NFL put the rule in place doesn't apply, therefore they didn't enforce the rule. 

[JAF-N72EX]

22 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

The rule was put in place so that fringe roster guys didn't get IRd every preseason with a hamstring pull and we're trapped on a roster being healthy by week 3 and not able to play ball. By having to release players like that it not only gives him a chance to play but keeps the teams from hoarding and developing young talent by IR-ing them with minor injuries.

This was only the case prior to the league adding the PUP list and after making revised changes to accommodate newly implemented rules. But it wasn't the sole reason.

It was made official to stop teams from using an IR slot on players who were only dealing with MINOR injuries during the regular season in order to open an active slot for a replacement while that player healed and all the while also avoiding having to keep that player sidelined for more time than was needed and/or risk losing them. The revised IR rules, as we know em now, was supposed to rectify all of this and clearly it hasn't since they're letting the Packers get away with it. Which is what others teams are PO'd about. Because the only difference between then and now is that prior the rule changes,  the league couldn't do much about it. But now that it was added into the rulebook, the league has no excuse and they are STILL not doing anything about.

22 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

This instance has absolutely nothing to do with the intended purpose of the rule. It gives the Packers the opposite of a competitive advantage

Breaking the IR rules and essentially gaining an extra roster slot is gaining a competitive advantage.

If it didn't give them a competitive advantage then why did they not report any in-game injury? Why did they wait to IR Rodgers until the day AFTER the Falcons lost when they knew that they were eliminated? Why didn't they specify in the reports as to why Rodgers was IR'd again? And the biggest question of all is,  why did the Packers staff do all of these things about with intent on playing Rodgers against the Vikings, had the Falcons won, if it didn't give them an competitive advantage?

22 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Not sure why you're so caught up on the "they must be punished" but yes it comes off as a bit trollish in nature.

Because I have two separate issues here. The Packers for breaking the rules and the leagues constant mis-handling of situations.  The latter of which(and the biggest one at that) has obviously fallen on deaf ears and has since been clouded by fans that refuse to believe that their team did nothing wrong and would rather claim "troll" anytime someone says anything critical. Therefore only focusing on anything negative that was said about their favorite team instead of actually reading and comprehending. Or at the very least, getting confirmation of what they perceive as "trolling" before getting all butthurt.

Had that happened, they would have noticed that I was not only criticizing the Packers for breaking the rules but I was also taking shots at the league as well.

 Look back on my previous posts including my initial response.

Quote

But at this point I don't expect the league to follow through with ANY of their written rules anymore. 

Quote

 

No, probably not. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't follow their own rules.

 

Problem 1) The leagues own (flawed) rule book and judgment calls.

I'm a firm believer that if a rule is put in place BY the league, then the league should follow that rule as per written in order to remove(or at least lessen) the degree of subjectivity when it comes time to apply those rules. This should be a pretty simple thing to do. Instead, the league constantly becomes very selective on choosing whether or not to ignore their own set of rules and when or when not to apply them and this is just another example of that. Especially when it comes down to punishments and this has been an on-going issue for the last decade (Goodell) and remains one of the biggest problems in the NFL today. Which brings me to problem 2. 

Problem 2) By rule, a team broke IR policy, therefore, they should be forced to follow the said rule and be held accountable for trying to get away with it. No matter how ridiculous the rule is. If the rule is ridiculous, then the league should have revised or remove the ridiculous rule to avoid situations like this. And I would feel the way damn way about any other team.

[JAF-N72EX]

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Do you understand what trolling is?  It's posting with the intent of inciting a response.  Your initial post is exactly that.

No, it wasn't. That's just how you interpreted as and believe it or not you're not always right.

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There is absolutely NOTHING that warrants anything near the suggestion for punishment you suggested originally,

Oh, so it's trolling now whenever YOU don't think that any suggestion was warranted huh? get out of here. You took it personal because it was your own favorite team on the other end of it. In fact, if I were to have said something such as; the Packers didn't do anything at all and the league should grant them an extra pick for being accused of wrong doing" I bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all.  Nice try though.

As far as the rest of your post, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in mouth either. 

But I'm done here. This is an instance where an ignore function for mods would be nice.

[jebrick]

Do I think the Packers broke the rule?  Yes.

 

Do I think the NFL will ever let a franchise player/face of a team be put on waviers by this rule?  Never.

 

The rule is for the Ronald Zamort's of the NFL not the Aaron Rogers/Tom Brady.  This is an entertainment organization.  Replays is causing enough problems with the entertainment without having rules interfere more.

[808]

1 hour ago, jebrick said:

Do I think the NFL will ever let a franchise player/face of a team be put on waviers by this rule?  Never.

 

The rule is for the Ronald Zamort's of the NFL not the Aaron Rogers/Tom Brady.  This is an entertainment organization.  

Why even waste the space in the rule book if it's a "rule" that's not even followed? 

 

 

 

[Pugger]

If the league felt the Packers were breaking the rule they wouldn't have signed off on our transaction and we would  have kept him on the active roster instead.  I have a feeling this rule will be adjusted so this won't happen again.

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

This was only the case prior to the league adding the PUP list and after making revised changes to accommodate newly implemented rules. But it wasn't the sole reason.

It was made official to stop teams from using an IR slot on players who were only dealing with MINOR injuries during the regular season in order to open an active slot for a replacement while that player healed and all the while also avoiding having to keep that player sidelined for more time than was needed and/or risk losing them. The revised IR rules, as we know em now, was supposed to rectify all of this and clearly it hasn't since they're letting the Packers get away with it. Which is what others teams are PO'd about. Because the only difference between then and now is that prior the rule changes,  the league couldn't do much about it. But now that it was added into the rulebook, the league has no excuse and they are STILL not doing anything about.

This makes absolutely no sense. Who is going to IR one of their starting players for a minor injury during the season? Why have him miss 2 weeks when he can miss 8? No the rule absolutely is meant for the cutdown to 53, and for guys 45-53 on the roster. Those are the guys who a team would want to IR with a minor injury because they need their roster spot for depth elsewhere, but they obviously have a reason to want to keep and develop that player. That player then gets stuck on IR for something minor and loses a year of his career, when he could be useful to another team.

The NFL didn't make this rule because they were worried the top 40 guys on rosters we're going to be IRd with minor injuries, that sounds ridiculous. 

There is such a thing as having a rule in place that you don't choose to enforce because the circumstances in this instance don't apply to your reasoning for making the rule. The only competitive advantage here is that the Packers got to keep someone like Adam Pankey, their 9th string OL, when they added Joe Callahan back to the roster.

[ChazStandard]

15 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

This is like arguing that if a judge ruled someone is innocent, they are still guilty.

The NFL was presented Rodgers situation and allowed the Packers to make the move, therefore no rule was violated. There is a rule in place yes, but the context for which the NFL put the rule in place doesn't apply, therefore they didn't enforce the rule. 

Which obviously happens all the time.  See: Anthony, Casey.

[ET80]

41 minutes ago, ChazStandard said:

Which obviously happens all the time.  See: Anthony, Casey.

Simpson, Orenthal James.

[ET80]

4 hours ago, Pugger said:

If the league felt the Packers were breaking the rule they wouldn't have signed off on our transaction and we would  have kept him on the active roster instead.  I have a feeling this rule will be adjusted so this won't happen again.

Realistically, it's a pretty obscure rule. I could easily see where someone at the league office simply rubber stamped the transaction and moved on with their day, only to realize the rule after the fact. It's not like this league is known for airtight protocol on...well, anything outside of copyright infringement. 

Ultimately, the rule was violated, but the NFL didn't act on said rule so it amounts to absolutely nothing, outside of bandwidth on Twitter being wasted.