04-24-2023, 01:19 PM -
Well, not really "old news" I guess. The game in question happened only four (4) months ago. And yes, there were some comments and discussions around that time period about the playing surface. ((Apparently..), this latest brouhaha started this past Thursday with the NFLPA re-igniting the controversy...)
However the NFLPA getting involved at this level is something new. They have (apparently) filed a notice or 'letter' (or maybe a grievance.??) with the league over their handling the situation at game-time. There are (again - APPARENTLY..) official procedures in place to determine if a playing surface is 'appropriate' or possibly (maybe.??) "safe." Also, that procedure may have been utilized correctly, but after 'testing' the surface before the game, the results of the testing protocol may have been ignored or over-ruled.
I don't know. I have NOT read the official 'rules' or procedure required to be followed, but it seems like there may be a rule in place with no "teeth." In other words, there may be no "enforcement" protocol or penalty tied to the testing.....hence, no "teeth." Just like in all facets of life, a law with no method of enforcement or no penalty or consequence for "breaking" or "ignoring" the law or rule, is worthless. There must be an 'enforcement action' in the rule or there is no reason to have the rule.
The real concern here (IMHO..) involves HALF of the league. Fully sixteen teams, half of the thirty-two, play on artificial surfaces. IF, I say again, IF, there is a need for a "rule" about the playing surface, then there must be a method of enforcement tied to the rule. If the rule is broken, there must be consequences.!!
However the NFLPA getting involved at this level is something new. They have (apparently) filed a notice or 'letter' (or maybe a grievance.??) with the league over their handling the situation at game-time. There are (again - APPARENTLY..) official procedures in place to determine if a playing surface is 'appropriate' or possibly (maybe.??) "safe." Also, that procedure may have been utilized correctly, but after 'testing' the surface before the game, the results of the testing protocol may have been ignored or over-ruled.
I don't know. I have NOT read the official 'rules' or procedure required to be followed, but it seems like there may be a rule in place with no "teeth." In other words, there may be no "enforcement" protocol or penalty tied to the testing.....hence, no "teeth." Just like in all facets of life, a law with no method of enforcement or no penalty or consequence for "breaking" or "ignoring" the law or rule, is worthless. There must be an 'enforcement action' in the rule or there is no reason to have the rule.
The real concern here (IMHO..) involves HALF of the league. Fully sixteen teams, half of the thirty-two, play on artificial surfaces. IF, I say again, IF, there is a need for a "rule" about the playing surface, then there must be a method of enforcement tied to the rule. If the rule is broken, there must be consequences.!!