4merper4mer Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Beane needs to dig up about 20 of those helmets and trade them to Oakland for a first. One of them will pass inspection. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 YABBA DABBA DOO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 It's funny. Antonio Brown is the poster child for the highly talented, insane, total PITA prima donna athlete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 2 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 I've seen a lot of ways for veterans to avoid training camp but this is taking it to the next level. Fake an injury like a NORMAL person. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 He's got a chance to win his grievance. His helmet wasn't on the banned helmet list when others were banned and players got a year grace period to find an approved helmet they prefer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 And when he loses that, he'll pout in the corner and miss more practice time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: He's got a chance to win his grievance. His helmet wasn't on the banned helmet list when others were banned and players got a year grace period to find an approved helmet they prefer. It will be interesting - his helmet was actually banned for being >10 years old. His model was not tested nor banned, but it also was not on the approved list provided last year to teams and players. He had a year to find a helmet on the approved list, but now he is trying an end around with a different year of an unapproved model to get a second grace period year. It will be interesting to see if his negative verbiage - my model was not tested or banned beats out the verbiage of this is the approved list provided last year - everyone has 1 year to find a helmet on this list. My guess is in the end he loses this grievance because the NFL will point out the approved list that was agreed to with the NFLPA and the fact that his helmet fails testing even with new models. It will really come down to the wording - did players have a year grace to find a helmet on the approved list or did they get a 1 year grace to find a new helmet. If it is the first part - he had a year grace already and will lose. It also does not help that he has already fought to keep his old helmet and lost, but it could depend upon what the arbitration team decided there - in regards to a newer model. Edited August 20, 2019 by Rochesterfan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: It will be interesting - his helmet was actually banned for being >10 years old. His model was not tested nor banned, but it also was not on the approved list provided last year to teams and players. He had a year to find a helmet on the approved list, but now he is trying an end around with a different year of an unapproved model to get a second grace period year. It will be interesting to see if his negative verbiage - my model was not tested or banned beats out the verbiage of this is the approved list provided last year - everyone has 1 year to find a helmet on this list. My guess is in the end he loses this grievance because the NFL will point out the approved list that was agreed to with the NFLPA and the fact that his helmet fails testing even with new models. It will really come down to the wording - did players have a year grace to find a helmet on the approved list or did they get a 1 year grace to find a new helmet. If it is the first part - he had a year grace already and will lose. It also does not help that he has already fought to keep his old helmet and lost, but it could depend upon what the arbitration team decided there - in regards to a newer model. I think he's saying there was a banned helmet list that players got and an approved list. We can assume all banned helmets failed testing. They were given a year to find an approved helmet to their liking (during which time they could wear the "banned" helmet. If his helmet (which seems rare anyway) was not specifically banned until just a few weeks ago, he can argue that he is due a year's grace period. If there was no "banned helmet" list last year, and just a "league approved helmet" list where your helmet is already on it or you had a year to pick one that was on it, he has no case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 17 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I think he's saying there was a banned helmet list that players got and an approved list. We can assume all banned helmets failed testing. They were given a year to find an approved helmet to their liking (during which time they could wear the "banned" helmet. If his helmet (which seems rare anyway) was not specifically banned until just a few weeks ago, he can argue that he is due a year's grace period. If there was no "banned helmet" list last year, and just a "league approved helmet" list where your helmet is already on it or you had a year to pick one that was on it, he has no case. The helmet he is presenting didn't pass the test. His position is untenable. He is a fool who is jeopardizing his career over a position that has a miniscule chance to prevail. https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/raiders/source-antonio-browns-desired-helmet-now-nfls-prohibited-list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 17 minutes ago, JohnC said: The helmet he is presenting didn't pass the test. His position is untenable. He is a fool who is jeopardizing his career over a position that has a miniscule chance to prevail. https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/raiders/source-antonio-browns-desired-helmet-now-nfls-prohibited-list Yeah we know that already. The title of that link is the basis for his new grievance. You should read what you link: "This grievance, according to PFT, argues that Brown wasn't given a one-year grace period that others received to wear outdated helmets, or those no longer certified. Because the Schutt Air Advantage wasn't previously banned, Brown could argue he never used the grace period. According to NFLN, Brown's grievance could be heard soon." This is what's currently being discussed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: Yeah we know that already. The title of that link is the basis for his new grievance. You should read what you link: "This grievance, according to PFT, argues that Brown wasn't given a one-year grace period that others received to wear outdated helmets, or those no longer certified. Because the Schutt Air Advantage wasn't previously banned, Brown could argue he never used the grace period. According to NFLN, Brown's grievance could be heard soon." This is what's currently being discussed here. I just heard on the radio maybe half an hour ago that the league is not approving the helmet that he claims wasn't previously banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoHuddleKelly12 Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 Too bad he already missed the deadline for these April 2019 CFL West Coast tryouts! "Players are required to bring their own helmet & shoulder pads to participate." https://cfltryouts.com/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, JohnC said: I just heard on the radio maybe half an hour ago that the league is not approving the helmet that he claims wasn't previously banned. He's saying that since it was just banned, he should get the same 1 year grace period that other banned helmets/helmet wearers got last year--when their helmets were banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: He's saying that since it was just banned, he should get the same 1 year grace period that other banned helmets/helmet wearers got last year--when their helmets were banned. This fool can make any claim that he wants. The league says no. The Raiders' GM has recently stated that the issue has gone as far as it can go. The league has made a definitive determination that won't be altered for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 57 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: I think he's saying there was a banned helmet list that players got and an approved list. We can assume all banned helmets failed testing. They were given a year to find an approved helmet to their liking (during which time they could wear the "banned" helmet. If his helmet (which seems rare anyway) was not specifically banned until just a few weeks ago, he can argue that he is due a year's grace period. If there was no "banned helmet" list last year, and just a "league approved helmet" list where your helmet is already on it or you had a year to pick one that was on it, he has no case. Exactly my point - it will depend on the wording of the lists. My guess is in the end - he was aware that his helmet was banned and had the 1 year grace period for that. My guess I’d: He will lose out because then he chose a newer model of that same brand, but by that time the players and NFLPA already had an approved list. The NFL will argue they even tried to get his newer helmet approved and it failed. And since he knew last year he had to switch helmets - if he wanted to get a newer version tested - it should have been done during that time - not after he already was given a grace period with an approved list and already fought that decision. I think it is just fascinating to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said: I think he's saying there was a banned helmet list that players got and an approved list. We can assume all banned helmets failed testing. They were given a year to find an approved helmet to their liking (during which time they could wear the "banned" helmet. If his helmet (which seems rare anyway) was not specifically banned until just a few weeks ago, he can argue that he is due a year's grace period. If there was no "banned helmet" list last year, and just a "league approved helmet" list where your helmet is already on it or you had a year to pick one that was on it, he has no case. Doesn't this make the whole thing feel kinda stupid? These helmets have been proven to be unsafe to wear during the playing of football... But ya know, 16 to 20 games probably aint gonna hurt. Catch me back next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 1 minute ago, JohnC said: This fool can make any claim that he wants. The league says no. The Raiders' GM has recently stated that the issue has gone as far as it can go. The league has made a definitive determination that won't be altered for him. I know what you are saying - it will be interesting to hear the arbiters take on the wording because he may or may not have a case. The league does not have the final say - an independent arbitrator does. The Raiders GM just wants this to go away and be done, but AB is going to try as many fake outs as possible. I wouldn’t be surprised if this fails - if he has another end-around to try and one more arbitration hearing after this. They will try to find some loophole right up until kickoff of game 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said: I know what you are saying - it will be interesting to hear the arbiters take on the wording because he may or may not have a case. The league does not have the final say - an independent arbitrator does. The Raiders GM just wants this to go away and be done, but AB is going to try as many fake outs as possible. I wouldn’t be surprised if this fails - if he has another end-around to try and one more arbitration hearing after this. They will try to find some loophole right up until kickoff of game 1. The last helmet that he presented failed the safety test. (As you noted.) This was a discontinued model that he never wore. The helmet that he always wore didn't pass the test as did this helmet that he recently came up with. He is trying to come up with a technicality to use a model that doesn't pass the safety test. I don't see the league or an arbitrator altering their position. It must be noted that the equipment safety standards were made jointly between the league and the union. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Antonio-Brown-files-second-grievance-against-NFL-14362462.php?ipid=newsrecirc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted August 20, 2019 Share Posted August 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, JohnC said: The last helmet that he presented failed the safety test. (As you noted.) This was a discontinued model that he never wore. The helmet that he always wore didn't pass the test as did this helmet that he recently came up with. He is trying to come up with a technicality to use a model that doesn't pass the safety test. I don't see the league or an arbitrator altering their position. It must be noted that the equipment safety standards were made jointly between the league and the union. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Antonio-Brown-files-second-grievance-against-NFL-14362462.php?ipid=newsrecirc I understand and agree with you, but - AB is not fighting the ban. His position is simple even if crazy - Last year the Air Schutt model was not banned because the only one being used was his and that model was not safety tested because it was >10 years old. So that model was never placed on the banned list for failing testing - just his for age. If the wording of the agreement was you must change helmets because these helmets are banned and you have 1 year grace period to find the new helmet - his point is this current model and year was just banned last week with the testing - I want 1 year grace period to find a new helmet from that point. The league and the NFLPA agreed to the years grace period on helmets that failed the safety standard for last year - so there is a precedent. However (and more likely to my mind) if the wording was here is a list of approved helmets that have passed safety testing and a listing of banned helmets that failed (or are to old) - you have 1 year to choose an approved helmet - then he will lose the appeal very quickly. I find it very interesting that the NFLPA has not backed him at all in this fight and seemed to agree with the NFL and the arbiter earlier - it tells me they do not agree and it will be harder for him to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts