Latest news with #KalynKahler
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Report: NFLPA tells players they can still use smelling salts
The NFL's ban on smelling salts and ammonia capsules comes with a massive asterisk. Players are still permitted to use them. Via Kalyn Kahler of the NFLPA sent the following message to all players on Wednesday night: "The NFL Players Association is aware of the memo issued by the league Tuesday regarding the use of smelling salts and ammonia capsules. We were not notified of this club policy change before the memo was sent out. To clarify, this policy does not prohibit player use of these substances, but rather it restricts clubs from providing or supplying them in any form. The NFL has confirmed this to us. If you have any questions, please reach out to your player director." (Emphasis in original.) The NFL didn't prohibit player use of smelling salts or ammonia capsules because it can't do so without collective bargaining. For now, it's a liability issue for the league. By preventing teams from supplying them, the NFL has an obvious defense if, for example, a player uses smelling salts or ammonia capsules to mask the symptoms of a concussion, returns to a game, and suffers a second concussion and a potentially serious brain injury because of it. If the league were truly concerned about the health and safety impact of using smelling salts or ammonia capsules, it would use all levers and leverage to persuade, and if necessary persude, the NFLPA to join in a mutual effort to prevent players from bringing and using their own. Unfortunately, the nature of collective bargaining isn't conducive to a single-issue win-win. If one side wants something, the other side will say, "What's in it for us?" In other words, "If you want us to agree to ban smelling salts and ammonia capsules, give us something in return." The better approach would be to truly appreciate and understand the health and safety issues associated with using smelling salts and/or ammonia capsules to clear the cobwebs from a brain that has been impacted by trauma. Both sides should want to stop using them. It's amazing, frankly, that it's taken the league so long to realize it's not a good idea to have them around. Now that the NFL is on board with banning them, the NFLPA should think less about parlaying this into a bargaining chip and more about whether it's in the best interests of the players to get them off the sidelines and out of the locker rooms. The problem is that neither side of any labor-management relationship thinks this way. It's always about getting something in return for whatever is being given up. On matters of player health and safety, the constant tug-of-war should yield to common sense.
NBC Sports
10-07-2025
- Business
- NBC Sports
Report: NFL intends to seek $12 million in attorneys' fees and costs for collusion grievance
Wednesday's report from Don Van Natta Jr. and Kalyn Kahler of is chock full of impactful nuggets regarding the collusion ruling that the NFL and NFL Players Association hid from everyone for more than five months. Here's one, from the first sentence of the article's final paragraph: 'On Wednesday, a source familiar with the league office said the NFL notified the union of its intention to seek legal fees and costs in excess of $12 million.' That's a direct byproduct of the NFL Players Association's decision to unpause the post-ruling litigation process, by exercising its right to appeal the decision. As one source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT, the NFL previously offered to forego seeking reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs in exchange for the NFLPA waiving its appeal rights. That's not an uncommon move on the tail end of a failed legal claim. While most defendants in the American civil justice system can't seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees, basic litigation costs are payable — typically at the discretion of the presiding judge. So the defendant puts together a thumb-on-the-scale petition for costs, and the plaintiff decides to abandon the Hail Mary of an appeal to eliminate the chance of having to write a big check to the other side. That could be the next step in this case. The NFLPA files the appeal to save face, given that the nonsensical concealment of partial success in the collusion case came to light. Then, once the NFL officially submits a request for repayment of more than $12 million in fees and costs, the NFLPA can do a cost-benefit analysis and decide to walk away from possibly losing the appeal and possibly losing $12 million. Any such analysis should include a fair and objective assessment of the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. From Article 17, Section 15 of the CBA: 'In any action brought for an alleged violation of Section 1 of this Article [i.e., a collusion claim], the System Arbitrator shall order the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs by any party found to have brought such an action or to have asserted a defense to such an action without any reasonable basis for asserting such a claim or defense. Otherwise, each party shall pay his or its own attorneys' fees and costs.' (Emphasis added.) How can anyone reasonably believe, based on the outcome of the case, that the NFLPA brought the case 'without any reasonable basis' for doing so? The arbitrator found that the NFL's Management Council, with the blessing of Commissioner Roger Goodell, urged teams to collude as to guarantees in player contracts. The league only won because the arbitrator accepted the predictable, self-serving denials of collusion — and ignored and/or explained away the circumstantial evidence of actual collusion. Here's what the player leaders of the NFLPA need to understand. An effort to swap their appeal rights for eliminating any chance of having to pay $12 million to the league would be more proof that current management is failing to properly embrace the partial win, and the valuable evidence, that the NFLPA has achieved. Roll the dice before the three-judge panel. Damn the torpedoes as to big, bad Big Shield's effort to squeeze $12 million in fees and costs from the union. The case was brought with a reasonable basis for asserting the collusion claim. The NFL tried to get the teams to collude. If that's not a reasonable basis to make the claim, what is? Unless the arbitrator is stupid or corrupt, the request for repayment of fees will be quickly denied. And the appeal is a nothing-to-lose proposition. Let it ride. Let it rip. And don't accept a clunky bargain that would be worth MUCH more to the league than it would be to the union.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
NFL owners are scheduled to again vote on a proposal to ban the Eagles' 'tush push' play
After days of back-and-forth and semantics, the NFL ultimately decided to table the vote on the Eagles Tush Push, with further discussions and research needed before making the play. All 32 NFL teams were supposed to vote on a ban of the Eagles ' short-yardage play two weeks after the Packers proposed changing Rule 12, Section 1, ahead of the NFL's annual league meetings, asking for a permanent ban. During Day 1 of the meetings, Kalyn Kahler of ESPN reported that the proposal had supporters and that there was 'heated' back and forth in the football ops session about the proposed ban. Fast-forward one month and 18 days, and NFL owners will again meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to vote on the proposal. They expect to have enough votes this time. The Eagles have come under fire for utilize a standard quarterback sneak that incorporates lining up two players behind Jalen Hurts, who receives the snap, uses his powerful legs (600-pound squat), with the push of his two fellow Eagles from behind, attempts to gain the necessary yardage for a fresh set of downs or a touchdown. Advertisement The play has been so incredibly effective for the Eagles that Hurts finished in a tie for the fifth-most rushing touchdowns (14) in 2024, and he's halfway to 100 (55 rushing scores) after just four whole years as a starter. According to Jonathan Jones of CBS Sports, 16 of the 24 necessary teams needed to pass voted to ban the play, and rather than complete the vote, the league pushed it back. Green Bay's proposal to prohibit the play has focused on two main reasons: Player safety and the pace of play. ESPN reports no injury data to support the ban, rather a hypothetical conversation centered on potential injuries. Now, another vote will happen. This article originally appeared on Eagles Wire: Eagles' tush push expected to get banned on Tuesday or Wednesday
USA Today
19-05-2025
- Sport
- USA Today
NFL owners are scheduled to again vote on a proposal to ban the Eagles' 'tush push' play
NFL owners are scheduled to again vote on a proposal to ban the Eagles' 'tush push' play NFL owners are scheduled to meet Tuesday and Wednesday in Minneapolis to vote on a proposal to ban the Eagles' 'tush push' play After days of back-and-forth and semantics, the NFL ultimately decided to table the vote on the Eagles Tush Push, with further discussions and research needed before making the play. All 32 NFL teams were supposed to vote on a ban of the Eagles ' short-yardage play two weeks after the Packers proposed changing Rule 12, Section 1, ahead of the NFL's annual league meetings, asking for a permanent ban. During Day 1 of the meetings, Kalyn Kahler of ESPN reported that the proposal had supporters and that there was 'heated' back and forth in the football ops session about the proposed ban. Fast-forward one month and 18 days, and NFL owners will again meet on Tuesday and Wednesday to vote on the proposal. They expect to have enough votes this time. The Eagles have come under fire for utilize a standard quarterback sneak that incorporates lining up two players behind Jalen Hurts, who receives the snap, uses his powerful legs (600-pound squat), with the push of his two fellow Eagles from behind, attempts to gain the necessary yardage for a fresh set of downs or a touchdown. The play has been so incredibly effective for the Eagles that Hurts finished in a tie for the fifth-most rushing touchdowns (14) in 2024, and he's halfway to 100 (55 rushing scores) after just four whole years as a starter. According to Jonathan Jones of CBS Sports, 16 of the 24 necessary teams needed to pass voted to ban the play, and rather than complete the vote, the league pushed it back. Green Bay's proposal to prohibit the play has focused on two main reasons: Player safety and the pace of play. ESPN reports no injury data to support the ban, rather a hypothetical conversation centered on potential injuries. Now, another vote will happen.
NBC Sports
02-04-2025
- Sport
- NBC Sports
Report: 16 teams supported Packers' tush push proposal
The Packers made a flawed proposal aimed at neutralizing the tush push. It nevertheless won support of half of the league. Kalyn Kahler of reports that 16 teams supported Green Bay's submission, which would have banned players from 'immediately' pushing the player who receives the snap. While that number fell eight votes short of the minimum needed to change the rules, the 50-50 split confirms that the debate is very real — and that, when the owners gather again in May, it could go either way. Still, at least half of the teams that weren't prepared to vote for the Packers' proposal will need to change their minds for the status quo to be altered. The problem could very well be the formulation of Green Bay's proposal. That rule would have cracked open a separate can of worms for the league regarding the proper way to officiate the play, introducing subjectivity and potential inconsistency from crew to crew regarding whether a push was, or wasn't, immediate. And if, for instance, a flag is thrown to nullify a key tush push touchdown when the shove arguably wasn't 'immediate,' the league would have to deal with criticism of the officials that could morph into claims from the tinfoil-hat crowd that the fix is in. The question becomes whether it makes sense to rewind the clock to 2005 and prohibit all pushing of a ballcarrier. The rule changed because downfield shoving of a player who was fighting for more yardage was never called. No one realized 19 year ago that this would eventually morph into the dilemma with which the stewards of the sport are now wrestling. A complete ban on pushing the player with the ball would become much easier and cleaner to officiate. And while there could be instances where an offensive lineman rumbles to the pile and gives a healthy shove without a flag being thrown, it would eliminate the strategic use of pushing and shoving as an affirmative strategy at the line of scrimmage. It all comes down to whether 24 owners will get behind the idea of keeping teammates from getting behind the quarterback and ramming him past the line to gain or the goal line. A complete ban on pushing would more directly and conclusively solve the problem, with no need for the officials to determine whether or not a shove was 'immediate.' An answer is coming before Memorial Day. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is about as immediate as it could happen.
