Thread: NFL removes 'probable' designation from team injury reports

The NFL confirmed Sunday a streamlined policy for reporting an injured player's game status during the regular season, a move that addresses the rise of gamesmanship among teams that want to limit that information for competitive purposes.

Under the revised policy, approved recently by the NFL competition committee, the "probable" category has been eliminated and the remaining classifications have been redefined.

Two days before kickoff, teams must list injured players as "questionable," "doubtful" or "out" for that game.

rest - http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...le-designation

in what has become an annual ritual, the NFL has come up with more dumb shenanigans. . .

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...tful/#comments


it's a pain in the ass to fantasy players, and of questionable value to anyone-- unless belichick can figure out some new loophole to exploit. . . or more likely, someone is conspiring to make a ton of money playing DFS with insider info. . .

I don't like it. Leaves even more gray area than before.

Originally Posted by Davii

I don't like it. Leaves even more gray area than before.

yea, that's my thought as well. . .

Transparency should be more of a ******* goal than this shit. Spitting in the face of a driving factor of NFL's popularity in Fantasy Football is just the icing on the cake.

I'm confused as to what this is going to change. Players who are "probable" play 99% of the time anyway. So now I assume they will just not be listed on the injury report instead of being listed as probable. So what's the issue exactly?

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

I'm confused as to what this is going to change. Players who are "probable" play 99% of the time anyway. So now I assume they will just not be listed on the injury report instead of being listed as probable. So what's the issue exactly?

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

Originally Posted by dogfish

in what has become an annual ritual, the NFL has come up with more dumb shenanigans. . .

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...tful/#comments

it's a pain in the ass to fantasy players, and of questionable value to anyone-- unless belichick can figure out some new loophole to exploit. . . or more likely, someone is conspiring to make a ton of money playing DFS with insider info. . .

Well, the story goes that's the only reason the NFL began publishing injury reports in the first place: They got tired of having a pile of eavesdropping bookies fall out every time they opened a locker room door, so finally just said, "Look: We'll TELL you EVERYONE who's hurt—and how badly—EVERY WEEK." It was always inherently dubious, and is probably an anachronism in the modern 24/7 instant news cycle.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

You are going to make a fine lawyer.

Wouldn't 95% of the players be listed under probable?

""If there is any question concerning a player's availability for the game," the policy reads, "he should be listed as 'questionable.'""

Somehow the Patriots will find a way to manipulate this to their advantage.

Originally Posted by Von Kinger

Because now it lets them go 'well so and so was probable in the sense of being more than fifty percent likely to play' but it didn't pan out.

Also - "So, basically, any player whose chances of playing are less than 100 percent is “questionable,” and any player whose chances of playing are 49.9999 percent of less is “doubtful.” While these changes streamline the process, they create a much broader range for “questionable,” allowing visiting teams to keep the truly injured players under wraps until they head to the site of the game and leave the injured players behind. For home teams, the question of whether a “questionable” player will play won’t be finally resolved until the list of inactive players is filed 90 minutes prior to kickoff."

But isn't the point of this change for players who were listed as "probable" to not be listed on the injury report at all?

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

But isn't the point of this change for players who were listed as "probable" to not be listed on the injury report at all?

It almost becomes paradoxical. Wave, there are so many ways to abuse this. By removing the probable aspect of the system, everything becomes so very vague. So for instance, imagine a team has a gimmick player who can only do a few things well, but when they go off it's miserable to deal with. The old Steelers 2005 team with Randle El comes to mind. As a DC you need to know if the's going to be there because his 'gadget' plays are so awful to deal with. But he's questionable now with a Hamstring. Hammies are notoriously hard to heal from, but he's had the issue for six weeks and played sporadically. He might have reinjured it last week, but he was practicing. Now he's listed as questionable.

Let's say I'm a coach with Randle El. I know that he's probably going to be fine, but hammies are mercurial. Just before the last second he says it hurts more, but the ability to move around is as good as it was. It's week eight, my hypothetical team being a game back in the division isn't a nightmare or insurmountable, but it's starting to get to crunch time. I can make the case either way on a hamstring. Same thing with ribs, turf toe, or any other ailment like that which is less than scientific in nature.

Now think about players who play on banged up but not torn ligaments.

Probable used to mean 'if he's not there its because something medically unexpected occurred' or I am making a strategic decision to tinker with my roster. That aspect of the information is gone.

If they wanted to create more gamesmanship and that was the policy behind it, then sure. But god damn the real losers are the fans. People pay money to see specific players, too.

I don't, personally, think it's going to impact me as a fan whatsoever. I don't pay much attention to injury reports in the first place though.