Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

    Dr. Andrews says RG3 was never cleared to re-enter game
    Posted by Mike Florio on January 6, 2013, 10:45 AM EST
    Washington Redskins starting quarterback Griffin III is helped off field by team trainers late in fourth quarter against Baltimore in Landover Reuters

    Renowned sports surgeon Dr. James Andrews serves as one of the Redskins’ game-day physicians. That relationship could now be in danger, grave or otherwise.

    Andrews admits to USA Today that he never cleared quarterback Robert Griffin III to re-enter a Week 15 game against the Ravens, after Griffin suffered a knee injury that looked much worse than it ended up being. Griffin skipped one play, re-entered the game, and then exited for good several snaps later.

    “He didn’t even let us look at him,” Andrews tells Robert Klemko of USA Today. “He came off the field, walked through the sidelines, circled back through the players, and took off back to the field. It wasn’t our opinion.

    “We didn’t even get to touch him or talk to him. Scared the hell out of me.”

    Andrews’ comments may scare the hell out of coach Mike Shanahan, who specifically said the day after the game that Andrews had cleared Griffin to return.

    “He’s on the sidelines with Dr. Andrews,” Shanahan said at the time, via Klemko. “He had a chance to look at him and he said he could go back in. [I said] ‘Hey, Dr. Andrews, can Robert go back in?’

    ‘Yeah, he can go back in.’

    ‘Robert, go back in.’

    “That was it.”

    But that wasn’t it. And now, as the Redskins prepare to host the Seahawks on Sunday afternoon, Shanahan and Andrews may be having an awkward conversation at some point this morning. Especially since Andrews is still concerned about Griffin’s status.

    “I’m the one that shut him down that day, finally,” Andrews said. “I’ve been a nervous wreck letting him come back as quick as he has. He’s doing a lot better this week, but he’s still recovering and I’m holding my breath because of it.

    “He passed all the tests and all the functional things we do, but it’s been a trying moment for me, to be honest with you.”

    This back-and-forth highlights the tension between doctors and the teams that pay those doctors to provide care and evaluation to players. And it suggests that Andrews, who doesn’t need his relationship with the Redskins in order to remain the go-to orthropedic specialist for NFL players, has opted to jeopardize that role with the team in order to keep his conscience clear.

    Other team-hired doctors don’t have that luxury. Routinely, those doctors tell coaches what the coaches want to hear about player availability, knowing that if the coaches aren’t told what they want to hear they’ll find another doctor who will.That’s why the NFL and NFLPA should work toward the use of a truly independent staff of game-day physicians, who can work with only one concern in mind — the health and well-being of their patients.
    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-game/related/
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  • #2
    Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

    I don't know why Andrews would invent this, it doesn't make much professional sense any way you shake it, even if he had malicious intentions, I mean Andrews has one helluva amazing rep that he can actually back up with results (see Adrian Peterson). We don't know the whole story, but that fact alone makes me lean toward the doctor as the truthful party. As a medical professional, he probably wanted to make sure it was out there that he didn't suggest RG3 to go back out, that would be on my conscious, too. Someone said he was writing a book, but the damage caused by him "outing" the 'Skins would be a much larger financial and credibility hit than a book. I mean, it's hard to imagine he's got much of a relationship with the 'Skins after this... that's a public and pretty damning confession.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 01-07-2013, 10:58 AM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

      I commented last night, but the fact he is promoting a book makes for weird timing.

      That said, doctors are arrogant and his name is what he has. I dont know much about this guy, but he is the pro team doctor for like 4 or 5 professional teams.

      I actually beleive the doctor more then Shanny, which scares me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

        I find this strange... Why would Shanahan lie? Why not just say RG3 said he walked it off and said he was OK and so he ASSUMED the doctor had looked at him? Why put words in the doctor's mouth? I suppose one answer would be because that is the most controversy quieting answer. But then you have to hope the doctor plays along. Which that seems kind of risky rather than just playing the "I thought the doctor looked at him, RG3 said he was OK" card.

        But in any case the Redskins sure took a gamble with their face of the franchise and future. And last night it appeared they were still gambling.

        There will be questions about whether RG3 should've been pulled last night (or if he even should've been playing at all) due to his knee. Shanahan said RG3 told him he was OK ("hurt, not injured") and he wanted to play. I'm not really sure RG3 did anything but hurt the team last night in the 2nd half due to his limited mobility. Maybe it was all supposed to be a lesson for him: Don't gamble too much when running and work on the passing game so the running game isn't as important to him. Otherwise, injuries will be the outcome

        I just don't know...

        Since you can't trust RG3 to play the game in a way that minimizes his injury risk I find it had to believe that the team could trust him to tell them how badly he was hurting. Then factor in what their eyes were showing them with him limping around the field, his running game negated, and his throwing/vision issues exposed.

        He's a gamer... no denying it... But he and the Redskins are going to have to take a different road with his career and decision making or else he's not going to be around long term like he could and should be. ...IMHO...
        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

        ------

        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

        -John Wooden

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

          I said yesterday I bet Shanny comes out and says he talked to an assistant who talked to the Dr. He will chalk it up to a misunderstanding

          Originally posted by Bball View Post
          There will be questions about whether RG3 should've been pulled last night (or if he even should've been playing at all) due to his knee. Shanahan said RG3 told him he was OK ("hurt, not injured") and he wanted to play. I'm not really sure RG3 did anything but hurt the team last night in the 2nd half due to his limited mobility. Maybe it was all supposed to be a lesson for him: Don't gamble too much when running and work on the passing game so the running game isn't as important to him. Otherwise, injuries will be the outcome
          If RG3 had pulled himself he would be called a quitter and soft.

          I have no problem with him wanting to stay in, my problem is with the coach not pulling him.

          I never even played pro sports, but at the college and semi pro level I hardly ever see/hear of guys saying "Pull me out." Sometimes you gotta say "I know you think you are good, but you need to sit down". It is a tough decision to make, but that is the reason the coach gets paid 12M dollars a year

          I will leave the rest of your quote alone, as I have already said numerous times that the Redskins have changed the offense a lot, and RG3 has played a lot smarter since his first concussion
          Last edited by vapacersfan; 01-07-2013, 11:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

            I don't think anyone would have called RG3 a quitter, even after the first big knee injury. I certainly would not have. I do think his style of play lends to him being injured in ways like that.

            But no one would have called him weak or a quitter. At first it sort of seemed brave... but after awhile it just seemed stupid to me. He still doesn't believe he hurt his team, but in quarters 2 and 3, especially after he tweaked his knee again early in the game, he did hurt his team by being out there. The other part of having him out there wasn't in regards to his effectiveness, but to his vulnerability. Sure he can limp around and throw some passes out there, but he's also at a much greater exposure to further damage that weak knee.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

              I never said RG3 should've pulled himself. I only speculated about the coach needing to do that.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                I never said you did. I was more speaking in generals. I tend to agree with you, and like I said when you make 12M a year to make decisions.....well sometimes you gotta make unpopular ones

                Of course hindsight in 20/20. And remember Cutler pulled himself a couple of years ago. And all I remember is people calling him soft and saying he quit on the team.

                Of course hindsight being 20/20 I wish they woulda pulled Robert at the end of the 1st quarter up 14 points

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                  IIRC Cutler didn't seem to be all that injured.

                  I have a feeling if RG3 would've pulled himself nobody would've questioned it. The storyline would've been "He's obviously hurt. This has to be a concern because no way RG3 comes out unless it's bad"

                  RG3 already has a rep for being a competitor and a tough kid so I don't think anyone would be second guessing him, especially considering we all saw his leg go 'rag doll' a couple of weeks ago, can see the brace he's wearing now, and certainly saw him laboring on the field.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                    Just one look at Andrews face as he walked off the field behind RGIII last night told me everything I needed to know. It was a look of grim acceptance that what he had feared all along had just happened.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                      No one would have called him a quitter if he came out after the first quarter. He could barely lift his right leg. This wasn't about playing through pain, he had proven he could do that, this was about a structural piece of his body possibly being severely damaged.

                      I go back to what I said in the other thread, and I stick by it, the damage was done already before that 4th quarter. That right leg was begging to give out even he was setting to throw, go back and watch the replays when he plants his foot the knee bends awkwardly several times, it didn't have anything stabilizing it IMO, which is a terrible sign with that brace on there. The knee was bending weird well before that 4th quarter play, he was just not letting himself get caught with his weight on it, til he was caught in a snap position in the 4th and the knee finally was caught holding up his whole body and it just went out immediately.
                      Last edited by Trader Joe; 01-07-2013, 12:46 PM.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                        Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                        I dont know much about this guy, but he is the pro team doctor for like 4 or 5 professional teams.
                        He's only the Michael Jordan of sports medicine. Literally the Best in the World.
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                          Yea, Andrews is a superstar in a field that doesn't really have stars.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                            He's the guy who helped on Brees shoulder surgery and the dude who rebuilt AP's knee, those two alone should give you an idea of just what he knows about joints.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: RG3 Was Never Cleared By Dr to Re-enter Wk 15 Game after knee injury

                              Originally posted by vapacersfan View Post
                              I never said you did. I was more speaking in generals. I tend to agree with you, and like I said when you make 12M a year to make decisions.....well sometimes you gotta make unpopular ones

                              Of course hindsight in 20/20. And remember Cutler pulled himself a couple of years ago. And all I remember is people calling him soft and saying he quit on the team.

                              Of course hindsight being 20/20 I wish they woulda pulled Robert at the end of the 1st quarter up 14 points
                              Cutler didn't pull himself out the team doctor wouldn't let him play.

                              Im glad we have a doctor who cares, his health is more important than any one football game. Of course the players want to play Jay did and so did RG but it's the coaches and the doctors job to sit them.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X