NFL makes its stance clear on Antonio Brown’s helmet

AP

The NFL has drawn a line in the sand with regards to Antonio Brown.

Without even mentioning Antonio Brown.

League spokesman Brian McCarthy just tweeted out what amounts to a policy statement, as it pertains to Antonio Brown’s grievance and bluster about wearing his old helmet which hasn’t been certified by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment.

“The player can’t practice or play in games with equipment that’s not approved,” McCarthy wrote. “If he doesn’t play or practice he is in breach of his contract and doesn’t get paid. NFL policy is that Helmets have to be certified by NOSCAE. They don’t certify equipment that’s old[er] than 10 years.”

McCarthy deserves extra credit for going full Bill Parcells — “The player” — but the league’s stance here is clear. Brown can threaten as he pleases. But without conforming to safety standards the league and players union have worked together to create, he won’t be on the field.

23 responses to “NFL makes its stance clear on Antonio Brown’s helmet

  1. McCarthy deserves extra credit for going full Bill Parcells — “The player”.

    Somebody buy that guy lunch today.

  2. Brown seems intent on using it as an excuse to quit the Raiders and retire – & blame the NFL.

  3. Antonio Brown… Acts like a diva who plays by his own rules and will not accept authority.Society does not operate that way and he is going to incur rules and regulations that will be enforced resulting in lost revenue and time off the field.Play or pay up ! Choice is his !

  4. Me, Me, Me: pay attention to me. Antonio Brown is a 14 year old girl with emotional needs & a desire to be popular.

  5. The helmet issue is such a joke that I have to believe it is just meant as a smoke screen to cover up the fact that he can’t play or practice because of his feet. Coach said it was not his fault but guessing it really was his fault.

  6. AB’s stance is clear….why can’t the NFL’s stance be clear as well?
    The inmates CANNOT run the asylum/prison/whatsoever.
    Kudos for the NFL on this matter.

  7. It’s not the helmet. Just like it wasn’t Ben. It’s a distraction from his frost bitten feet. He won’t accept responsibility for his feet – he’ll use this as an ‘excuse’ while he waits for his feet to heal. People buy this crap though so, it’s working.

  8. Considering both teams are verified cheaters & fined millions of $ & draft picks for cheating then it’s really no shock.

    fmiaakammqbpft says:
    August 12, 2019 at 8:24 am
    Somehow this’ll end up costing the Pats a first round pick and the Saints Sean Payton will be fined a million bucks.

  9. Is there anyone more self-centered and immature in the league than this guy?

    I mean REALLY. 30 MIL guaranteed and he isn’t even practicing because of a stupid frostbite blunder and now he is creating an issue over a helmet where if he gets what he wants he is in clear violation of league policy and has to force his team and the league to bend to him in order to get his way?

    I truly feel sorry for Gruden. Even HE could not have forseen what a total waste of a human this guy is.

    I bet they are snickering in Pittsburgh….

  10. When Washington catches 85 balls for 1200 yards this year, Pittsburgh is going to regret that trade…oh wait…

  11. Saw Derek Carr talking him up yesterday, like a good teammate, still laughed hysterically…it’s gotta be lonely atop the Antonio Brown high road

  12. Why can’t he just sign a waiver…”I hereby understand that the helmet i am wearing makes me more susceptible to future head injuries. by wearing this helmet, i agree that i nor my estate will sue the NFL.”

    I know that Brown can be a bit of a drama queen…but goodness, this is a clear example of a victim-less crime…he hurts no one except possibly himself with his old helmet…let the guy wear his old helmet and sign a waiver preventing future lawsuits

  13. wait… so let me get this right. so if a product is over 10 years old, they won’t even certify it anymore, even if the safety rules haven’t changed? so what if a product performs the best out of any of the others, consistently every year? but then becomes a 10 year old product, and they don’t want to change it, because it would cause it to perform less well in their certification tests? they would just ban the superior safety product?

    don’t get me wrong, AB is crazy… but maybe the plays need to be more on the NFL on this… cause this seems like a really dumb rule to just set an arbitrary death on safety equipment just because the model is now a decade old…

  14. jedicurt says:
    August 12, 2019 at 10:30 am
    wait… so let me get this right. so if a product is over 10 years old, they won’t even certify it anymore, even if the safety rules haven’t changed? so what if a product performs the best out of any of the others, consistently every year? but then becomes a 10 year old product, and they don’t want to change it, because it would cause it to perform less well in their certification tests? they would just ban the superior safety product?

    don’t get me wrong, AB is crazy… but maybe the plays need to be more on the NFL on this… cause this seems like a really dumb rule to just set an arbitrary death on safety equipment just because the model is now a decade old…

    —–

    The NFL doesn’t test the helmets and they’re not the ones that came up with the 10-year window. The NOCSAE and SEI (independent organizations that are separate from the NFL) are the ones that came up with the certification window. The NFL’s rule just states that the equipment needs to be NOCSAE certified.

    Also, a lot has been changed in terms of helmet safety in the past 10 years. Just a quick look at the NOCSAE site shows that they upgraded their certification requirements in 2016. It’s pretty reasonable a 10 year old helmet that was designed to a set of lower standards would fail the new rigid standards.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!