Football Tuesday presser for UCLA

Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA (/thread-22315.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - BostonCard - 09-21-2021

That explanation was posited and refuted last week for one of the players that was mysteriously out. We know in EJ Smith’s case that he was injured during the game. While it is possible that one or more of the others is in COVID isolation, it seems weird to come to conclusions about COVID versus any other injury.

BC

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - donkey687 - 09-21-2021

(09-21-2021, 09:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That explanation was posited and refuted last week for one of the players that was mysteriously out. We know in EJ Smith’s case that he was injured during the game. While it is possible that one or more of the others is in COVID isolation, it seems weird to come to conclusions about COVID versus any other injury.

BC

If you listen the press conference, Shaw talks through the injuries and doesn't include Jones and Filkins. Later he says they will be out for the week which to me implies that they aren't injured, but perhaps there is a discipline issue or something, but covid would be the most likely explanation especially since they are likely close contacts and could have gotten quarantined together.

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - CardinalSagehen - 09-21-2021

(09-21-2021, 10:12 PM)donkey687 Wrote:
(09-21-2021, 09:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That explanation was posited and refuted last week for one of the players that was mysteriously out. We know in EJ Smith’s case that he was injured during the game. While it is possible that one or more of the others is in COVID isolation, it seems weird to come to conclusions about COVID versus any other injury.

BC

If you listen the press conference, Shaw talks through the injuries and doesn't include Jones and Filkins. Later he says they will be out for the week which to me implies that they aren't injured, but perhaps there is a discipline issue or something, but covid would be the most likely explanation especially since they are likely close contacts and could have gotten quarantined together.

I think Filkins’ injury was visible. On his last run, as he was getting tackled, he was doinked in the head from the left and then immediately again (harder) from the right. I thought we might see a review for targeting on that play. He got up and tapped his helmet indicating that he needed to be removed.

A couple minutes later, he was celebrating on the field for EJ Smith’s TD and looking spry, but I suspect that a head injury might have become more obvious later in the evening. This would be consistent with the Oregon timeframe. By association, the same might be possible for Jones, although I hadn’t noticed anything with him and really have no idea.

The injuries to Williams (on the field for the last real series before the starters were removed) and Yurosek (on the field for the last offensive play) certainly were more perplexing. It’s possible they got hurt in practice on Monday or just toughed it out.

There are 22 students in isolation on campus right now due to Covid, per the online dashboard. It does seem presumptuous to jump to that conclusion. I suppose we will have our answer on Saturday based on whether we see 84, 9, 20, and 2 on the sideline at Stanford Stadium.

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - OutsiderFan - 09-22-2021

EJ Smith's injury seems to be the type of thing I never see happen with any other team. RB reaches into End Zone to score TD and RT falls on his leg. Totally obvious and just plain stupid.

Did Filkins injure himself in the locker room post-game celebration? I just watched the closing minutes of the game to see where these injuries to RBs happened, and Filkins never took a hint of a limp through his last play on the field. Austin Jones was on the field for a punt return for a ball that went out of bounds. So his injury seems to have also taken place in the locker room after the game.

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - Goose - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 05:26 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: So his injury seems to have also taken place in the locker room after the game.

No, he slammed his finger in the door of the his car when he returned to campus. I am sure of it.

lex24 - lex24 - 09-22-2021

(09-21-2021, 11:56 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:
(09-21-2021, 10:12 PM)donkey687 Wrote:
(09-21-2021, 09:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: That explanation was posited and refuted last week for one of the players that was mysteriously out. We know in EJ Smith’s case that he was injured during the game. While it is possible that one or more of the others is in COVID isolation, it seems weird to come to conclusions about COVID versus any other injury.

BC

If you listen the press conference, Shaw talks through the injuries and doesn't include Jones and Filkins. Later he says they will be out for the week which to me implies that they aren't injured, but perhaps there is a discipline issue or something, but covid would be the most likely explanation especially since they are likely close contacts and could have gotten quarantined together.

I think Filkins’ injury was visible. On his last run, as he was getting tackled, he was doinked in the head from the left and then immediately again (harder) from the right. I thought we might see a review for targeting on that play. He got up and tapped his helmet indicating that he needed to be removed.

A couple minutes later, he was celebrating on the field for EJ Smith’s TD and looking spry, but I suspect that a head injury might have become more obvious later in the evening. This would be consistent with the Oregon timeframe. By association, the same might be possible for Jones, although I hadn’t noticed anything with him and really have no idea.

The injuries to Williams (on the field for the last real series before the starters were removed) and Yurosek (on the field for the last offensive play) certainly were more perplexing. It’s possible they got hurt in practice on Monday or just toughed it out.

There are 22 students in isolation on campus right now due to Covid, per the online dashboard. It does seem presumptuous to jump to that conclusion. I suppose we will have our answer on Saturday based on whether we see 84, 9, 20, and 2 on the sideline at Stanford Stadium.

I vote for a gag order on COVID speculation. If we know fine. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

RE: lex24 - TriangleTree - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 07:36 AM)lex24 Wrote: I vote for a gag order on COVID speculation. If we know fine. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

Is that a vote for gags on any injury speculation or specifically on COVID because of the possible stigma?

Funnily enough, I am actually relieved by the possibility of these absences being COVID related. As to stigma, I guess I admit to some if it's self inflicted by a non-vaccination choice, but breakthrough cases are very common and there's no real way to know whether that's the case or not.

Not that I'm against the gag, I agree that stigma is an important issue

RE: lex24 - baycommuter - 09-22-2021

Shaw's comment immediately after the injury report -- "we're nowhere near not being able to play" -- was strange. The only thing that would prohibit them from playing is the Covid protocol. It sounded like he was slipping something in he couldn't talk about.

RE: lex24 - CardinalSagehen - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 10:26 AM)baycommuter Wrote: Shaw's comment immediately after the injury report -- "we're nowhere near not being able to play" -- was strange. The only thing that would prohibit them from playing is the Covid protocol. It sounded like he was slipping something in he couldn't talk about.

I agree that it was strange, but I disagree that it was about Covid. This was in reference to our near lack of an offensive line due to injuries in 2019. We had to recruit the track team's discus thrower as a possible emergency backup! We had no issues with the Covid protocols last year, other than Week 1, which affected Mills and two other guys.

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 07:36 AM)lex24 Wrote: I vote for a gag order on COVID speculation. If we know fine. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

Why?
What is the problem with commenting or even speculating on this as reason for players being out?
I'm wondering why it isn't public information, frankly.

And btw, common sense (and even some other sources) strongly suggest that a couple of these guys are Covid-related.

RE: lex24 - winflop - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 07:36 AM)lex24 Wrote: I vote for a gag order on COVID speculation. If we know fine. Otherwise, put a sock in it.

I agree. It's also a very touchy issue.

I'd go further that "if we know" means public confirmation/announcement

RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 12:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'm wondering why it isn't public information, frankly.

Because, frankly, a student's private health information is none of the public's business.

BC

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 01:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 12:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'm wondering why it isn't public information, frankly.

Because, frankly, a student's private health information is none of the public's business.

BC

Saying "the following players are out on Saturday due to Covid protocols . . . " is not revealing anything about their private health information, other than they were exposed to someone testing positive for Covid. BFD.

Plus, it provides insight into whether an absence may be expected to be for multiple weeks or now.

Plus, the pro teams do this all the time and no one is worse off for it. Are they?

And winflop, why is it "touchy."

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - BostonCard - 09-22-2021

I still think it is none of our business if a player is injured or is being held out due to a COVID protocol, or due to actually having COVID. Saying "Jones and Filkins could be back for Oregon" answers your question, without revealing anything else.

BC

RE: lex24 - 76lsjumb - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 01:41 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 01:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 12:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'm wondering why it isn't public information, frankly.

Because, frankly, a student's private health information is none of the public's business.

BC

Saying "the following players are out on Saturday due to Covid protocols . . . " is not revealing anything about their private health information, other than they were exposed to someone testing positive for Covid. BFD.

Plus, it provides insight into whether an absence may be expected to be for multiple weeks or now.

Plus, the pro teams do this all the time and no one is worse off for it. Are they?

And winflop, why is it "touchy."

Uh oh. I agree with Teejers on something having to do with Stanford football. :-0 The End Times are clearly upon us!

If the comment had been that any speculation on any reason relating to health or injury should have a sock put on it, I would agree 100%. But there is no rational basis for excluding only COVID -based speculation.

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 02:56 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 01:41 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 01:28 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 12:29 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I'm wondering why it isn't public information, frankly.

Because, frankly, a student's private health information is none of the public's business.

BC

Saying "the following players are out on Saturday due to Covid protocols . . . " is not revealing anything about their private health information, other than they were exposed to someone testing positive for Covid. BFD.

Plus, it provides insight into whether an absence may be expected to be for multiple weeks or now.

Plus, the pro teams do this all the time and no one is worse off for it. Are they?

And winflop, why is it "touchy."

Uh oh. I agree with Teejers on something having to do with Stanford football. :-0 The End Times are clearly upon us!

If the comment had been that any speculation on any reason relating to health or injury should have a sock put on it, I would agree 100%. But there is no rational basis for excluding only COVID -based speculation.

Don't worry. This doesn't really have to do with Stanford football.
It has to do with protecting the student-athlete from . . . um . . . you know . . . Internet talk, speculation, etc. You know, really dangerous stuff.

RE: lex24 - BostonCard - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 03:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Don't worry. This doesn't really have to do with Stanford football.
It has to do with protecting the student-athlete from . . . um . . . you know . . . Internet talk, speculation, etc. You know, really dangerous stuff.

It seems to me that you have it bass ackwards; there is nothing about "internet talk, speculation, etc." that is of high enough compelling value that it is worth waiving the right to privacy. "It seems unlikely to do harm" is not the bar we want to be setting.

BC

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - Papa John - 09-22-2021

I see both sides of the argument, but didn't the University/football program release a statement saying that Davis Mills and others had tested positive for Covid last fall before the Oregon game? If so, then this would be a change in policy?

RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 03:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-22-2021, 03:39 PM)teejers1 Wrote: Don't worry. This doesn't really have to do with Stanford football.
It has to do with protecting the student-athlete from . . . um . . . you know . . . Internet talk, speculation, etc. You know, really dangerous stuff.

It seems to me that you have it bass ackwards; there is nothing about "internet talk, speculation, etc." that is of high enough compelling value that it is worth waiving the right to privacy. "It seems unlikely to do harm" is not the bar we want to be setting.

BC

What is "the bar" you want to be setting for your disclosure policy?

Do we need to know who is/is not injured? What's the difference?

Separately, if you want to talk harm, the infected or exposed are a public health risk (or at least a potential one). How about the right of those in the community to know who they are so they can avoid potential health risks on their own (without having to rely on honor code type isolation)?

Everything is balancing in one form or another, depending on circumstances. So yeah, when there is no articulated harm, that's a reasonable consideration.

Bottom line: the artificial ban on Covid disclosure just strikes me as silly, given disclosures of it in all other sports settings; the policy of the university that everyone be vaccinated; etc.

But you may have the last word as this topic, too, has been beaten down.

RE: Football Tuesday presser for UCLA - 82lsju - 09-22-2021

(09-22-2021, 04:56 PM)Papa John Wrote: I see both sides of the argument, but didn't the University/football program release a statement saying that Davis Mills and others had tested positive for Covid last fall before the Oregon game? If so, then this would be a change in policy?

the football twitter account posted at 2:50pm on game day

[Image: EmQWNodVMAABnSO?format=jpg&name=large]

after the game

Quote:Stanford was hurt before the game even kicked off when it was announced that starting quarterback Davis Mills, wide receiver Connor Wedington and defensive end Trey LaBounty were unavailable due to COVID-19 testing results and contact tracing protocols.

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/11/7/football-ducks-prevail.aspx