IR ruling please...

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Is there any way I can put Clinton Portis on the IR right now? He hasn't played a game yet in the preseason (there are rumors of Thursday being a possible go, but nothing definitive). I know week one's "official" injury report hasn't been released yet.

Any insight from my fellow owners?

[Nittany Dodgers]

Mike put Bullocks on the IR in SAC'D. What's his injury status? That might be a precedent. Personally, unless there's been a published report of a player being placed on IR, I'm not sure how we could place players on our IR until the official injury reports come out for week 1.

[Burt the Butcher]

From RotoWorld:
"Clinton Portis returned to practice Tuesday"

So looks like he is still active. I assume your rules are like SAC'd, in that he has to be on the official league IR list? If so, you can't put him on IR.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Mike put Bullocks on the IR in SAC'D. What's his injury status? That might be a precedent. Personally, unless there's been a published report of a player being placed on IR, I'm not sure how we could place players on our IR until the official injury reports come out for week 1.

The difference is the Lions have declared their intentions to place Bullocks on the IR, Washington hasn't done so with Portis.

"Lions FS Daniel Bullocks will be placed on injured reserve with a torn ACL, ending his season."

[Nittany Dodgers]

Then I would say at this point, unless something concrete comes out, Portis would not be elligible at this point.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Yah, here's the gray area. A player only has to be listed as questionable for an upcoming week's game to be put on our IR. It isn't connected to an official NFL IR designation (though, in Mike's case, Bullocks does have that).

So... that's why I was wondering about Portis.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

For what it's worth:
WAS - RB Portis Practices on Tuesday, Still Doubtful for Preseason Finale

Source: Jason La Confora, Washington Post

For what it's worth, during the portion of practice we are allowed to see, everyone was taking part, including Jason Campbell, Marcus Washington, Chris Samuels, Clinton Portis.

Now, Washington and Samuels won't play, and Portis seems very, very doubtful, and we won't know how much work these actually did in practice until we talk to Gibbs post-practice, but it was a good sign nonetheless.

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ OUR VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

It's good to hear that Portis is back in practice, but we want to see how the knee and shoulder will hold up to the pounding of a game-time situation. It appears that we'll have to wait until regular season to find out just how far along Portis is in his return to health.

Back to Top

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Yah, here's the gray area. A player only has to be listed as questionable for an upcoming week's game to be put on our IR. It isn't connected to an official NFL IR designation (though, in Mike's case, Bullocks does have that).

So... that's why I was wondering about Portis.

The rules aren't clear, and in my opinion contradict themselves when it comes to IR. First, the rules state "For a player to be put on IR he must be listed as Questionable, Doubtful or Out on any NFL.com weekly injury reports."

Later, the IR rules state "The 1st available date to list a player on IR is Monday, August 29, 2005at 12:00am - this will be a flexible date each year that basically commences the day after the 3rd pre-season games end (4th for the few teams that play 5). This will be approximately 7-10 days before the NFL regular season kicks off."

I'm not sure why this is listed as the first date available to place a player on IR when that is far in advance of when the first official injury reports come out.

My opinion/reading, is that there are exceptions to the "official injury report" requirement, for things such as players already placed on IR, players placed on the PUP list who are inelligible to come off until week 6, or other clear cut situations that fall outside of the realm of the official injury report. These would make the second section I quoted meaningful.

However, I wasn't around when the IR language was drafted, so I don't know where it came from or what the intent was.

[Philadelphia Freedom]

I am not sure what the official ruling should be but I think the IR rules state that once the player is put on he is on for four weeks. If that is four weeks of the regular season then would that impact your decision to put him on IR. If you are willing to risk not having him for four weeks than I am not really opposed to it in this situation.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Later, the IR rules state "The 1st available date to list a player on IR is Monday, August 29, 2005at 12:00am - this will be a flexible date each year that basically commences the day after the 3rd pre-season games end (4th for the few teams that play 5). This will be approximately 7-10 days before the NFL regular season kicks off."

I'm not sure why this is listed as the first date available to place a player on IR when that is far in advance of when the first official injury reports come out.
.

That date just coincides with the end of the Off-Season, or the beginning of In-Season activities. You can't place anyone on the IR to get cap relief until the In-Season period begins.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher

That date just coincides with the end of the Off-Season, or the beginning of In-Season activities. You can't place anyone on the IR to get cap relief until the In-Season period begins.

I understand that, but wouldn't it have made more sense to just say the first date the IR was open was the date of the week 1 injury report?

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I understand that, but wouldn't it have made more sense to just say the first date the IR was open was the date of the week 1 injury report?

Yes, I'd think so. Unless the sole reason was to allow for players who are already on the PUP or IR report.

I think the "spirit of the rule" is that Portis should NOT be ellible at this point. Once the week one injury report comes out, however, that's a different story.

And yes, Matt, I was aware of the time factor in taking a player off of IR.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

Yes, I'd think so. Unless the sole reason was to allow for players who are already on the PUP or IR report.

I think the "spirit of the rule" is that Portis should NOT be ellible at this point. Once the week one injury report comes out, however, that's a different story.

And yes, Matt, I was aware of the time factor in taking a player off of IR.

That would be my thought as well.

Sorry I couldn't see things your way and save you the cap hit, Jim.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

You can make a claim on Portis and save me the cap hit!!!

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Royal Hawaiian Opihi

You can make a claim on Portis and save me the cap hit!!!

Well, I don't feel that bad.

[Preds]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

The rules aren't clear, and in my opinion contradict themselves when it comes to IR. First, the rules state "For a player to be put on IR he must be listed as Questionable, Doubtful or Out on any NFL.com weekly injury reports."

Later, the IR rules state "The 1st available date to list a player on IR is Monday, August 29, 2005at 12:00am - this will be a flexible date each year that basically commences the day after the 3rd pre-season games end (4th for the few teams that play 5). This will be approximately 7-10 days before the NFL regular season kicks off."

I'm not sure why this is listed as the first date available to place a player on IR when that is far in advance of when the first official injury reports come out.

My opinion/reading, is that there are exceptions to the "official injury report" requirement, for things such as players already placed on IR, players placed on the PUP list who are inelligible to come off until week 6, or other clear cut situations that fall outside of the realm of the official injury report. These would make the second section I quoted meaningful.

However, I wasn't around when the IR language was drafted, so I don't know where it came from or what the intent was.

Yes, there are exceptions for just those circumstances. If a player is defnately OUT for an extended period of time, ie. PUP, IR, or published reports from reputable sources they'll be out week 1 or longer due to a severe injury (say a broken leg or something), then those players are IR eligible on 8/28 (or whatever date it is each year).

The exceptions do not apply to questionable injuries that aren't clearcut.

BTW, in the case of Daniel Bullocks, he had a torn ACL and repors were that he was going to IR, thus my move in SACD which was well within the intent of the rule.