Pittsburgh Steelers edge-rusher T.J. Watt suffered more than one big hit against the New England Patriots on Thursday night, and it appears that heaven and earth was moved to endure that Watt returned to play. This despite after a trip to the medical tent, Watt appeared to have sensitivity to light (one symptom of head trauma), and the team had to add a black visor to his face mask.
He got hit in the head twice. He got a tinted visor. He got smelling salts. And he was allowed to finish the game. These are missed opportunities to call a symptom a symptom on Thursday, not Friday. No blame or shame, we just have to learn and do better. https://t.co/36Gy4nI0U9 pic.twitter.com/khxp4Hr8PE
— DocFlynn (@DocFlynnNFL) December 9, 2023
The Steelers have now announced that Watt is in concussion protocol, but the question must be asked — if that preventative measure was taken in the game, why was Watt allowed to return to play at all? As we saw last season, the Miami Dolphins, and the NFL’s “independent neurologists” missed multiple instances of quarterback Tua Tagovailoa experiencing head trauma in games.
In 2016, The NFL and NFLPA announced a new policy to enforce the concussion protocol. The new policy was said to implement a “strict and fair” process that investigates incidents regarding concussion protocol and what discipline will be enacted.
- A first violation by a team will require team employees or medical team employees to attend a remedial education and/or the team will pay a maximum fine of $150,000.
- A second violation will result in a minimum fine of $100,000 against the team.
- If it is agreed that a violation involved aggravating circumstances, the team will be subject to a fine of no less than $50,000.
- If the NFL Commissioner determines that a medical team failed to follow the protocol in order to win a game, the Commissioner can require the team to forfeit draft picks and impose fines that can exceed the amounts above.
The NFL and NFLPA determined that the Dolphins followed concussion protocol before, saying in a statement that “The outcome in this case was not what was intended when the protocol was drafted.”
Obviously not. What, if anything, will become of the Watt situation remains to be seen, but this would appear to be a bit of a red flag.
