Report: Antonio Brown’s absence more about new helmets than foot issues |

Report: Antonio Brown’s absence more about new helmets than foot issues

Samson X Horne
Oakland Raiders wide receiver Antonio Brown warms up during an official team activity at the NFL football team’s headquarters in Alameda, Calif., Tuesday, May 28, 2019. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

NFL sources have told ESPN that Antonio Brown’s recent absence from Oakland Raiders training camp is more about the receiver’s issues with the league issuing new helmets than it is his recovery from blisters on his feet.

ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported Friday that Brown has told his team that he refuses to play football if he is not allowed to wear his old helmet.

According to the report, Brown had a two-hour conference call with league officials on Friday arguing that he should be allowed to wear the same helmet he’s been wearing the past 10 years.

Schefter reported that Brown demands to wear the helmet he prefers, not the one mandated by NFL rules. Apparently, Brown contests that the league’s new helmets will hinder his vision — especially while attempting to catch the football.

The NFL’s decision could come as early as next week, according to ESPN.

The Raiders have been sending Brown other approved helmets to try, but he’s yet to find one to his liking.

Brown reportedly is comfortable with the same headgear he’s had throughout his entire career while playing with the Pittsburgh Steelers — the Schutt Air Advantage helmet — but that helmet is no longer meets the standards of the National Operating Committee for Standards and Athletic Equipment.

The NFL has a policy that disallows players to wear helmets not certified by NOCSAE.

Any player who tries to wear helmets that have been banned will be subject to discipline, ESPN reported.

Samson X Horne is a Tribune-Review digital producer. You can contact Samson at 412-320-7845, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | NFL
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.