Hypotetical question:

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Lets assume a player is faced with the following hypothetical situation:

If the defender does nothing the offensive player will run by the defender and score a TD or if the defender does X the player will not score a TD but there is a 1% chance the defender offensive will be paralyzed. Should the defender do X?

[Doc-phin]

If it is in the defender's job description to do things including X and the defender expects to keep his job then he better do X.

Or the defender can quit his job so he doesn't have to do X anymore and run a 1% risk of being paralyzed.

Also, change the title to the proper spelling when you get a chance.  Missing the h.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I made a bigger typo than the "H" in my post.  It is now fixed. 

[Doc-phin]

Much better question.

Short answer is yes, the defender should do X, if it is within the rules with no other reasonable option. 

If it is illegal, no. 

If it is fuzzy as to whether it is legal or not and more of a judgement (by the refs) call than anything, yes if no other reasonable option.  1 out of a 100 means that a player would probably only be faced with this situation so few times in his career that it is highly unlikely there would ever be such a poor result.

Interestingly enough, my original answer also applies except the part of who is at risk.

[CF DolFan]

I would dare say there is at least a 1% chance of either guy being paralyzed on each play. Given that and it is a game where each individual is already taking chances I'd say yes. Go ahead and make the stop.

[BigDaddyFin]

Make the stop.  There's a chance you'll get paralyzed or worse on any play at any time.  It's a risk you're both sharing, you knew the rules when you signed up for it.

[Spider-Dan]

I would dare say there is at least a 1% chance of either guy being paralyzed on each play.

Given the number of plays that are run in the NFL each year and the frequency of players actually winding up paralyzed, I don't think your assessment is statistically valid.

Given the revised premise, I say as long as it's within the rules, do it.  Given the original premise... well, the closest thing I can think of is a Todd Pinkston-type scenario (but in reverse).  And ultimately, while it's not worth being paralyzed over, I have to imagine that if that kind of event happens, you have to realize that you are in the wrong line of work.

[Pats2006]

The defender has to stop him from scoring the TD.. this is his job.. they come out there to play and they all know that they are taking the chance of getting severely hurt but its part of the game..

So yes to your hypotetical question.

[Dave Gray]

Absolutely, they should not have the play.  With so many plays being run in the NFL, if 1% of that particular type caused paralysis, they'd have to shut down the league, because they'd be a bunch of invalids.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Much better question.

Short answer is yes, the defender should do X, if it is within the rules with no other reasonable option. 

If it is illegal, no. 

My view is not far off of this.  But it is why I support the leagues greater emphasis on player safety.  Not allowing risky plays doesn't hurt the game, it keeps players from getting hurt.  It does have the side effect of higher scoring games, but personally I would rather see a 48-45 airwar instead of an 3-0 defensive snoozefest. 

[Pappy13]

Lets assume a player is faced with the following hypothetical situation:

If the defender does nothing the offensive player will run by the defender and score a TD or if the defender does X the player will not score a TD but there is a 1% chance the defender offensive will be paralyzed. Should the defender do X?

Impossible to answer as you posed it.

Is there anything BESIDES X that the defender can do to try to prevent the score? Just because he can't do X doesn't mean he has to do nothing. If what you're getting at is that UNLESS he does X he's going to score, then I would ask....

Is X against the rules? If it is then obviously he shouldn't do it. If it's not, I don't see why he wouldn't do it. The chance of injury is unimportant if it's not against the rules.

Care to clarify the hypothetical so we have a better idea of what you're asking?

If what your getting at is if something is against the rules because of safety concerns, but it's the only way to make the play, should the defensive player do it anyway?

My answer to that hypothetical is no. Winning at any cost is NOT the way to play. Now if the rule is not there for safety, then I say go ahead and do it. For example DB's are taught if that they are falling down and it's gonna mean a sure TD for the WR, go ahead and pull the WR down and get a pass interference call. That's better than giving up a TD. I'm all for that.