Watching the Steelers v NYG and while the coaches have been mandated to wear masks…
…the players arent wearing them. Whats the point of masking up the coaches?
Coaches, in general, are not exerting themselves, and therefore a mask should not interfere with breathing.
I get that but it seems to me a purely cosmetic policy as a player is as likely to be infected as a coach.
I would think it’s tough to keep a mask in place with all the activity during a play. Maybe staples would work.
Im referring to the sidelines. 
The idea is to get as close to 100% compliance with the regulations, therefore only making exemptions that are absolutely necessary.
Players are not required to wear them on the sidelines because is would entail taking them off and putting them back on constantly. Coaches and other sideline staff can, theoretically put them on once and leave them on.
That makes sense but from a health perspective does it make anyone safer?
As far as I understand it; yes.
Any percentage of mask wearing will reduce the possibility infection.
Well, here’s how I think of it.
Every person involved has some non-zero chance of being an asymptomatic carrier (or perhaps having a false-negative test in the NFL case). Wearing a mask provides source control for that person, which reduces the chance of them spreading it. So, if it happens that Andy Reid tests positive after the game, him wearing a foggy face shield could keep multiple members of his staff and team from contracting the virus.
Very good. Thank you for fighting my ignorance.
As your question implies; these measures are not going to make the game “safe”. The point of those measures us to make it “safer”.
In addition to the core idea that every little bit of incremental spread prevention helps …
The NFL is also in a PR fight for its life. And they have a very large media presence. So being seen to embrace the use of masks as much as possible is in NFL corporate’s best interest. Whether it’s in e.g. Andy Reid’s personal best interest is not their main concern.
I remember when I was in high school, there was talk of football helmets with acrylic front pieces, instead of the traditional grid of bars. Back then, the purpose was to reduce facemask penalties (and the associated risk of injuries). Is that an idea that could maybe be re-examined now?
They’re on it
Yes, this. It’s almost entirely a PR thing. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it’s very important to send a message to the meatheads out there, so I applaud the initiative here. In practical terms it’s probably doing close to nothing to protect against spread.
These teams spend all week in close quarters and the coaches, players and staff will often be in physical contact and sharing he same air during video sessions and when working out. If there’s an infection, the coach is going to catch it or spread it then, not in the 4 hours or so on the field. The equivalent would be if you spent all week at home with your family and then when you went camping and decided to wear masks because you were out of the house. It doesn’t make a ton of sense.
The only incremental benefit is that it may prevent the coach from catching or spreading something to the opposing team during the very short period of time they are in close proximity. But, this is offset by the fact that if there’s an outbreak it will transfer from player to player, and that player will bring it into the clubhouse anyways. You could also make the case that you’re protecting the refs, ball boys, chain gang and other game staff who aren’t pert of practice but the same problem exists, the players will be out there spreading it so the coach masking up is close to negligible.
So, yeah, it’s all PR…and it doesn’t hurt anything so why not?