It's the other leg, so the injury isn't related to the foot. Plus, he'd been practicing with the team for 2 weeks, and lifting for 1 more prior to the game, that doesn't sound like 1) they rushed him back or 2) the injury could have left his musculature weakened.

Michigan Replay (or whatever it's called now) did a thing on Molk a few weeks back, as part of a piece on the training staff. Molk said he wanted to play immediately, that he was constantly pushing to play, asking every week, insisting he was ready. He reported that the staff's response was "SHUT UP, Molk." To hear him tell it, they were pretty conservative with him, way more than he wanted. FWIW, anyway. I recognize that's probably a lot less relevant than the other replies (about it being the other leg, etc). I do feel sorry for him, particularly after hearing how frustrating it was for him to be out with the foot. Almost as much as I feel sorry for us fans.

I see your point and I agree that there is nothing unethical about anything anyone did in relation to this. What I am arguing is that players usually want to come back as soon as possible, because of the loyalty they feel to their team and the degree to which football often defines their sense of self, regardless of whether they are actually phyically ready or not. Almost all of the tests the trainers will use to determine whether a player comes back involve the player performing diagnostic exercises (like cutting, planting, running, lifting etc.) and responding to the training staff with a pain rating. There is no objective criteria to determine if the player is at full strength. Also, the use of painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs can further skew the player's responses. You may counter that training staff will sometimes make the player perform weightlifting tasks, but again, this says more about pain threshold than whether the player is ready or not. You may also counter that they do X-Rays, CT scans and other imaging analysis, but these only show if there is a structural problem with the athlete, not the amount of extra strain (in PSI) that is being put on ancillary support structures (such as the ACL, MCL, etc.) because of depleted muscle function as a result of surgery or non-use. In short, I just meant to provoke some thought as to how (and whether?) coaches and training staff should attempt to mitigate this tendency on the part of players, especially high school and college athletes. It isn't some one sided, abusive relationship as it is portrayed in Varsity Blues, it's more often that the players agree with the coaches and convince themselves they're ready. The problem they face is that recovering from an injury does not involve simply repairing the broken piece of one's anatomy, but rebuilding an entire muscle system/structure that has been weakened from non-use or use that does not simulate the strains inherent in a football game. Thus, what should coaches do when faced with this situation? I do not have a good answer, but thought Molk provided a good touchstone for talking about it.