Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Playing within the rules of the game, you're just as likely to injure someone on a vicious hit, intent or no, wouldn't you agree? That's why this is politics run amuck and nothing more. People are getting caught up with, "intent" and not, "applicability."  |
I will say yes and no to that one. A vicious, clean body shot is different that a targeted shot to a knee or ankle (or other body part, for that matter) or a head shot. If a guy has it in his mind that he wants to collect a bounty, then the shots he takes are going to be targeted differently, IMO. It's not as likely to be the "clean", textbook way that you are supposed to be tackling. It's going to be a shoulder or forearm to the leg. It's going to be a blindside hit that's borderline in legality. Now the result of this targeting may end up with more missed tackles.
I don't personally view it as politics run amok. I guess I'm just one of those that would rather the game be played clean, without the intent to injure. Yes, I used "intent" again. Hit them hard and clean and help them back up. There's a lot of money at stake for everyone on the field. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to end someone's career with something like that.
I will say that it would help the argument to whether it made a difference if we knew what players were targeted and if bountys were actually paid out. Even though I am a Vikings fan, it sure seemed like they got away with a lot of questionable hits on the old man in that title game. But we still had a chance to win, and blew it. The coach made a typical bungling move (12 men in the huddle), and called a pass play that ended up with the old man doing what he did best...end games with a critical interception.
