Saints accused of "Bounty Program". Thoughts?

[Subvet642]

Originally Posted by Stephen

1. The object of the game is to win; whether it be hockey, boxing, football, or tiddlywinks. What boxer (unless we're talking about Pretty Boy Floyd) goes in thinking, "gee, I hope to outpoint my opponent"?

2. If it's done within the confines (rules) of the game, it isn't illegal, period.

3. As much as the league already babies the offense, if anything out of the ordinary was happening on the playing field wouldn't it have been reflected in fines, suspensions, or other penalties?

Sorry, it isn't against the rules to hit someone hard.

Pretty Boy Floyd was a gangster, not a boxer, but you may be on to something: why not just issue everybody pistols?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

It all has to do with intent. The object of hockey is not to harm anyone, it is to score more points than your opponent.

I'm not exactly up to speed with all the hockey rules, so would you please tell me how many points this is worth? Thanks.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

why not just issue everybody pistols?

Because everyone would shoot your straw man.

I have to agree with Subvet on this one. I love to see a hard hit just as much as anyone, but when you're paying guys to take out Player X, Y, or Z, that's just not right, IMO. And before you jump into it, yes, I've played the game. I never went out on the field with the intent to injure someone.

I'm sure that there are other teams that have done this, too. But it just doesn't have a place in the game, IMO. Hit them hard, bruise them up, and make them think about getting hit and change the decisions they're going to make to what you want them to do. Bounty's tell me that you don't think you can beat the other team fairly, without trying to injure the players on the other team. That's what this is about. It's not about hitting someone hard. It's about the intent to cause a physical injury and end their game (and potentially season/career, if they get hurt badly enough).

One of the things I've heard in listening to some sports talk about this is that the NFL is behind the 8ball here. They are being sued by former (and current) players for failing to protect them enough. Goodell really has no choice but to drop the hammer on Williams/et al. A slap on the wrist will not be enough, and would only add fuel to the pending lawsuits. Not only that, they warned them when they investigated previously to NOT do it (at least as far as I know).

[Subvet642]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Because everyone would shoot your straw man.

That's not a "Straw Man" argument, it's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but it sure sounded clever.

[Subvet642]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I'm not exactly up to speed with all the hockey rules, so would you please tell me how many points this is worth? Thanks.

None, of course.

[jluck]

I have watched this happen at the grade school level. Theres one "school" on the local reservation that always targets the best players of other teams with "incentives" to do so.

At the pro leval....Yea it's uncool but It's entertainment, Great for drama and media buzz. It keeps people talking about it thus bringing in money. Next thing you know they will find performance enhancing drugs in pro sports.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wanger

I have to agree with Subvet on this one. I love to see a hard hit just as much as anyone, but when you're paying guys to take out Player X, Y, or Z, that's just not right, IMO. And before you jump into it, yes, I've played the game. I never went out on the field with the intent to injure someone.

I'm sure that there are other teams that have done this, too. But it just doesn't have a place in the game, IMO. Hit them hard, bruise them up, and make them think about getting hit and change the decisions they're going to make to what you want them to do. Bounty's tell me that you don't think you can beat the other team fairly, without trying to injure the players on the other team. That's what this is about. It's not about hitting someone hard. It's about the intent to cause a physical injury and end their game (and potentially season/career, if they get hurt badly enough).

One of the things I've heard in listening to some sports talk about this is that the NFL is behind the 8ball here. They are being sued by former (and current) players for failing to protect them enough. Goodell really has no choice but to drop the hammer on Williams/et al. A slap on the wrist will not be enough, and would only add fuel to the pending lawsuits. Not only that, they warned them when they investigated previously to NOT do it (at least as far as I know).

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."

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

That's not a "Straw Man" argument, it's Reductio Ad Absurdum, but it sure sounded clever.

Must've suffered one too many blows to the head.

Originally Posted by ChicagoWhiteSox

Yeah the steaks and cash would be income for the players, compensation really. Unless they some how can structure it as "meals and entertainment" or some other avoidance measure. I'd imagine it would be a tax deductable business expense for the team though.

I guess the players could possible structure the payments as "eligible" ordinary dividends, which would be taxed at long-term capital gain tax rates, which would surely be better than prizes and award taxe rates. Other than that, they will pay taxes on the payments recieved in some fashion. With the payments most likely being very large, it's worth it for the IRS to poke their noses around.

I don't have a problem with bounty payments. Makes for interesting football. The problem is with the rules and shitty calls being made.

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.

[Sauer Grapes]

Originally Posted by taltos

Until the IRS gets involved due to undeclared income. I hope that they get the same hatred that was given the Patriots.

This is different than spy gate in many ways. In some ways it is much worse (mainly that they were trying to injure opposing players). In some ways it isn't as bad (it didn't likely change the outcome of many games, if any).

Sure, they saints have been "good" for several years, but they haven't built a dynasty on cheating.

Neither this or spy gate are acceptable.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Wanger

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'd agree with most of this. The parts that I don't aren't pertinent to the current discussion.

Originally Posted by Wanger

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.

It'd be interesting to see how many (if any) players suffered a season or career ending injury while playing the Saints during Greg Williams tenure. And from those, how many could be attested to a, "questionable" hit/tackle.

Originally Posted by Wanger

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.

Yep. I mentioned Favre earlier. He was so banged up that night he could only send pictures of his legs and not his junk.

[E.J.]

I don't believe that any of these people were going after knees ect. I am not sure there is a player in the NFL that is going to intentionally take out someone's ACL or the like, I just don't believe that.

I do believe that they went out to physically hurt them....to put them out of the game, not the next game, the game they were playing. They all know it is a livelihood, I do not believe they want to take that from someone who is part of that brotherhood. Just my opinion, but it is how I feel. If I hear someone say, sure, we were trying to blow up ankles, knees ect....I'll be convinced.

I also believe that the object of the game, for some, is to hurt other people, pure and simple. Not season ending, but game ending.

Originally Posted by forgop

Listened to Mike and Mike a bit this morning. Over all the "outrage" about how much Warner and Favre got hit, they said there weren't any hits that were illegal.

There were some hit that we're definately illegal. He was hit a few times way after the whistle was blown. The refs excuse after was the crowd noise was so loud they didn't know if the defensive player could hear the whistle. Since when did that matter? The saints are a dirty team. The refs let them get away with it for that playoff season.

[Pseudosacred]

I really don't see the problem. I feel like every defensive player is out to "injure" the QB of the opposite team. It's just what you want to do.

[oooo35980]

Seems like tackling someone with the intent of stopping the play and tackling someone with the intent to cause serious bodily harm are two different things and should be treated as such

[shilala]

There's two angles in this.
On the players trying to knock a guy out of the game, that's much ado about nothing. If a defensive player on my team isn't hurting guys, he isn't playing hard enough. Guys heal, and they know full well that any given play could be their last one. That's why they work so hard to be at their pinnacle, physically speaking. Football is not a sport for Dr. Spock-raised tittie-boys. It's violent. Everyone is not a winner.

The second prong is that things like this are to be kept quiet. If it's outed, now you've made the NFL brand liable. The lawyers will be swirling like buzzards over a carcass in no time flat and they'll dig every single underpaid, overhurt NFL player that ever walked a field out of bars and off their couches. This thing is going to cost the NFL millions and it has just got off the ground. You think the concussion lawsuit is huge? This lawsuit will include every scrape, nick, bruise or bump a player ever got. The repercussions are endless.

[BHalbrooks]

Originally Posted by taltos

Until the IRS gets involved due to undeclared income. I hope that they get the same hatred that was given the Patriots.

They STILL get called cheaters. Hell, I heard plenty of times they got to the Super Bowl this year because they cheated.

Originally Posted by E.J.

I don't believe that any of these people were going after knees ect. I am not sure there is a player in the NFL that is going to intentionally take out someone's ACL or the like, I just don't believe that.

I also believe that the object of the game, for some, is to hurt other people, pure and simple. Not season ending, but game ending.

Bernard Pollard said he did, and he liked hurting Patriots players.