Saints accused of "Bounty Program". Thoughts?

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Subvet642

Let's see...people getting paid to intentionally injure someone...sounds like a felony to me. Actually, it sounds like several felonies.

Care to explain hockey, boxing, MMA, et al.?

[Subvet642]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Care to explain hockey, boxing, MMA, et al.?

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. The object of boxing, like all such sports, is to likewise score more points than the opponent. If the intent is to cause physical harm, then that is a felony. One can't even say that they gave consent to be harmed, because a person cannot legally give that consent. Injuries incidental to a particular sport are accidents, but when someone is targeted for harm...well, what would you call it?

[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. The object of boxing, like all such sports, is to likewise score more points than the opponent. If the intent is to cause physical harm, then that is a felony. One can't even say that they gave consent to be harmed, because a person cannot legally give that consent. Injuries incidental to a particular sport are accidents, but when someone is targeted for harm...well, what would you call it?

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 opponenet"?

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.

[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.

[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.

[smitty81]

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. The object of boxing, like all such sports, is to likewise score more points than the opponent. If the intent is to cause physical harm, then that is a felony. One can't even say that they gave consent to be harmed, because a person cannot legally give that consent. Injuries incidental to a particular sport are accidents, but when someone is targeted for harm...well, what would you call it?

What about the MMA?
Please explain that one.

[Subvet642]

Originally Posted by smitty81

What about the MMA?
Please explain that one.

Found this on Wiki:

...The more dangerous Vale Tudo style bouts of the early UFCs were made safer with the implementation of additional rules, leading to the popular regulated form of MMA seen today. Originally promoted as a competition with the intention of finding the most effective martial arts for real unarmed combat situations, competitors were pitted against one another with minimal rules. Later, fighters employed multiple martial arts into their style while promoters adopted additional rules aimed at increasing safety for competitors and to promote mainstream acceptance of the sport.

[14holestogie]

I think Gregg Williams may need a paper route.

[icantbejon]

I think its relatively shady...because they are already getting paid to basically hurt someone so the added incentive seems unneeded. That being said, I'm not even a little bit shocked and not "outraged" as a fan. I realize it's part of the game and that's just how it works.

[LockOut]

IMHO...its football. Don't like getting hit, dont play football. Teams would gun for other teams star players if there was money on the line or not. College players do it for a sticker on the helmet. Part of being a good player is taking the extra hit or the cheap shot getting up and continuing to make good plays.

To top it all off I have a hard time feeling sorry for someone who makes what these guys make; and then strikes since it's not good enough.

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).

[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."

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.

[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.

[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.