Saints violated bounty rule

[antelope19]

Based on what I'm reading today and saw last night, this punishment could be worse than I initially thought. The Saints are f'd.

[VDB]

Based on what I'm reading today and saw last night, this punishment could be worse than I initially thought. The Saints are f'd.

And, if it's true, as some former players are saying, that this isn't such an unprecedented phenomenon after all, then I think too excessive a penalty will only verify that the real scandal here is a PR one, and the NFL will continue to look ham-handed and clueless by trying too hard to clean up the image of an inherently violent sport.

And now, Deadspin's (typically amusing and irreverent) take.

[phil]

Based on what I'm reading today and saw last night, this punishment could be worse than I initially thought. The Saints are f'd.

And, if it's true, as some former players are saying, that this isn't such an unprecedented phenomenon after all, then I think too excessive a penalty will only verify that the real scandal here is a PR one, and the NFL will continue to look ham-handed and clueless by trying too hard to clean up the image of an inherently violent sport.

And now, Deadspin's (typically amusing and irreverent) take.

spot on. here's another good deadspin article about the situation. Point being: bounties aren't a competitive advantage, and every team has them. The players pay into the pools themselves for fuck's sake. I personally couldn't give less of a shit about the bounties, it's just a shame that roger goodell is once again going to stick his nose in this for no other reason than to make himself look tough

[aphineday]

Based on what I'm reading today and saw last night, this punishment could be worse than I initially thought. The Saints are f'd.

And, if it's true, as some former players are saying, that this isn't such an unprecedented phenomenon after all, then I think too excessive a penalty will only verify that the real scandal here is a PR one, and the NFL will continue to look ham-handed and clueless by trying too hard to clean up the image of an inherently violent sport.

And now, Deadspin's (typically amusing and irreverent) take.

spot on. here's another good deadspin article about the situation. Point being: bounties aren't a competitive advantage, and every team has them. The players pay into the pools themselves for fuck's sake. I personally couldn't give less of a shit about the bounties, it's just a shame that roger goodell is once again going to stick his nose in this for no other reason than to make himself look tough

I very much agree with you, and I don't even hate bounties myself. On most teams "bounties" simply refer to biggest hit of the game, etc. In fact, many teams refer to them as "trophies". I've got no problems there at all. What I have a problem with is how Gregg Williams specifically offered bounties to his players for things like "cart-offs" or injuries they would produce. Fuck that. I have no hatred of the Saints at all, but this is bullshit. I always knew Williams was a snake, it's time to make an example of him.
I DO NOT feel the same about Payton, other than he probably should have stopped it.

[DoW]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

[phil]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

it sums up how insanely litigious our society is. I don't think a player winning a few grand for interceptions or sacks is or should be linked to concussions/head injuries (correlation is not causation)

[DoW]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

it sums up how insanely litigious our society is. I don't think a player winning a few grand for interceptions or sacks is or should be linked to concussions/head injuries (correlation is not causation)

do you really think this is about sacks and interceptions?  I don't want to be demeaning but that is naive.
take a look at what is happening in the nfl with hits on QBs. 
take a look at fines and how a safety basically can;t do anything anymore.
then take a look at how players are blaming their former teams and the league.

if you think all the saints were doing is giving incentives for sacks and interceptions, you must drink enough kool-aid to actually think trey is playing well in 3.0.

[aphineday]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

it sums up how insanely litigious our society is. I don't think a player winning a few grand for interceptions or sacks is or should be linked to concussions/head injuries (correlation is not causation)

Also, it's been said by several players that the "bounties" were also offered for the much more severe things such as cart-offs, and targeting certain players to "knock out of competition".
The "bounties" increased in denomination in regards to the severity of the injury.
So yeah, in this case it is and should be linked to concussions/head injuries.

[VDB]

Also, the language being used here only emphasizes that this is a PR issue. The word "bounty" -- which is being universally and breathlessly thrown around in virtually all coverage on the episode -- is weighted with shadowy and sinister connotations. The whole "bounty hunter" thing -- violent, amoral, below board. Simply using this word to describe the pool system makes it sound more egregious. Very Frank Lutz.

But they're performance bonuses, right? You can have a contract that pays you a bonus based on how many sacks you record, or tackles. They could be perfectly legal and yet potentially injury-inducing plays. And you'll set a goal for yourself because achieving that goal is in your career's, and bank account's, best interests.What's the difference? That the "bounties" are administered on a per-game basis and aren't codified into a contract? If you lay out an illegal hit just to score a bounty, you may get flagged, or ejected, or fined severely. So anyone who uses a bounty as motivation to break the rules of the game would be foolish. Illegal hits are illegal hits. Legal hits are legal hits.

[VDB]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

it sums up how insanely litigious our society is. I don't think a player winning a few grand for interceptions or sacks is or should be linked to concussions/head injuries (correlation is not causation)

Also, it's been said by several players that the "bounties" were also offered for the much more severe things such as cart-offs, and targeting certain players to "knock out of competition".
The "bounties" increased in denomination in regards to the severity of the injury.
So yeah, in this case it is and should be linked to concussions/head injuries.

Was writing my response above as these were posted, so I'll add and reiterate -- if the play is legal in the rules, it's legal. If there are legal hits that could severely injure someone or end their career (bounty-worthy hits), then take that up with the rulebook or the fundamental nature of the game itself. If bounty-worthy hits are also going to be so vicious as to be illegal, then there are already penalties for this, and you'd have to be stupid to put such a flagrant hit on someone that would win you a grand or two only to turn around and be fined 20k by the league.

I do believe this is much more about perceptions than injuries, because there are (ostensibly) already rules to address the injury side of things regardless of any bounty pools that may or may not be taking place.

[DoW]

I'm just going to agree to disagree on this.  From my perspective, there should not be any team or coach supported program that increases the chances of an injury that could end up leading to league culpability.

My point of view has nothing to do with the saints or against Williams.  This has been going on in the league for years.  We are starting to see effects on former players after retirement and are seeing lawsuits filed against the league.  The league is reacting  to try and prevent both of those from happening.  I don't think the league wants to stop sacks or interceptions.  I think they want to stop hits that lead to players being carted off the field and want to stop teams and coaches from encouraging those hits with incentives, regardless of how petty they are.  It's more about the principle.

Just my opinion.  Take it or leave it.  The league never cared this much about it until a lot of recent developments showed long term effects on people's lives.  All sports have taken more precautions in regards to injuries, especially head injuries.  This is just an off the field precaution in my opinion.

[aphineday]

Right on bvaz.
I'll do the same in respect to the agree to disagree area.
Personally, I could give a shit if it's a "legal" hit.
If you try to break someone's neck on a "legal" hit, it's still trying to break someone's neck.
Any player or coach that could actually support willful injury has no place in the sport in my book.

[VDB]

I guess what I'm trying to say is not that I think it's OK for coaches or players to encourage people to deliberately try to hurt others beyond a general "let's go out there make good, hard tackles today" -- I don't think that's cool, nor should the league tolerate it -- but rather that I think the issue is getting blown up beyond proportion in part because the NFL cares as much about how it is perceived as it does the safety of its players, and I worry that, given there are already ostensibly rules and disciplinary procedures in place to address on-field conduct, an excessively severe fallout here for the parties implicated would seem to be earned as much for their having shone an unflattering light on the league as for any actual recklessness or barbarity.

Now, as recently as last month, Goodell was talking about an 18-game season, saying "people want more football." Do you think two more regular-season games would likely result in fewer injuries, the same number, or more? Would some of those potentially be severe injuries? Do you think two more regular-season games would result in less revenue for the league, the same amount, or more?

[DoW]

it's an interesting opposing viewpoint.
for me, I don't buy into it, but I can see the direction your view heads in.
I just don't bye the analogies as being the same issue.
let's also keep in mind that it is still a league investigation.  who knows if anything will come of it?  I haven't read anything on this in the past 2 days and everything was very speculative before that.  if that has changed, I just haven't kept up with this.

[phil]

http://nflheadinjurylawsuits.com/
I think that pretty much sums it up.
does the NFL really have any choice in the matter?

it sums up how insanely litigious our society is. I don't think a player winning a few grand for interceptions or sacks is or should be linked to concussions/head injuries (correlation is not causation)

do you really think this is about sacks and interceptions?  I don't want to be demeaning but that is naive.
take a look at what is happening in the nfl with hits on QBs. 
take a look at fines and how a safety basically can;t do anything anymore.
then take a look at how players are blaming their former teams and the league.

if you think all the saints were doing is giving incentives for sacks and interceptions, you must drink enough kool-aid to actually think trey is playing well in 3.0.

I don't think the saints were doing bounties for sacks and interceptions, but lots of teams do. Matt Bowen has said the Redskins system was something the players paid into as penalties for blown coverage in practice, showing up late to meetings, etc. Philip Daniels said he received as much as $1500 for a game in which he recorded four sacks. Simply because it's a bounty system doesn't mean the intent is malicious (although it certainly was in the Saints' case).