Saints being investigated for putting bounties on players (3 Viewers)

[guderian]

What competitive edge was gained by the Saints through this practice? They still were officiated like every other team. They still had to adhere to the same set of rules. Take the emotion out of the picture and you will see that Spygate was a more egregious offense.

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

Where's the evidence that they "succeeded"? Again, the Saints were only involved in 18 injuries over a 54 game span according to a WSJ review of all games over that period. Seems pretty light by NFL standards.

 

[guderian]

It is not clear to me that violent hits make the NFL more scratch than other kinds of great plays.

I would go further and say that it is clear that violent hits away from the ball having no effect on the play (such as the hit that took out Favre) do nothing to add to the game.

You guys are really going to need more evidence than this single game that involved undue harm to the media's golden child.

 

[guderian]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their SPYGATE perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

It's like Katrina Spygate, the media has a narrative and they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They just keep reporting each other's reports until they become 'fact' and a single instance becomes the norm and they form people's opinions for them.

Fixed that for you guys. Hello pot, I'm kettle. Kinda like how people still don't understand exactly what the Patriots got punished for? The Patriots never taped anyone's practices. The Patriots were told (as was the ENTIRE league via a Commissioner's memo) that in-game taping of opposing teams FROM THE SIDELINES would no longer be tolerated. Tape from the booth if you'd like, but not from field-level. The Pats continued to do it. They thumbed their nose at the Commish, (as did the Saints here) and got made an example out of. Sounds kinda like BountyGate, no?

Regarding the Pats/Rams SuperBowl: A disgruntled former employee made outrageous claims to a local reporter that ran with it without checking his sources. Both parties have admitted their guilt in misrepresenting the story publicly. Matt Walsh was never able to produce the tape he claimed to have had. John Tomase/the Herald had to run a retraction. But still all these years later, "IT'S A FACT!" the Patriots taped the Rams walkthrough and now their 2001 title should be stripped? Talk about sensationalism... Thought we were past that.

I'm sitting back laughing at a lot of this because when Spygate went down, most of us Patriot supporters made the same cases Saints fans are making now... "Everybody Does it." "Show me the proof it gave the Saints a competitve advantage." Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but you got caught. Deal.

What does this have to do with Spygate??? I thought that was over-blow too. Why are you accusing me of being the pot that called the kettle black with respect to Spygate? I didn't comment on a single Spygate thread. It seemed pretty stupid to me at the time. Just because some people attacked you regarding Spygate doesn't mean that everyone did.

 

[squistion]

What competitive edge was gained by the Saints through this practice? They still were officiated like every other team. They still had to adhere to the same set of rules. Take the emotion out of the picture and you will see that Spygate was a more egregious offense.

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

Where's the evidence that they "succeeded"? Again, the Saints were only involved in 18 injuries over a 54 game span according to a WSJ review of all games over that period. Seems pretty light by NFL standards.

That is irrelevant to the discussion - it was their intent, which is the issue. Goodell didn't care that their was no evidence that the Patriots actually succeeded with spygate, and the same reasoning will apply here when he brings the hammer down.

 

[guderian]

What competitive edge was gained by the Saints through this practice? They still were officiated like every other team. They still had to adhere to the same set of rules. Take the emotion out of the picture and you will see that Spygate was a more egregious offense.

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

Where's the evidence that they "succeeded"? Again, the Saints were only involved in 18 injuries over a 54 game span according to a WSJ review of all games over that period. Seems pretty light by NFL standards.

That is irrelevant to the discussion - it was their intent, which is the issue. Goodell didn't care that their was no evidence that the Patriots actually succeeded with spygate, and the same reasoning will apply here when he brings the hammer down.

If it's irrelevant, take it up with Calbear--he's the one that claimed that the Saints "succeeded" in causing injuries when the facts suggest otherwise--which also goes to "intent". If you "intend" to injure opposing players and only "succeed" 18 times in 54 games, that draws into question whether there was more "intent" by the Saints than anyone else.

 

[Kit Fisto]

The media has been pretty adamant that the Saints were on an "injure at all costs" mission--I've heard that they targeted ACLs, for instance, but I haven't seen any evidence of such hits beyond media supposition.

You have many tremenous points; unfortunately, it seems, they are falling on deaf ears. Apparently a lot of people would rather have their SPYGATE perspectives spoon-fed to them by a sensationalistic media than, you know, actually do any thinking for themselves.With that, I think I'm done posting in this thread.

It's like Katrina Spygate, the media has a narrative and they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. They just keep reporting each other's reports until they become 'fact' and a single instance becomes the norm and they form people's opinions for them.

Fixed that for you guys. Hello pot, I'm kettle. Kinda like how people still don't understand exactly what the Patriots got punished for? The Patriots never taped anyone's practices. The Patriots were told (as was the ENTIRE league via a Commissioner's memo) that in-game taping of opposing teams FROM THE SIDELINES would no longer be tolerated. Tape from the booth if you'd like, but not from field-level. The Pats continued to do it. They thumbed their nose at the Commish, (as did the Saints here) and got made an example out of. Sounds kinda like BountyGate, no?

Regarding the Pats/Rams SuperBowl: A disgruntled former employee made outrageous claims to a local reporter that ran with it without checking his sources. Both parties have admitted their guilt in misrepresenting the story publicly. Matt Walsh was never able to produce the tape he claimed to have had. John Tomase/the Herald had to run a retraction. But still all these years later, "IT'S A FACT!" the Patriots taped the Rams walkthrough and now their 2001 title should be stripped? Talk about sensationalism... Thought we were past that.

I'm sitting back laughing at a lot of this because when Spygate went down, most of us Patriot supporters made the same cases Saints fans are making now... "Everybody Does it." "Show me the proof it gave the Saints a competitve advantage." Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but you got caught. Deal.

What does this have to do with Spygate??? I thought that was over-blow too. Why are you accusing me of being the pot that called the kettle black with respect to Spygate? I didn't comment on a single Spygate thread. It seemed pretty stupid to me at the time. Just because some people attacked you regarding Spygate doesn't mean that everyone did.

Not attacking you per se, just saying our two situations have a lot in common. Media sensationalism, a whole lotta naiveté, and immature name calling.

 

[Bird]

The League will shroud the punishment in whatever fashion they choose but in the end it will still boil down to the same issue with Spygate: "How dare you disobey the great King Roger Goodell!" All the moral outrage is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Amused to Death]

The League will shroud the punishment in whatever fashion they choose but in the end it will still boil down to the same issue with Spygate: "How dare you disobey the great King Roger Goodell!" All the moral outrage is just smoke and mirrors.

The great King Roger Goodell is trying to take some of the injuries out of the game. The player's union is in favor as well as many retired players. And football is not the only sport trying to change. The NHL is also taking steps and issuing big fines/suspensions for hits that used to be legal.

 

[CalBear]

It is not clear to me that violent hits make the NFL more scratch than other kinds of great plays.

I would go further and say that it is clear that violent hits away from the ball having no effect on the play (such as the hit that took out Favre) do nothing to add to the game.

You guys are really going to need more evidence than this single game that involved undue harm to the media's golden child.

In virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play. Do you really think that assertion is controversial? There's nothing good about that from an NFL perspective; the fans don't even see it because the ball's already gone, so it's not part of what makes the game good or interesting. It's just part of why so many QBs get injured.

 

[guderian]

Anthony Hargove releases statement regarding a hit on his majesty Brett Favre.

 

[CalBear]

What competitive edge was gained by the Saints through this practice? They still were officiated like every other team. They still had to adhere to the same set of rules. Take the emotion out of the picture and you will see that Spygate was a more egregious offense.

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

Where's the evidence that they "succeeded"? Again, the Saints were only involved in 18 injuries over a 54 game span according to a WSJ review of all games over that period. Seems pretty light by NFL standards.

That is irrelevant to the discussion - it was their intent, which is the issue. Goodell didn't care that their was no evidence that the Patriots actually succeeded with spygate, and the same reasoning will apply here when he brings the hammer down.

If it's irrelevant, take it up with Calbear--he's the one that claimed that the Saints "succeeded" in causing injuries when the facts suggest otherwise--which also goes to "intent". If you "intend" to injure opposing players and only "succeed" 18 times in 54 games, that draws into question whether there was more "intent" by the Saints than anyone else.

http://backseatfan.com/2010/02/brett-favre-injury-pictures/

 

[Bird]

The League will shroud the punishment in whatever fashion they choose but in the end it will still boil down to the same issue with Spygate: "How dare you disobey the great King Roger Goodell!" All the moral outrage is just smoke and mirrors.

The great King Roger Goodell is trying to take some of the injuries out of the game. The player's union is in favor as well as many retired players. And football is not the only sport trying to change. The NHL is also taking steps and issuing big fines/suspensions for hits that used to be legal.

and like those moves by the NHL this will be a PR move by the NFL. If you want to curb the damage to players in hockey then the first thing you do is increase the penalty for fighting or better yet take steps to eliminate it.

 

[guderian]

It is not clear to me that violent hits make the NFL more scratch than other kinds of great plays.

I would go further and say that it is clear that violent hits away from the ball having no effect on the play (such as the hit that took out Favre) do nothing to add to the game.

You guys are really going to need more evidence than this single game that involved undue harm to the media's golden child.

In virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play. Do you really think that assertion is controversial? There's nothing good about that from an NFL perspective; the fans don't even see it because the ball's already gone, so it's not part of what makes the game good or interesting. It's just part of why so many QBs get injured.

I agree that "in virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play."

 

[guderian]

What competitive edge was gained by the Saints through this practice? They still were officiated like every other team. They still had to adhere to the same set of rules. Take the emotion out of the picture and you will see that Spygate was a more egregious offense.

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

Where's the evidence that they "succeeded"? Again, the Saints were only involved in 18 injuries over a 54 game span according to a WSJ review of all games over that period. Seems pretty light by NFL standards.

That is irrelevant to the discussion - it was their intent, which is the issue. Goodell didn't care that their was no evidence that the Patriots actually succeeded with spygate, and the same reasoning will apply here when he brings the hammer down.

If it's irrelevant, take it up with Calbear--he's the one that claimed that the Saints "succeeded" in causing injuries when the facts suggest otherwise--which also goes to "intent". If you "intend" to injure opposing players and only "succeed" 18 times in 54 games, that draws into question whether there was more "intent" by the Saints than anyone else.

http://backseatfan.com/2010/02/brett-favre-injury-pictures/

Again, you're going to have to find a lot more evidence beyond Favre as to who was injured by the Saints. It's amusing that this has turned into an "OMG they mis-treated BRETT FAVRE!!!" situation. It's really astounding that they can't point to any other game besides one where the media's golden boy was roughed up.

 

[CalBear]

I agree that "in virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play."

OK, that's a start. Now, is there anything good about that? Is it why fans watch the games? (No, they don't even see it most of the time). Does it affect the play in interesting ways? (No, it only results in an occasional penalty). Does it contribute to injuries to players the fans want to see? (Yes).

 

[CalBear]

Again, you're going to have to find a lot more evidence beyond Favre as to who was injured by the Saints.

Why? They're accused of doing it in this game, it occurred in this game, the person who made the hit celebrated it during this game. That's not OK, even if it never happened in any other game, and even if every other team does the same thing.

 

[Bird]

I agree that "in virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play."

OK, that's a start. Now, is there anything good about that? Is it why fans watch the games? (No, they don't even see it most of the time). Does it affect the play in interesting ways? (No, it only results in an occasional penalty). Does it contribute to injuries to players the fans want to see? (Yes).

Cal, is your issue with how the referees call the game? Shouldn't your outrage be towards the persons officiating rather than the players? You're making the players out to be cerebral assassins and I think you're giving them too much intellectual credit.

 

[guderian]

I agree that "in virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play."

OK, that's a start. Now, is there anything good about that? Is it why fans watch the games? (No, they don't even see it most of the time). Does it affect the play in interesting ways? (No, it only results in an occasional penalty). Does it contribute to injuries to players the fans want to see? (Yes).

There are already rules against it and as you said, it happens in "virtually every football game" yet people (including you) are trying to argue that a few hits on Favre characterize an entire era in Saints football. I said very early on that the "bounty" program was wrong and that the Saints were going to get nailed for it, but I subscribe to the Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic argument that every team has something like this and that it doesn't affect what the players do on the field. Furthermore, if you look at the number of injuries caused by the Saints over this period as well as the number of personal fouls or fines, they're pretty much in-line with every other NFL team (even light in some cases). To me that goes a long way toward proving the Wiley/Golic argument. So far, the only 'evidence' that I've seen with respect to any on-field impact by the other side is a single game that involved the media's golden child. So, I'm saying that to prove to me that there was an actual on-field impact to this program, you're going to have to show me evidence that over this era that the Saints caused an abnormally large number of injuries or show me the penalties and fines that were out of the ordinary--not that the Saints hurt Brett Favre's ankle.

 

[ookook]

I think there is a good amount of blame that should go to the NFL officating crew and the league itself. Too often were flags not thrown on plays that seemed to risk injury whether by design or not, and too seldom did the league level a punishment enough to deter such hits.

The attempts to make the NFL safer that so many fans bemoan are to me too little too late.

If the Saints are not the only ones to reward inury, then I say go after every player that ever took money for hurting someone (versus just stopping a play).

 

[guderian]

Again, you're going to have to find a lot more evidence beyond Favre as to who was injured by the Saints.

Why? They're accused of doing it in this game, it occurred in this game, the person who made the hit celebrated it during this game. That's not OK, even if it never happened in any other game, and even if every other team does the same thing.

If you're worried about what happened to Favre in this game, the NFL has refs and the NFL reviews game film and issue fines.

 

[CalBear]

I agree that "in virtually every football game you can see examples of QBs getting blasted long after they are out of the play."

OK, that's a start. Now, is there anything good about that? Is it why fans watch the games? (No, they don't even see it most of the time). Does it affect the play in interesting ways? (No, it only results in an occasional penalty). Does it contribute to injuries to players the fans want to see? (Yes).

Cal, is your issue with how the referees call the game? Shouldn't your outrage be towards the persons officiating rather than the players? You're making the players out to be cerebral assassins and I think you're giving them too much intellectual credit.

I have done enough reffing to know that you can't expect the refs to be able to see everything--and you can expect the players to know what they can get away with when the refs aren't looking.My issue is with the attitude that "everyone" goes out intending to injure their opponents--hoping to knock them out of the game. I don't think that's true universally. I do think it's true for some players. I don't think it's appropriate for anyone, and I don't think it's good for the game.

The reason this scandal is egregious is that you appear to have someone who should know better--a coach, a leader--encouraging this behavior among his players. That gives a clear green light to the people who lack scruples, and keeps the more reasonable players from saying anything about the practice.

 

[CalBear]

Again, you're going to have to find a lot more evidence beyond Favre as to who was injured by the Saints.

Why? They're accused of doing it in this game, it occurred in this game, the person who made the hit celebrated it during this game. That's not OK, even if it never happened in any other game, and even if every other team does the same thing.

If you're worried about what happened to Favre in this game, the NFL has refs and the NFL reviews game film and issue fines.

Yes, and they're going to issue a big whopping fine and probably other punishment in this case, because not only do they have the game film, they have other evidence that the team was encouraging headhunting. So why do we need to come up with more evidence, again?

 

[guderian]

Again, you're going to have to find a lot more evidence beyond Favre as to who was injured by the Saints.

Why? They're accused of doing it in this game, it occurred in this game, the person who made the hit celebrated it during this game. That's not OK, even if it never happened in any other game, and even if every other team does the same thing.

If you're worried about what happened to Favre in this game, the NFL has refs and the NFL reviews game film and issue fines.

Yes, and they're going to issue a big whopping fine and probably other punishment in this case, because not only do they have the game film, they have other evidence that the team was encouraging headhunting. So why do we need to come up with more evidence, again?

As I said just a few moments ago "I said very early on that the "bounty" program was wrong and that the Saints were going to get nailed for it."As I've also repeated, you've reached a lot of rash conclusions about how this program translated into on-field behavior. I've made my case about how it didn't (lack of a difference in fines, penalties and injuries versus other NFL teams) and you've made your case about how it did (Favre). You sure seem to know a lot about what was going on in the minds of these players while they were on the field. Care to explain how the refs missed all the calls, the NFL film reviews missed the fineable offenses and how the Saints missed actually injuring more people???

 

[fatness]

I said very early on that the "bounty" program was wrong and that the Saints were going to get nailed for it, but I subscribe to the Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic argument that every team has something like this and that it doesn't affect what the players do on the field.

The league interviewed between 22 and 27 Saints players before they cracked down on the Saints. Your "2 big guys full of testosterone say everyone does it and I agree!" approach certainly trumps the league's antiquated investigative methods.

 

[guderian]

I said very early on that the "bounty" program was wrong and that the Saints were going to get nailed for it, but I subscribe to the Marcellus Wiley and Mike Golic argument that every team has something like this and that it doesn't affect what the players do on the field.

The league interviewed between 22 and 27 Saints players before they cracked down on the Saints. Your "2 big guys full of testosterone say everyone does it and I agree!" approach certainly trumps the league's antiquated investigative methods.

Nowhere has the NFL said that they've interviewed between 22 and 27 Saints players. They said that between 22 and 27 players were involved. Try and understand the reported facts before you just make them up. Honestly I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be suggesting that I'm arguing that the Saints should be "innocent" when I've repeatedly said the program was wrong and that they were going to get nailed--including the post just before yours.

I'm looking for evidence that there was an on-field impact that got by the refs, the NFLs reviews and didn't result in more injuries. All you have on that point is "OMG! Favre! Favre! Favre!"

 

[saintfool]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this?

is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

 

[RUSF18]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this?

is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

That is why I care. It's like the old saying...are you hurt, or are you injured? Everyone gets hurt playing football...those guys keep playing. If you're injured, you're sitting out.

 

[SproutDaddy]

It is not clear to me that violent hits make the NFL more scratch than other kinds of great plays.

I would go further and say that it is clear that violent hits away from the ball having no effect on the play (such as the hit that took out Favre) do nothing to add to the game.

There was nothing illegal about that hit

Late hit blow to the knees and blow to the head in the same play? They should have been thrown out of the game.

Obviously you and I were watching a different game

 

[GregR]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

 

[saintfool]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

Cut and chop blocks must be your pet peeve.

 

[GregR]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

Cut and chop blocks must be your pet peeve.

Not really the same topic. Chop blocks are illegal and normally completely unintentional, like a RB in protection who didn't think the lineman had the guy. Cut blocks are normally done to advance the ball, not to try to injure an opponent.But since you ask, cut blocks are a more dangerous technique than other ways of blocking. Those other ways can be used effectively so the game doesn't suffer overall if cut blocking is eliminated. So I'd support cut blocking being illegal if it limits injuries and doesn't worsen the game.

 

[GregR]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

Cut and chop blocks must be your pet peeve.

My question back at you... did my answer to your original question surprise you at all? Should it have?What issue in any of this is more important than people's health? Especially when some of the injuries that can be inflicted intentionally can have life-long impact?

 

[RUSF18]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

Cut and chop blocks must be your pet peeve.

My question back at you... did my answer surprise you at all? Should it have?What issue in any of this is more important than people's health? Especially when some of the injuries that can be inflicted intentionally can have life-long impact?

It's because people want to take what you said, equate it to "every hit can injure someone, and if you don't like hitting, why do you like football?" before calling you a ##### and telling you to put a skirt on.

 

[Run It Up]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

 

[GregR]

in a vaguely related question: what is it that people find most detestable about this? is it that there are players (and coaches who encourage) who intend to hurt or injure players during a game? is it there was a "bounty" or reward system for those plays? is it the implicit or explicit here that offends most egregiously?

For me it's that people intentionally try to injure another human being to win a game.Trying to bodily injure someone isn't meant to be a part of the game any more than it is in basketball or baseball. The only reason we see it more in football is because it's easier to get away with.

Cut and chop blocks must be your pet peeve.

My question back at you... did my answer surprise you at all? Should it have?What issue in any of this is more important than people's health? Especially when some of the injuries that can be inflicted intentionally can have life-long impact?

It's because people want to take what you said, equate it to "every hit can injure someone, and if you don't like hitting, why do you like football?" before calling you a ##### and telling you to put a skirt on.

Yep, you've pretty much summarized 90% of the thread.

 

[GregR]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

 

[fatness]

Honestly I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be suggesting that I'm arguing that the Saints should be "innocent" when I've repeatedly said the program was wrong and that they were going to get nailed--including the post just before yours. I'm looking for evidence that there was an on-field impact that got by the refs, the NFLs reviews and didn't result in more injuries. All you have on that point is "OMG! Favre! Favre! Favre!"

That's true, you don't have a clue. The Saints have been caught redhanded. You're doing your best to deflect discussion from that and towards:"every other team is doing it""show me some injuries"and other silliness.Deflector shields, activate!

 

[RandyDB]

I think there is a good amount of blame that should go to the NFL officating crew and the league itself. Too often were flags not thrown on plays that seemed to risk injury whether by design or not, and too seldom did the league level a punishment enough to deter such hits.

Sounds like Bud agrees.LINK

Longtime Vikings coach Bud Grant, still one of the sharpest judges of the NFL game, can't understand why league administration didn't look to punish the officiating crew that worked the 2010 NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints, whose responsibility it is to control the physical nature of the game.

Instead, the focus has remained on the bounty situation that has come out, with Saints players getting paid for hurting quarterback Brett Favre and other players.

"One thing that helped in the bounty case is the officials are responsible for calling penalties," Grant said. "Over the years, you might have noted that they don't call many penalties in playoff games or Super Bowl games -- they reduce the penalties."

The crew of referee Peter Morelli, umpire Roy Ellison, head linesman Mark Hittner, line judge Byron Boston, side judge Tom Hill, field judge Dyrol Prioleau, back judge Bill Schmitz and replay official Ken Baker did a terrible job that day. Even some Saints players wondered how they got by with so many illegal hits. Like one important NFL official said, "Favre looked he came out of a car wreck after the game."

Said Grant: "The players will do whatever they can, whatever they can get away with. If [officials] had flagged New Orleans for those hits, and if you penalize them, then they cannot do it anymore. But as long as the officials let it go like it went [in the NFC Championship Game], then we were the victim, Favre was the victim, of those vicious late hits. The officials have to accept some of the blame for that."

Grant, who has campaigned for full-time officials in the NFL, said bounty situations are nothing new and existed when he played with the Eagles in 1951 and '52. "When I played, and I've talked to [Vikings consultant and former Browns player] Paul Wiggin, too, and other players that have played in the National Football League, a lot of teams have bonuses for interceptions, and sometimes it's among the players themselves.

"The defensive players will say, 'We'll each put in the pot if you get an interception,' but the team did not always provide the bonuses. But when I was with the Eagles, the team provided the bonuses. I got bonuses for sacks and fumble recoveries, I got one interception, but it was like $10. It's not like it was today, it's a lot more money today."

Grant said the Saints aren't the exception. "Most teams had that, but they don't call it bounty and they don't call it trying to put a player out of the game," he said. "Every coach teaches when the guy is on his feet, he's not down, you go in and get another hit on him to knock the ball loose. That's football. If they're going to take that out of football, they're going to lose a lot of their appeal."

Vikings coaches wouldn't talk on the record then after reviewing the film of that Saints game, because they would have been fined if they criticized officials. But I remember the comments by then-coach Brad Childress, who could not believe what the Saints got away with right in front of officials' eyes.

 

[ookook]

Honestly I have no clue what point you're trying to make here. You seem to be suggesting that I'm arguing that the Saints should be "innocent" when I've repeatedly said the program was wrong and that they were going to get nailed--including the post just before yours. I'm looking for evidence that there was an on-field impact that got by the refs, the NFLs reviews and didn't result in more injuries. All you have on that point is "OMG! Favre! Favre! Favre!"

Honestly, it doesn't matter if there were actually more injuries caused in those games. It may matter if the injuries caused changed the outcome of a game, which is very hard to prove one way or another, but seems quite possible. What totally matters is the intent, and they would appear to have plenty of evidence about that aspect, coupled with accepting money for injuring someone. On-field? The program is administered off-field and there are lots of rules about that conduct too. Might as well argue there is no evidence that Pete Rose gambling affected the outcomes of the games he bet on so it was all okay...

 

[Pnishthm]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

So teams offering "bonus money" for int's and big plays and such aren't violating the teams salary cap?

 

[Pnishthm]

I think there is a good amount of blame that should go to the NFL officating crew and the league itself. Too often were flags not thrown on plays that seemed to risk injury whether by design or not, and too seldom did the league level a punishment enough to deter such hits.

Sounds like Bud agrees.LINK

Longtime Vikings coach Bud Grant, still one of the sharpest judges of the NFL game, can't understand why league administration didn't look to punish the officiating crew that worked the 2010 NFC Championship Game between the Vikings and Saints, whose responsibility it is to control the physical nature of the game.

Instead, the focus has remained on the bounty situation that has come out, with Saints players getting paid for hurting quarterback Brett Favre and other players.

"One thing that helped in the bounty case is the officials are responsible for calling penalties," Grant said. "Over the years, you might have noted that they don't call many penalties in playoff games or Super Bowl games -- they reduce the penalties."

The crew of referee Peter Morelli, umpire Roy Ellison, head linesman Mark Hittner, line judge Byron Boston, side judge Tom Hill, field judge Dyrol Prioleau, back judge Bill Schmitz and replay official Ken Baker did a terrible job that day. Even some Saints players wondered how they got by with so many illegal hits. Like one important NFL official said, "Favre looked he came out of a car wreck after the game."

Said Grant: "The players will do whatever they can, whatever they can get away with. If [officials] had flagged New Orleans for those hits, and if you penalize them, then they cannot do it anymore. But as long as the officials let it go like it went [in the NFC Championship Game], then we were the victim, Favre was the victim, of those vicious late hits. The officials have to accept some of the blame for that."

Grant, who has campaigned for full-time officials in the NFL, said bounty situations are nothing new and existed when he played with the Eagles in 1951 and '52. "When I played, and I've talked to [Vikings consultant and former Browns player] Paul Wiggin, too, and other players that have played in the National Football League, a lot of teams have bonuses for interceptions, and sometimes it's among the players themselves.

"The defensive players will say, 'We'll each put in the pot if you get an interception,' but the team did not always provide the bonuses. But when I was with the Eagles, the team provided the bonuses. I got bonuses for sacks and fumble recoveries, I got one interception, but it was like $10. It's not like it was today, it's a lot more money today."

Grant said the Saints aren't the exception. "Most teams had that, but they don't call it bounty and they don't call it trying to put a player out of the game," he said. "Every coach teaches when the guy is on his feet, he's not down, you go in and get another hit on him to knock the ball loose. That's football. If they're going to take that out of football, they're going to lose a lot of their appeal."

Vikings coaches wouldn't talk on the record then after reviewing the film of that Saints game, because they would have been fined if they criticized officials. But I remember the comments by then-coach Brad Childress, who could not believe what the Saints got away with right in front of officials' eyes.

I am sure the Vikings are the only team to have a few calls go againts them in a game. I can't ever recall a game where the refs missed a few things that cost the Saints a win!

 

[saintfool]

Not really the same topic. Chop blocks are illegal and normally completely unintentional, like a RB in protection who didn't think the lineman had the guy. Cut blocks are normally done to advance the ball, not to try to injure an opponent.But since you ask, cut blocks are a more dangerous technique than other ways of blocking. Those other ways can be used effectively so the game doesn't suffer overall if cut blocking is eliminated. So I'd support cut blocking being illegal if it limits injuries and doesn't worsen the game.

blocking below the knees would seem to intend, by the very act itself, to hurt and/or injure an opposing player. when targeting a 275+ lbs lineman's knees, for example, at the snap of a play you're targeting an incredibly vulnerable area on a player. it can take a player out of a game and end a career. the league permits cut blocks and some teams train, encourage and promote it as a technique for their o-line.

 

[saintfool]

My question back at you... did my answer to your original question surprise you at all? Should it have?What issue in any of this is more important than people's health? Especially when some of the injuries that can be inflicted intentionally can have life-long impact?

football is a violent sport, pure and simple, and to think otherwise is being willfully ignorant. i'm just trying to understand what people are really so upset about. there is a subtext to the story that i find interesting.

 

[GregR]

My question back at you... did my answer to your original question surprise you at all? Should it have?What issue in any of this is more important than people's health? Especially when some of the injuries that can be inflicted intentionally can have life-long impact?

football is a violent sport, pure and simple, and to think otherwise is being willfully ignorant. i'm just trying to understand what people are really so upset about. there is a subtext to the story that i find interesting.

Who in here do you believe doesn't think football is a violent sport, and what exactly did they say that makes you think they feel that way?

 

[GregR]

Not really the same topic. Chop blocks are illegal and normally completely unintentional, like a RB in protection who didn't think the lineman had the guy. Cut blocks are normally done to advance the ball, not to try to injure an opponent.But since you ask, cut blocks are a more dangerous technique than other ways of blocking. Those other ways can be used effectively so the game doesn't suffer overall if cut blocking is eliminated. So I'd support cut blocking being illegal if it limits injuries and doesn't worsen the game.

blocking below the knees would seem to intend, by the very act itself, to hurt and/or injure an opposing player. when targeting a 275+ lbs lineman's knees, for example, at the snap of a play you're targeting an incredibly vulnerable area on a player. it can take a player out of a game and end a career. the league permits cut blocks and some teams train, encourage and promote it as a technique for their o-line.

It doesn't show an intent to want to injure. If that was the primary reason for doing it the rules would already disallow it. If you want an example of something that shows an intent to injure, clothesline tackles are one. There isn't much reason to use that technique unless you want to target a vulnerable body part. And that's why they are illegal.That isn't the case with cut blocking. A better analogy to cut blocking would be a horse collar tackle. Like cut blocks they are more likely to injure. But there's a clear non-intent-to-injure reason they happen even now that they are illegal... because sometimes that's the only real chance they have to grab and keep hold of the ball carrier. There are clear reasons for cut blocks that don't have to do with injuring. It makes the defensive player counter by reaching down low, which opens up passing lanes for the QB. It's also a technique that doesn't depend on size and strength as much, which lets you have smaller, quicker lineman who can pull well. It also gives a RB a chance against a defensive end. All of those advantages are about advancing the ball.I imagine eventually cut blocks will go the way of the horse collar, but like horse collar it may take some high profile injuries to happen. Actually it wouldn't surprise me if they are eventually just illegal for players on the line of scrimmage, still allowing RBs to do them in pass protection.

 

[Gadabout]

The Caanon knows things.

 

[GregR]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

So teams offering "bonus money" for int's and big plays and such aren't violating the teams salary cap?

If I didn't think the Saints actions violated the salary cap, I wouldn't have said they will get a stiffer penalty for having done so.

 

[Pnishthm]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

So teams offering "bonus money" for int's and big plays and such aren't violating the teams salary cap?

If I didn't think the Saints actions violated the salary cap, I wouldn't have said they will get a stiffer penalty for having done so.

You missed my point... many former players and coaches have said that teams offer bonus money for big plays like int's, turnovers, etc (I'm not talking about bounties). Are all of these teams in violation of the cap also?

 

[GregR]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

So teams offering "bonus money" for int's and big plays and such aren't violating the teams salary cap?

If I didn't think the Saints actions violated the salary cap, I wouldn't have said they will get a stiffer penalty for having done so.

You missed my point... many former players and coaches have said that teams offer bonus money for big plays like int's, turnovers, etc (I'm not talking about bounties). Are all of these teams in violation of the cap also?

Any team paying players money that isn't included in their contract is violating the salary cap. The Saints don't work under a different set of rules from the rest of the league.What is your point?

 

[Pnishthm]

Intentionally trying to hurt human beings, and succeeding, is a more egregious offense than (sort of) cheating at a game. I think it's bizarre to claim otherwise.

If it must be compared this is pretty much how I feel. I still feel like the punishment should be comparable, in addition to a fine for each player involved.

I think the circumvention of the salary cap especially, combined with the above, make this worthy of a stiffer punishment, but not monstrously so. The Broncos lost a 3rd round pick for a much worse case of salary cap violation. The Patriots lost a 1st for Spygate. Something like a 1st and 4th might be appropriate here. The dollar amount of the Saints violation wasn't huge, but I think violating the cap is something the league has to show they take seriously, or teams will try to get around it.

So teams offering "bonus money" for int's and big plays and such aren't violating the teams salary cap?

If I didn't think the Saints actions violated the salary cap, I wouldn't have said they will get a stiffer penalty for having done so.

You missed my point... many former players and coaches have said that teams offer bonus money for big plays like int's, turnovers, etc (I'm not talking about bounties). Are all of these teams in violation of the cap also?

Any team paying players money that isn't included in their contract is violating the salary cap. The Saints don't work under a different set of rules from the rest of the league.What is your point?

That is exactly my point... the entire league should play by the same rules! Bounties aside, why would the league come down harder on the Saints for "violating the salary cap" by offering bonuses when it's been said by many former players and coaches that all teams offer some kind of "bonus" that is put into a pool for ints, fumble returns and such. If offering an off the record "bonus" for anything is a violation of the cap then wouldn't all teams be guilty of "violating the cap" and not just the Saints? I hope you get what I am saying now... it's a legit question.