Radical

You guys seem to care, because I keep being told he was launching, even though anyone who knows what launching is and has functional vision knows that he didn't.

The game? I'm talking about from 09 through 11.

|Mitch|

That's the only 2 players we knocked out from '09 to now, you need to read and comprehend full posts...

Radical

So you're telling me that those are the only two players from 2009 to 2011 who went down with an injury while playing against the NO defense. I don't even need to do the research to know that's bogus.

|Mitch|

Do some research, that's the only two players who were knocked out of a game due to the Saints.

If you find otherwise, then come back with your "bogus" comment. Until then, you have no idea what you are talking about!

Radical

Right off the bat I found Stephen Neal, OG for the Patriots injured against you guys in 2009. Regardless though, it doesn't change anything, the system was still in place.

|Mitch|

What was his injury? Because you know there was "loads" of bounties on O-Linemen...

Now go back to the Ultimate Smacktalk you Falcon troll

Looked it up, Stephen Neal, reinjured his shoulder which he was on the PUP list in '08 for... Don't see how that would have anything to do with the Saints "wrong-doing"

Radical

Money for getting players off the field man. Were they treating that shoulder like Crabtree's outside ACL. Who knows? Money was going out though... Greg might have covered that one too. Here we are though.

PS. I'll go away as soon as the guy who invited me here, Asylum Guido, wants me to leave, I'm banned, or I get bored.

Tobias-Reiper

Again, you really need to step away from the analogies. You are doing them wrong. If you put up money to kill someone, well, killing someone is illegal in on itself. Hitting someone as hard as you can in football within the established rules to hit someone, not illegal.

And I am not going to tell you that no one got hurt playing against the Saints. That really is just a stupid statement on your part.

And no one is denying that the token rewards are illegal under the CBA. Any payment not established within the player's contract with his team goes against the CBA, being $1, $10, $100, $1000. No one is arguing against that.

The thing is, those illegal payments, according to the CBA, are salary cap violations, not punishable with suspensions. So enter Goodell with his "conduct detrimental" and his "intent to injure". And again, I have to ask, how can you determine intent to injure, when you are already allowed to hit someone as hard as you possibly can within an established set of rules? Again, the outcome and consequences of legal play are the same, whether there is a reward for any particular outcome or consequence, or not.

And that is the part that you don't get, or you refuse to acknowledge. If the case was Saints players were being flagged for vicious illegal hits and fined huge amounts of money (you know, like Dunta), or were declaring they were going to put some hot sauce on this guy or dot this other guy and both end up hurt after illegal hits (you know, like the Jets these past 2 weeks), you could make a case that they intended to injure someone. BUT, when you don't see vicious illegal hits, when you don't see huge amounts of fines being levied against the players because of vicious illegal hits, when you look at the film and all you see is the very same hits you see during every game every Sunday (or Monday, or Thursday) how can you honestly determine there is intent to injure?

It is very simple, really. If you are already legally hitting someone l as hard as you can, you know doing so can result in bodily harm to the person you are hitting, any reasonable person would deduct that; well, is there intent to injure? Is a reward going to make you hit harder? You are already legally hitting as hard as you can...

If you are punishing the reward/payment, ok. Do so under the CBA guidelines.
If you are punishing the intent to injure, show me the intent to injure. And you cannot show me intent to injure without a consistent pattern of illegal hits; you cannot show me intent to injure when the hits you see me make are the very same hits you see every Sunday on every other game. You need to show me Ndamukong Suh grabbing someone's head and smashing it on the ground then stomping on that someone when he's still on the ground. You need to show me Albert Haynesworth stumping Gurode's helmetless head while he's on the ground. you need to show me Jared Allen diving into Matt Schaub's knee from behind well after Schaub had thrown the ball 5 seconds before. And of course, you need to show me Dunta Robinson hitting defenseless receivers. THEN, I will tell you yes, the Saints went out there with the intent to injure someone.

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

saintsfan1976

Too bad there's no repercussion for when we got bored of your tired argument.

Please come back after you choke in the playoffs - A G A I N

Utah_Saint

Well, we've already shown you the video.

Here are articles from CBS Sports and ESPN referencing launching

NFL fines Dunta Robinson $40K for Maclin hit - CBSSports.com
NFL fines Dunta Robinson of Atlanta Falcons $40K for hit on Jeremy Maclin - ESPN

Here's an article from the LA times in which Hall of Fame Safety Ronny Lott said he was bothered by the way Robinson used the top of his helmet.

Sam Farmer on the NFL: Atlanta's Dunta Robinson takes a hit to the wallet - Los Angeles Times

In this article D. Orlando Ledbetter, long time Falcons beat writer, described the hit this way.

"With 6:12 left in the third quarter of Sunday night's game, Robinson leveled Maclin by lowering his head and leading with his helmet. Robinson also launched with both feet when leaving the ground."

Atlanta Falcons team report: Dunta Robinson fined $40K - NFL - Sporting News

Not only did he say "launched" he specifically said "with both feet when leaving the ground"

Here's a USA Today poll that shows 59% of respondents thought the $40k fine was not enough and that Robinson should have been suspended as well.

Vote: After seeking 'kill shot' was fine to Falcons' Robinson warranted?

That's just the mainstream press. Many of the bloggers were much harsher.

Hope that helps.