NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED

Radical · 10-10-2012, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Why this insistence to "separate" anything? An illegal hit is an illegal hit. Lowering your head and launching at the other player's head is an illegal hit. Certain hits are made illegal because of the high probability of injury to the player who gets hit. When you consciously lower your head and launch at a defenseless player's head with the crown of your helmet like the video clearly shows Dunta Robinson did, he's clearly trying to injure the other player. No if, ands, or buts about it. Flagged as it happened, heavily fined afterwards. Why is it so hard to see?

Oh, and I am dead serious about the last question. Don't take it from me, take it from ex-players like Jason Taylor, who stated all NFL teams have money pools.

Dunta never launched, and the helmet to helmet contact was only made on Maclin was do to him turning. Nice try. If the NFL finds the Falcons run a pay for injury program like the Saints then, then they'll get their punishment and I'm not going to twist myself into a knot trying to deflect, deny, and distort it.

Tobias-Reiper · 10-10-2012, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Radical

Dunta never launched, and the helmet to helmet contact was only made on Maclin was do to him turning. Nice try. If the NFL finds the Falcons run a pay for injury program like the Saints then, then they'll get their punishment and I'm not going to twist myself into a knot trying to deflect, deny, and distort it.

he never launched? Come on, dude. The video is posted a few posts above.

I am not denying, twisting, distorting anything, but you keep going on with the pay-to-injure comments, and the "if there's money involved, then there's intent to injure" thing, which is not correct. As I stated posts ago, whether there is a token reward or not, football players are going to hit other football players as hard as they can, and this will result in injuries, whether there is an intent to injure or not; that is the nature of the game. There is no hitting harder because you can get a token reward afterwards. A legal hit is not made an illegal hit because you can get a token reward afterwards.

On the other hand, when a player keeps on delivering vicious illegal hits which are flagged on the spot then heavily fined, with the HC stating that's what he teaches, one can easily argue actual intent to injure is present.

As for the money pools, they have been around football since forever. Known fact, corroborated by a large number of high-profile ex-players (current players are not going to open their mouths, obviously), just about all teams in the NFL have one/had one. Yes, they are against the rules, and no one around here is denying the money pool existed, or would have any issue with it being punished, had they been punished for what they are, money pools, and not some nefarious hitman contract fund like Goodell made it out to be.

Radical · 10-10-2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

he never launched? Come on, dude. The video is posted a few posts above.

I am not denying, twisting, distorting anything, but you keep going on with the pay-to-injure comments, and the "if there's money involved, then there's intent to injure" thing, which is not correct. As I stated posts ago, whether there is a token reward or not, football players are going to hit other football players as hard as they can, and this will result in injuries, whether there is an intent to injure or not; that is the nature of the game. There is no hitting harder because you can get a token reward afterwards. A legal hit is not made an illegal hit because you can get a token reward afterwards.

On the other hand, when a player keeps on delivering vicious illegal hits which are flagged on the spot then heavily fined, with the HC stating that's what he teaches, one can easily argue actual intent to injure is present.

As for the money pools, they have been around football since forever. Known fact, corroborated by a large number of high-profile ex-players (current players are not going to open their mouths, obviously), just about all teams in the NFL have one/had one. Yes, they are against the rules, and no one around here is denying the money pool existed, or would have any issue with it being punished, had they been punished for what they are, money pools, and not some nefarious hitman contract fund like Goodell made it out to be.

The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too.

Tobias-Reiper · 10-11-2012, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Radical

The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too.

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.

Radical · 10-11-2012, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by 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 attempted murder isn't murder, but it's still illegal. We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it. Lack of injuries doesn't disprove anything.

Tobias-Reiper · 10-11-2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Radical

And attempted murder isn't murder, but it's still illegal. We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it. Lack of injuries doesn't disprove anything.

Jesus.. you kidding right?
Attempted murder is illegal.
Murder is illegal.
Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football.

As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured?

But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better.

You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal.

AsylumGuido · 10-11-2012, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Jesus.. you kidding right?
Attempted murder is illegal.
Murder is illegal.
Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football.

As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured?

But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better.

You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal.

Now you understand what I have put up with on the AFT board over these last seven months. Heck, Radical is one of the more rational among them.

Radical · 10-11-2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Jesus.. you kidding right?
Attempted murder is illegal.
Murder is illegal.
Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football.

As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured?

But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better.

You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal.

Were the Saints not paying for "cart-offs?" If you're putting up money for injuries, that's showing intent, and just because they may not have succeeded in causing injuries, doesn't mean they cannot be punished for displaying intent to do so.

Never said that Dunta's hits weren't illegal, but it is a fact that he did not launch. Outside of clipping Maclin's chin, both hits were illegal because he was called for hitting a defenseless receiver, which I've already explained that I think it's a BS rule that can't be effectively coached.

AsylumGuido · 10-11-2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Radical

The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too.

Yes, the token rewards are against the rules and should have been punished as salary cap violations which can only be administered through fines, not suspensions. And you keep stating they were paying the players to cause injury. If that was true then there would be intent. That wasn't what was going on according to all involved. They were getting rewarded for clean legal hits that caused big plays.

By the way, were you aware that a crucial part of the program involved players ONLY be eligible for the reward if the play was legal, did not result in a penalty AND the Saints won the game? If the play was illegal or resulted in a penalty they would receive a fine instead.

saintfan · 10-10-2012, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by Radical

Dunta never launched...

Alright everybody. It's time to stop. You can lead a horse to water, etc, etc. The one thing on display here is video evidence - clear as a bell video evidence - and this guy says it never happened.

LOL

This dude either doesn't get it or can't. Either way it's a waste of time.

10-10-2012, 08:20 PM	#1
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Why this insistence to "separate" anything? An illegal hit is an illegal hit. Lowering your head and launching at the other player's head is an illegal hit. Certain hits are made illegal because of the high probability of injury to the player who gets hit. When you consciously lower your head and launch at a defenseless player's head with the crown of your helmet like the video clearly shows Dunta Robinson did, he's clearly trying to injure the other player. No if, ands, or buts about it. Flagged as it happened, heavily fined afterwards. Why is it so hard to see? Oh, and I am dead serious about the last question. Don't take it from me, take it from ex-players like Jason Taylor, who stated all NFL teams have money pools. Dunta never launched, and the helmet to helmet contact was only made on Maclin was do to him turning. Nice try. If the NFL finds the Falcons run a pay for injury program like the Saints then, then they'll get their punishment and I'm not going to twist myself into a knot trying to deflect, deny, and distort it.
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148

10-10-2012, 08:51 PM	#2
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Radical Dunta never launched, and the helmet to helmet contact was only made on Maclin was do to him turning. Nice try. If the NFL finds the Falcons run a pay for injury program like the Saints then, then they'll get their punishment and I'm not going to twist myself into a knot trying to deflect, deny, and distort it. he never launched? Come on, dude. The video is posted a few posts above. I am not denying, twisting, distorting anything, but you keep going on with the pay-to-injure comments, and the "if there's money involved, then there's intent to injure" thing, which is not correct. As I stated posts ago, whether there is a token reward or not, football players are going to hit other football players as hard as they can, and this will result in injuries, whether there is an intent to injure or not; that is the nature of the game. There is no hitting harder because you can get a token reward afterwards. A legal hit is not made an illegal hit because you can get a token reward afterwards. On the other hand, when a player keeps on delivering vicious illegal hits which are flagged on the spot then heavily fined, with the HC stating that's what he teaches, one can easily argue actual intent to injure is present. As for the money pools, they have been around football since forever. Known fact, corroborated by a large number of high-profile ex-players (current players are not going to open their mouths, obviously), just about all teams in the NFL have one/had one. Yes, they are against the rules, and no one around here is denying the money pool existed, or would have any issue with it being punished, had they been punished for what they are, money pools, and not some nefarious hitman contract fund like Goodell made it out to be.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

10-10-2012, 10:54 PM	#3
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper he never launched? Come on, dude. The video is posted a few posts above. I am not denying, twisting, distorting anything, but you keep going on with the pay-to-injure comments, and the "if there's money involved, then there's intent to injure" thing, which is not correct. As I stated posts ago, whether there is a token reward or not, football players are going to hit other football players as hard as they can, and this will result in injuries, whether there is an intent to injure or not; that is the nature of the game. There is no hitting harder because you can get a token reward afterwards. A legal hit is not made an illegal hit because you can get a token reward afterwards. On the other hand, when a player keeps on delivering vicious illegal hits which are flagged on the spot then heavily fined, with the HC stating that's what he teaches, one can easily argue actual intent to injure is present. As for the money pools, they have been around football since forever. Known fact, corroborated by a large number of high-profile ex-players (current players are not going to open their mouths, obviously), just about all teams in the NFL have one/had one. Yes, they are against the rules, and no one around here is denying the money pool existed, or would have any issue with it being punished, had they been punished for what they are, money pools, and not some nefarious hitman contract fund like Goodell made it out to be. The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too.
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148

10-11-2012, 12:39 AM	#4
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Radical The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too. 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. jnormand and AsylumGuido like this.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

10-11-2012, 01:11 AM	#5
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by 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 attempted murder isn't murder, but it's still illegal. We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it. Lack of injuries doesn't disprove anything.
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148

10-11-2012, 11:05 AM	#6
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Radical And attempted murder isn't murder, but it's still illegal. We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it. Lack of injuries doesn't disprove anything. Jesus.. you kidding right? Attempted murder is illegal. Murder is illegal. Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football. As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured? But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better. You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

10-11-2012, 12:24 PM	#7
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,573	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Jesus.. you kidding right? Attempted murder is illegal. Murder is illegal. Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football. As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured? But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better. You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal. Now you understand what I have put up with on the AFT board over these last seven months. Heck, Radical is one of the more rational among them.

10-11-2012, 06:23 PM	#8
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Jesus.. you kidding right? Attempted murder is illegal. Murder is illegal. Hitting someone as hard as you can in a football game within the established rules and probably causing an injury is NOT ILLEGAL. That's the freaking game of football. As for lack of injuries not disproving anything, how can you pay money for injuring someone, if no one gets injured? But, it is my fault. I keep on typing and typing, and all I get back is "We know the organization and players wanted to injure players, otherwise people wouldn't be offering money to do it". I should have known better. You just keep on posting pictures of Dunta Robinson's illegal hits and keep telling us how they aren't illegal. Were the Saints not paying for "cart-offs?" If you're putting up money for injuries, that's showing intent, and just because they may not have succeeded in causing injuries, doesn't mean they cannot be punished for displaying intent to do so. Never said that Dunta's hits weren't illegal, but it is a fact that he did not launch. Outside of clipping Maclin's chin, both hits were illegal because he was called for hitting a defenseless receiver, which I've already explained that I think it's a BS rule that can't be effectively coached.
Radical Falcons Fan Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 148	For the fans, by the fans. - AtlantaFalconsTalk

10-11-2012, 09:34 AM	#9
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,573	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Radical The "token reward," or whatever you want to call it, IS ILLEGAL. If you are paying for people to cause injuries, then that establishes intent. If I put money up for someone to kill someone, and that person ends up dead, guess what? Now I know you're not going to tell me that between late 09 and when this broke that no one was ever injured during a Saints game huh? Sitting around and going, "well everyone else does it" doesn't change that it's illegal. If other teams get caught, then they'll be punished too. Yes, the token rewards are against the rules and should have been punished as salary cap violations which can only be administered through fines, not suspensions. And you keep stating they were paying the players to cause injury. If that was true then there would be intent. That wasn't what was going on according to all involved. They were getting rewarded for clean legal hits that caused big plays. By the way, were you aware that a crucial part of the program involved players ONLY be eligible for the reward if the play was legal, did not result in a penalty AND the Saints won the game? If the play was illegal or resulted in a penalty they would receive a fine instead.

10-10-2012, 09:13 PM	#10
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Re: NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED Originally Posted by Radical Dunta never launched... Alright everybody. It's time to stop. You can lead a horse to water, etc, etc. The one thing on display here is video evidence - clear as a bell video evidence - and this guy says it never happened. LOL This dude either doesn't get it or can't. Either way it's a waste of time.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/51771-nfl-re-issues-bounty-discipline-updated.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED	This thread	Refback	10-09-2012 04:38 PM	10
NFL re-issues bounty discipline	This thread	Refback	10-09-2012 03:35 PM	7

NFL re-issues bounty discipline**UPDATED**

NFL re-issues bounty disciplineUPDATED