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.

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.

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.

"Cartoff" was a term used by Gregg Williams to mean a player that missed a play because of a hard legal hit. This has been supported by Vitt and several other players.

Once again, open your totally closed mind and realize that they were not putting up money for injuries. They were putting up money as a part of the overall pay for performance plan, that reward for large hits that could cause a player to miss a play or even the rest of the game. It specifically stated that it had to be a legal hit (upon review from the league) and not result in a penalty by that player or any other on the same play. It also was dependent upon them winning the game.

Well Mitch says that cart-off was never used, but your very post says it. "Large hit that caused a player to miss a play or even the rest of thee game." That's paying for injuring other players, hence the punishments.

Well Mitch says that cart-off was never used, but your very post says it. "Large hit that caused a player to miss a play or even the rest of thee game." That's paying for injuring other players, hence the punishments.