Williams and Bounty System in Washington

[servumtuum]

I don't believe this is a Goodell issue, but rather, it's a money issue and an evolution issue. The money part is simple--athletes are bigger and faster these days, and you can't be the CEO of a product if all your stars go down. If you were a team owner, you would support him. That's not even to mention player lawsuits and injuries that can last a lifetime. It's a no-brainer. It has to be done.

The evolutionary issue is simply that we are becoming smarter. Advancements in science now tell us that the human brain is no longer the same after three concussions. We didn't know that in the past. And being smarter, these changes are now necessary.

This has been happening for twenty years now in many different sports, and will continue to happen in the future. It's why hockey players now have to wear helmets. It's why you can't knee a downed fighter to the head in the UFC. It has nothing to do with Gooddell.

Excellent points made here, McD5. Goodell isn't the cause of any of this he's simply reacting to the situation in a manner that, from his perspective as commissioner, is in the best interests of he league as a whole.

 

[Brander]

I've been watching this story develop, or shall we say snowball all day. I pretty much agree with Ax and Boone, there is a gargantuan amount of hypocrisy in some of the rage being expressed. Reading some of the posts on various other boards I have to wonder how many of these people have ever seen a football game? It's fundamentally violent, (duh!) and when they say we only want "good, clean hits" I have to say HUH? I think some good clean hits have ended careers, even without a bounty. Servum tuum's posts on the legal implications are particularly troubling and could spell lots of trouble if any of that pans out.
I wonder how many of the self righteous who are screeching today are the same ones who were upset with the namby pamby Pro Bowl and it's obvious lack of good old fashioned football violence? I also agree with McD5 on the issue of concussions and our developing knowledge. Our brains don't fit snugly inside our heads, they are really floating in fluids, and when you have a collision your brain is literally bouncing around inside your head.
When you add to this the pending player lawsuits over past injuries, well I begin to understand Roger Goodell. I don't like him but I think he does not have a whole lot of options. The NFL is running scared of liability lawsuits, and this is going to change the whole character of the game, well heck it is already.
I wonder if we will be watching NFL flag football, or NFL two hand touch in a few years? And then I think some of today's hypocrites will tune out....

B.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I tend to fall in line with Boone, Ax & Neo on this one - to a point. I started a thread in the NFL forum about the Giants potentially targeting a 49ers player with a history of concussions, because I thought that was taking things too far. I think there is a very sharp, black & white distinction between good & bad in this case; the intent to injure someone beyond a couple plays, and the intent to harm someone - harm their well-being, their career, etc.

Its kind of ridiculous to say there are no bounty systems in football - they are in place and have been in place since (at least) high school. I can remember team film meetings after games, and the players who laid the biggest hits getting atta-boys from the coaches, and even sometimes benefits such as skipping a run on Monday or something similar. Nothing monetary of course, but still a reward for a big hit. Even just an atta-boy in front of the entire team is a reward in high school football.

Boone touched on this also, but do people realize what the stickers on college football helmets are for? The majority of them are earned for bone-jarring hits, forced-fumbles, etc. And you're pretty naive if you don't think pro-teams ask how many decals a guy has when scouting him.

At the end of the day, I see this bounty program simply as an extension of what has been in place since day one for these guys. Gregg simply found a way to get his players to respond; he gave them the carrot instead of the stick, so to speak. Was it wrong? Well, depends on what you mean by "taking them out of the game." This could simply mean knocking the wind out of him, so that he has to leave the game for a play or two, or it could mean breaking his leg in 3 pieces. There is where we need the distinction.

Why is Goodell a putz? I do not get the hate this guy receives.

If it were up to Goodell, the players would wear tutus and play two-hand touch football. Some of the fines he's doled out for basic football plays are just ridiculous. The main problem is there's no way you can legislate "intent" of a hit - these guys have been taught since pop warner to separate the ball carrier from the ball - so of course they are looking to do that with big-time hits.

 

[Nobody]

I saw it put in terms that a lot of people will understand better, so I thought I would share it here.......if a baseball player hits a homer, then the pitcher's manager tells him to drill the guy next time up (which happens a lot), that is not in the same category as the same manager saying I will pay you $X,XXX if you drill him and make sure he gets carted off.

If a pitcher retaliates by brushing back the batter, that's an accepted part of the game, as is the occasional skim of the thigh. But if the pitcher goes in trying to drill the guy with the intent of causing injury, it should be criminal, and in some cases has been.

Hard hits are part of the game, but if it comes out that the intent was absolutely to injure, as some reports have suggested, it goes beyond football toughness and being part of the game. If anyone has decided to start playing football because they want to cause injury to people, it's no different than a nutjob joining the military because he wants to shoot people.

 

[Neophyte]

Take it a step further, Lanky. What do people think incentives written into contracts are? Guys get bonuses for making a certain number of sacks, or INTs, or tackles. Those are no different than bounties and they are paid by the owners. Granted, the second is explicitly called out as against the rules but still...

 

[fansince62]

I've been watching this story develop, or shall we say snowball all day. I pretty much agree with Ax and Boone, there is a gargantuan amount of hypocrisy in some of the rage being expressed. Reading some of the posts on various other boards I have to wonder how many of these people have ever seen a football game? It's fundamentally violent, (duh!) and when they say we only want "good, clean hits" I have to say HUH? I think some good clean hits have ended careers, even without a bounty. Servum tuum's posts on the legal implications are particularly troubling and could spell lots of trouble if any of that pans out.
I wonder how many of the self righteous who are screeching today are the same ones who were upset with the namby pamby Pro Bowl and it's obvious lack of good old fashioned football violence? I also agree with McD5 on the issue of concussions and our developing knowledge. Our brains don't fit snugly inside our heads, they are really floating in fluids, and when you have a collision your brain is literally bouncing around inside your head.
When you add to this the pending player lawsuits over past injuries, well I begin to understand Roger Goodell. I don't like him but I think he does not have a whole lot of options. The NFL is running scared of liability lawsuits, and this is going to change the whole character of the game, well heck it is already.
I wonder if we will be watching NFL flag football, or NFL two hand touch in a few years? And then I think some of today's hypocrites will tune out....

B.

yup.

more fundamentally...what they're really getting at here is INTENT. the NFL isn't a court of law and any NFL corporate adjudication is going to be suspect..IMO...by all the financial/PR stuff Serv points to. There's a place for it - the blatantly obvious cases - but the rest is a PR driven witch hunt. I agree that they're speaking out of both ides of their mouths.

so..is this inevitably going to find its way to the Collegiate level as well? take a look at a Buckeye helmit some time!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Take it a step further, Lanky. What do people think incentives written into contracts are? Guys get bonuses for making a certain number of sacks, or INTs, or tackles. Those are no different than bounties and they are paid by the owners. Granted, the second is explicitly called out as against the rules but still...

Yep. This is part of the football culture.

 

[fansince62]

What I am suggesting is that Goodell is acting-in his view-in a manner that would be seen as proactive in terms of the NFL being viewed as a viable self-policing organization in order to maintain a public image that has helped the league be as popular-and profitable-as it is. In other words I see it as a tactical move that any self-respecting industry spokesman, PR person or CEO would make when faced with a potentially embarrassing scenario-show yourself and the business you represent as being responsible and trustworthy. Granted he has, IMO, been somewhat inept and prone to occasional overreaction but I think he is very image conscious and reluctant to fail the "not on my watch" test of leadership even if he is sloppy about doing so.

He wants the muddy footprints taken off the carpets when his S600 Benz is detailed and shown to prospective buyers even though they don't affect how well the thing runs and drives.

The "payback's a *itch" idea is, I'm afraid, fraught with way too many perceptual downsides to be considered usable even though it may be emotionally compelling. That's an image Goodell and the league really don't want right now-too much of a professional wrestling/NBA sleaze factor-Goodell's looking for "squeaky clean" I think.

Bottom line-yeah, the Benjamins are calling the shots here.

Serv...aside from the money aspects...this is about intent...the willful desire to hurt someone. and how to do you prove this without protecing someone's rights who you may end up slamming? moreover...as Boone notes...the whole game is based on physical violence. in many respects..this is a sham.

 

[servumtuum]

Serv...aside from the money aspects...this is about intent...the willful desire to hurt someone. and how to do you prove this without protecing someone's rights who you may end up slamming? moreover...as Boone notes...the whole game is based on physical violence. in many respects..this is a sham.

I'll explain my position a bit further-the incentivizing by monetary bonuses is the issue. Everyone acknowledges the violent and sometimes physically dangerous nature of the game. Everyone I think acknowledges the likelihood that "targeting" a player for an "extra hard" hit is part of the game's history and culture and accepted as such. It is the overt display of intent to cause more than the normally expected risk of injury via the offering of monetary rewards-the "bounties" that is making this problematical. The support and cooperation of the coaching staff in such a situation casts an unwanted quasi-criminal negative light on how the game is played. If there has been a type of "Marquis of Queensbury" set of behavioral rules that have been a part of the game since anyone here can remember these payments to players for "taking a guy out of the game" have violated them-it is these bounties that have hurt the accepted cultural expectations of professional football.

My take anyway.

 

[ntotoro]

Take it a step further, Lanky. What do people think incentives written into contracts are? Guys get bonuses for making a certain number of sacks, or INTs, or tackles. Those are no different than bounties and they are paid by the owners. Granted, the second is explicitly called out as against the rules but still...

That's the bottom line, though. The players are not allowed to receive any kind of bonus for on-field performance unless it's stated in their contracts.

Forget the "this is so savage and bla, bla, bla" aspect, the CBA forbids it.

Nick

 

[Lanky Livingston]

That's the bottom line, though. The players are not allowed to receive any kind of bonus for on-field performance unless it's stated in their contracts.

Forget the "this is so savage and bla, bla, bla" aspect, the CBA forbids it.

Nick

This is really my only problem with what went on - the bonuses circumvent the CBA. Anyone who thinks players are not trying to destroy their opponent with every hit (monetary bonus or not) is naive.

 

[fansince62]

I'll explain my position a bit further-the incentivizing by monetary bonuses is the issue. Everyone acknowledges the violent and sometimes physically dangerous nature of the game. Everyone I think acknowledges the likelihood that "targeting" a player for an "extra hard" hit is part of the game's history and culture and accepted as such. It is the overt display of intent to cause more than the normally expected risk of injury via the offering of monetary rewards-the "bounties" that is making this problematical. The support and cooperation of the coaching staff in such a situation casts an unwanted quasi-criminal negative light on how the game is played. If there has been a type of "Marquis of Queensbury" set of behavioral rules that have been a part of the game since anyone here can remember these payments to players for "taking a guy out of the game" have violated them-it is these bounties that have hurt the accepted cultural expectations of professional football.

My take anyway.

nicely written post.

and it is exactly the murkiness of the intent part that has me looking at this as problematic...at best. shdes of difference between "hurt the sob" and "hit him hard enough so he remembers who you are and perhaps lays down next time".

 

[riggins44]

The more I read and here the murkier this gets. Players, current and retired, are lining up on both sides of the fence. There is no middle ground with this issue.

Hearing more guys come out in support of Williams and feel he is a scapegoat. Ryan Clark has come out against whomever on Saints D that spoke out school. There is an unwritten rule in the NFL that players keep a lot in house. Springs said it wasn’t a bounty, which means to kill or severely injure someone. Rather it was from a pool of players monies from fines and whatever, which you got for big plays. These pools were a way to build defensive camaraderie. Springs said there are a lot of not politically correct thing that go on in the NFL.

My buddy (David) in Scotland had this to say, “What is hypocritical is the likes of Rex Ryan saying he has never condoned nor coached it. But he did tell a coach to stand and trip up an opposition player”.

The media says it is all about player safety, which is a major platform for Goodell. Is his concern on player safety because wants to protect them or is it to get an 18 game season?

 

[fansince62]

This is really my only problem with what went on - the bonuses circumvent the CBA. Anyone who thinks players are not trying to destroy their opponent with every hit (monetary bonus or not) is naive.

and the potential for tax evasion.

 

[fansince62]

The media says it is all about player safety, which is a major platform for Goodell. Is his concern on player safety because wants to protect them or is it to get an 18 game season?

I was wondering about this last night but forgot. thanks for bringing it up. an excellent conflict to highlight.

 

[Ax]

As long as the money came from the players themselves, how in hell does it have anything to do with the CBA. If the team isn't making the payment, it doesn't violate a thing, as far as the CBA.

Tax evasion? Hardly.

File it under, gifts.

 

[fansince62]

As long as the money came from the players themselves, how in hell does it have anything to do with the CBA. If the team isn't making the payment, it doesn't violate a thing, as far as the CBA.

Tax evasion? Hardly.

File it under, gifts.

dude..if someone pockets $10K the tax man is interested!!!!

 

[Ax]

dude..if someone pockets $10K the tax man is interested!!!!

Got a receipt proving you gave me $10K?

If your hand slips, it wasn't me.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

As long as the money came from the players themselves, how in hell does it have anything to do with the CBA. If the team isn't making the payment, it doesn't violate a thing, as far as the CBA.

Tax evasion? Hardly.

File it under, gifts.

Because its bonuses doled out by the coaching staff from fines collected by the coaching staff. If it were 100% player based, it probably wouldn't have anything to do with the CBA and only ethics would be involved.

 

[Ax]

Because its bonuses doled out by the coaching staff from fines collected by the coaching staff. If it were 100% player based, it probably wouldn't have anything to do with the CBA and only ethics would be involved.

The money was 100% from the players. Administered by the coaches. Watching lawyers argue both sides of the issue would be quite entertaining, wouldn't you think?