DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Saints' Defense had "Bounty Fund"...

...and the NCAA is a bunch of idiots. Why should the entire organization and everyone NOT involved pay for the deeds of a few??


They didn't cheat to get their victories, the Super Bowl is theirs.

There is a lot of fine line however.

If the hits were illegal then the fault is on the officiating crew for not calling them and on the league for not following up with fines.

IFFF the hits were all deemed LEGAL then there is no wrong in my opinion ... or rather it's gray area.

A player's motivation may be for glory, pride, passion, victory ... or it may be just to prove that he is the toughest son of a ... gun ... in the entire game. This is a league full of controversy at this point because up utnil 1 or 2 years ago people made a CAREER out of being "chippy" and "bone crushing hits" ...

Why is Hines Ward celebrated? Not because of his longevity or his catches or yards or probably even super bowls.... he will be remembered for two things:

1. His smile
2. His hits and blindside blocks. Many of which could have been called unnecessary or at least that they violated the spirit of the game.

If a linebacker's job is to pound the snot out of a QB or a RB each and every play then it's not illegal or unethical. If you hit him and beat him up as hard as you can so that he "doesn't want to come across the middle" ... or that he "hears footsteps" or that he "bounces to the outside instead of hitting the hole" then the defense did their job.

Time and time again on primetime football they do segments about how the sack artists are able to bring down QB's and apply pressure ... and even if they don't get the sack they still collapse the pocket and beat him up.

And now suddenly all of that is A-OK right up until the point that the player is rewarded for doing his job?

I suppose everyone is up in the air because the use of the word "bounty" is there and because it was player organized.

If a player knocks a QB out of the game and it is within the context of the rules then I think it's completely fine.

Why should we distinguish that he was paid by his teammates ... or that he made highlight reels, got voted into the pro-bowl for his big hits, got a few endorsement deals, got a bigger contract and was rewarded that way?

I think that this is only as big as it is for 2 reasons:


1. It's not free agency and the draft yet so the major news networks need something to talk about.

2. Because of point number 1, the league wants to ... no HAS to protect their image in the eyes of the fans and therefore they will come down hard simply to show that their sport is "safe" and "ethical" ... even though almost anyone here who has played on defense or has watched it long enough knows that this is a violent sport. The ENTIRE defensive mentality comes down to one thing ... "do anything possible .... ANYTHING within the context of the rules to stop the other guy and make sure he can't accomplish HIS goals of scoring on you."

In boxing or MMA it is the goal - bring the other guy down so you can accomplish your goals.

In business and sales it's the same way ... be the best and accomplish your goals even if it means knocking the wind out of another person's sales and stealing their business.

If you bring a QB down with a major sack and it's a LEGAL play then you did your job. There is no mentality that says "hit them but just not too hard."

I understand the aggrivation of the concussions because that dealt with guys who were using their helmets as weapons and who weren't following an already existing rule.

This is different because it is not about the enforcement of a current rule such as with calling penalties on concussions. It is about trying to penalize players who have improper intentions.

If I play the game to the fullest and I hit the field like a total scumbag who is looking to hurt the other team and I do it within the context of the rules .. then no-one can or should have the power to stop me. I am doing it legally.

But because the word "bounty" was used and the media framed this to be that players are suddenly playing different to injure the other team in a legal manner ... they are kinda already doing that anyways ...no?

Feel free to disagree and please let me know why. But I truly think that guys don't suddenly hit the nitrous on their bodies and play that much tougher just because they are going to make a few thousand extra dollars. If they could hit that hard and they weren't doing it anyway then it's a problem of motivation not of intent.

And if they are suddenly just getting a little bit more chippy and hitting players after the whistle ... then it is the responsibility of each and every Zebra to start throwing their flags to protect the rules. But I doubt that happens because I have seen Whines Hard play for a decade (in addition to many other select players around the league) who make a career out of picks and rub routes, after the whistle hits, shoving players who are out of bounds, and every single block that is away from the play. And while the league allows certain players such as him to get away with it we also have the other guys who are just as chippy (ala Cortland Finnegan) who don't get away with anything because they aren't on the perennial winning teams.

If you want to penalize players for wanting to hit hard and wanting to knock the other guy down then you had better be prepared to see a LOT of defenders across the board getting punished. Don't tell me it violates the spirit of the game because while I will agree with you that you want to play respectful we ALLLL know that at the root of football ... throw everything else away ... the game is about overpowering your opponent and play after play being able to knock them down.

How you can play a game that is nothing if it's not physical and violent at it's roots but still be able to say you don't want to 'hurt' the other guy is beyond me.

And I honestly mean all of that respectfully ... I am just preparing for some disagreements.

Were they flagged or penalized for their hits? If so, penalty paid. If not, they were legal hits within the context of the game... it doesn't matter one bit what their motivation was.

Their hits were legal. They played within the rules. That is NOT cheating, regardless of their motivation.

Heck, if anything, this makes me wonder why the heck nobody is able to play with that sort of intensity without the bounties.

I mean, seriously.... if they could get to Favre like that and keep hitting him time and time again, why doesn't it happen more often? It really suggests that it is simply an issue of motivation and will power.

thats a very good, respectful reply with many points well taken. That post must have taken forever to write- its a small essay

There is a fine line- No disagreement there at all.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said it has to fall on the refs to make the call. And that is one of my hangups with that vikes/saints game in particular. Not all of these hits were between the whistles- there was the extra stuff going on that the refs allowed -and if they would have thrown the flag it could have changed the outcome on the game. Again, doesn't do the vikes one bit of good to get the letter from the nfl a couple of years later saying "oops, my bad"... I find it amusing that the nfl network was actually scheduled to replay this game, i think it was yesterday, and they removed it from the lineup.

The problem with the "bounty" is it rewards a player for injuring another player. It just makes no sense. And you would think the players being asked/encouraged/rewarded for these actions would know better. I'm sure they would not appreciate a "bounty" on their head. Afterall, an injury could affect their career. And that is the core of the problem. It is just inherently wrong to set out to injure another person. And yes, this is a physical game, injuries will happen- but to take money for creating an injury is just wrong.

How to determine whether to penalize a player who might have had improper intentions would be an impossiblity if the hit is hard, legal and takes place between the whistles. And that is why the NFL will come down hard on the bounty system. There is really no other way to regulate it. It is up to the teams to coach the integrity of the game. And when coaches have stepped over that line- the nfl has a problem.

And yeah, we all watch football and admire the hard hits these guys take. And like you said, some of the most decorated players are the ones that have the reputation of being a bit "chippy". In the end, the name of the game is to overpower your opponent- in essence, take their desire to compete away. But again, this needs to be done within the context of the game, or it does tarnish the sport.

So the NFL has no choice but to make an example of the saints and Williams. These actions (rewarding for injury) are a threat to the integrity of the game. This is a multimillion dollar industry. Goodell is not going to risk screwing up a good thing by ignoring the bounty system.

Anyways, like you said- there is a fine line. There is no way to really know the intention of a player- is he being physical or is he trying to injure intentionally. But, with a bounty system in place- it definately scews the perception that an injury is intentional rather than accidental.

but evidently this is fair as long as the ref doesn't throw the flag

You actually believe the NFL is telling Riddell NOT to research new technology?


http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/27126/

honestly, there are a few things the NFL should do better, but it doesn't have anything to do with Riddell.

1. the NFL should only allow the best safety rated helmets on the field. there is some discrepancy to what those are, so I do believe the best 3-4 helmets (no matter the manufacturer) should be allowed for the players to choose from. Riddell can still pay to advertise as the "official NFL helmet" but the NFL would have to discount that pricetag.

2. the NFL should force teams to "fit" helmets for players. this would include a few things that the players would throw an absolute tantrum over:

A. Hair length restrictions - how the heck is a helmet supposed to fit soundly on your head when you have a Troy-P mane under it? it causes an artificial buffer between your head and the helmet and renders alot of the advantages of the helmet moot.

B. officials from Riddell or a health organization to measure and find the best fit helmets for each player during training camp (or OTAs).

3. force all NFL players to have "dentist-grade" mouthguards.

4. there are penalties in the rulebook for flags when chinstraps are not buckled, mouthguards are not in during play. yet, you see every Sunday players that do not have mouthguards in and do not have their friggin' chinstraps buckled. throw the flags when you see this and the situation will get corrected very quickly (5yds a pop).

and despite all of that if the NFL just made players shave their heads, wear mouthguards, and have properly fitting helmets, then concussions would go down a bunch.

Well you seem to have the answer, so make a mock up and start marketting, you could be a multi-millionaire in no time.

also, always want to add in that VaTech did an independent safety check on football helmets and found Riddell's Revolution Speed to be the best:

http://www.sbes.vt.edu/nid.php

Quote:

---

florfan...I see the same basic football helmet I used when I played back in the late 60s and early 70s..and that is part of the problem.

---

Boy, those helmets didn't do their job back in the 60's...

Who produces the safer helmets mac? I can't find them in a google search.

Riddell makes MOST of the helmets worn by NFL players. Riddell also, last may, encouraged players to switch from one model of helmet (that didn't do well in concussion tests) to a new model.

Also - some - not many, but according to this report - some players wear a helmet made by Adams USA - which was even worse than the "old" riddell model.

Interestingly enough, according to NBC sports - the PLAYERS can choose which helmet, and which manufacturer - they wear.

Just because Riddell is the official helmet provider - does NOT mean players have to wear a riddell.

Also, of note - Riddells Revolution Speed helmet was the ONLY helmet tested that got a 5 star rating.

Here: read for yourself.

"Riddell urges players to switch helmet models
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 10, 2011, 7:21 AM EST
Patrick Peterson AP

Riddell, the company that makes most of the helmets worn in the NFL, is urging players to change helmet models after a study found that the model worn by 38 percent of players last season is not particularly good at preventing concussions.

Riddell’s VSR-4 helmet received a low one-star rating in a study of football helmets led by a Virginia Tech professor of biomedical engineering. But the Riddell Revolution Speed was the only helmet to get a five-stars rating.

“It is our hope that based upon this and other independent research, that players and teams at all levels will continue to migrate to the Revolution family of helmets,” Riddell Sports president Dan Arment said in a statement emailed to the Associated Press.

NFL players decide for themselves which brand and model of helmet to wear. A model designed by Adams USA that a handful of players wear received an even lower rating than the one-star helmet, with researchers labeling that helmet as “not recommended.”

“All of these helmets protect you from skull fracture, so what we’re doing is going to the next level and looking at how they protect you from brain injury,” said Stefan Duma, the professor who led the study. “We’re basing this analysis off a million impacts we’ve collected. We know how players are hit. . . . It’s much more elaborate than anyone’s ever looked at, in terms of evaluating the performance of helmets.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/10/riddell-urges-players-to-switch-helmet-models/

Quote:

---

arp...everyone is doing a lot of talking...what evidence do folks have that the bounty system resulted in injuries?

Just what are people claiming this horrible incentive caused?...and what evidence do folks have to back up their claims?

---

Doesn't matter.

Imagine a Saints defender on the stand.. either in a legal court or in an NFL setting...

Questioner: "Did you inflict a hit on Joe Schmoe in a football game on November 14?"

Saints defender: "Yes I did."

Questioner: "Did the hit cause injury to the player such that he had to leave the game?"

Saints defender: "Yes it did."

Questioner: "Did you receive monetary compensation as a result of him being forced the leave the game due to your hit?"

Saints defender: "Yes I did."

He's guilty.. not only in NFL terms but in legal terms as well.. Doesn't really matter if he says.. "Yea well all of that happened, but I didn't MEAN to hurt him." because he took the money for it...

And yes, I could see this finding its way into the courts.. imagine if you are a running back in a contract year and in week 2 you get knocked out by the Saints and can't finish the season.. all of the sudden your bargaining power in the contract negotiations goes down, you get low ball offers less than what was expected before you got hurt.. or worse yet, what if a guy has had his career ended in a Saints game over the past few years? If it was me, I'd sue the NFL, the Saints and the player that hit me if that happened... whether I was the object of an actual bounty or not..

What I don't understand, and maybe I'm just not really all that up to date on football helmets, being 30+ years removed from ever wearing one ......... but what if they put something like an airbag inside the helmet? Maybe a helmet that gets pumped up with air that would conform to the head? Possibly even a dual hard shell with with the air in between, and then the padding inside? Heck, maybe even numerous small air chambers, or layers, would help absorb the force of impact.

I doubt that anyone will ever remove all of the danger from football as long as players physically set foot on the field, but I do believe that the technology gets better and better as time goes by. I do think that the NFL and NFLPA should get together and decide what helmet players are going to use league-wide. I didn't realize that individual players got to choose their own helmets. I do not think that players have any right to complain and/or sue if they choose to wear an inferior helmet.

Eh, I think you're reaching with your lawsuit example. What's missing is "proof".

A jury would say - if it even GOT that far - "hey, people get hurt in every game. PROVE the bounty was the reason you got hurt." (actually, the defense attorney would argue that. The jury would have to consider it - and I doubt any player would win a cent. Although - if you spill hot coffee on yourself, you can sue McDonalds and win - so who knows?

But, I could sue the nfl. You could. I could sue a player in the nfl..........I could file the suit, and a judge would listen. Then he'd toss it. About 12 seconds later.

You're about my age. I know, in high school, we had inflatable helmets. The inflatable part...........if you turned the helmet upside down and looked down into it - the inflatable part looked like an octopus. (that make sense?)

And that was 1982 to 1986 - and our school had them years before that as well.

I gave up organized sports at a fairly young age. I can't really remember much about our helmet back then, That would be almost 35-40 years ago ....... and I can hardly even remember the names of the schools I went to back then.

Well, regardless, mac is wrong when he says the nfl is using helmets he used back in the 1970's.

And his insinuation that because Riddell is the official nfl helmet provider ignores the fact that Riddell pays a fee to be called that - and MORE IMPORTANTLY - players can use any helmet they want.

We definitely had inflatable padding inside the helmets. My first day of practice, I didn't know how mucht hey were supposed to inflate it. I let them just keep going and I had sharp pains all practice. They looked at me like I was an idiot when I told them later that it was too tight "well, why didn't you say something?" I didn't know what it was supposed to be like to be safe.

same here. and we had really old helmets where those inflatables didn't hold their air the best, so really the only way to have them last was to have them too tight at the beginning of practice.

You must not have had a coach who's job it was to fit a helmet to each player.

Heck...we had removable (I'm going to call them cheek pads) pads. The ones that went below (and sometimes around your ear), that the coach - day one - fitted to each player.

The inflatable part - he told us day one what it was supposed to feel like. Granted, after that, WE were responsible for the inflating - and it's not like those things lost pressure very often.........but after being told and shown what the helmet was supposed to feel and fit like - we took care of it.

well, we might have still been using ones from when you played

it wasn't that bad every year(so not all the helmets had issues). I remember that from my first year playing in HS and I tried a couple different helmets but had to pump them up pretty much every day.

Hands on experience.
Thru a 10 game schedule,the local HS had 7 confirmed concussions,and several others with symptoms.
For the playoffs,4 games,the 7 afflicted plus 2 more were fitted with brand new Riddell 360's.The Cadillac of football helmets.
Every player's helmet was fitted with Dr. Nowitki's Shockstrips.There were zero concussions and only one player who showed minor symptoms.
The price of the 360s make them prohibitive to outfit the whole team,but by adding some each year,in a few years we'll have enough.
Dr.Nowitki has graciously agreed to supply his Shockstrips again this year,so I believe our concussions will decrease.
And yes Y-town,they have airbags

Quote:

---

Boy, those helmets didn't do their job back in the 60's...

---