I agree, the interesting thing about how this is football and how its violent etc. is that it is the offensive players who are exclusively targets, it is really a one-way street on who gets to mete our the punishment versus those who generally suffer. Sure there are some opportunities to level ad-player, but generally those are less common by a significant factor.
I’m reading lots of speculation (and heard from Warren Sapp) that the snitch is Jeremy Shockey.
You mean “source,” “informant,” or “whistleblower,” right?
By your logic, if i offer someone money to kill my wife, but the money isn’t enough and they refuse to do it, i should not receive any punishment.
This is a hot mess in a 100 different ways including Sapp’s outing of Shockey as the whistleblower (snitch, in his own parlance) first on Twitter and then on the NFL Network itself. Ol’ @QBKilla might be out of his media job real quick. The video on Sapp on the NFLN talking about Shockey has been taken down.
As were multiple teams who likely did not have bounties.
That has not been proved.
As have many other teams.
You don’t know that.
This is a pointless exercise as most the things you mentioned are not in question. The issue is whether the bounties were an inducement to deliberately injure players or engage in dirty play.
I think the primary difference between what they did, and what most teams do is that the Saints gave the guys a few bucks at the time of the incident as opposed to later contract negotiations. That difference is what got the Saints in trouble. There is little moral difference though IMO.
But that doesn’t seem to matter to the NFL. More importantly, the vast majority of players want to hurt their opponents anyway. If that offends you, don’t watch football.
Why shouldn’t we care what the people who are the ONLY people directly affected by this whole thing think? Isn’t it kinda telling that the vast majority don’t care? These are guys whose careers could have supposedly have been ended by such shenanigans. Why do you think they are almost uniformally indifferent?
Good thing you cannot be punished for terrible analogies. That said, I have no problem with a punishment as they broke the rules. The reason why your analogy is bad is because the NFL is punishing the Saints, not for injuring people, but for rewarding the act with money at the time of the incident.
Again, they explicitly were.
Can you show me a contract negotiation where a player got more money for knockout and cartoffs as opposed to things like tackles?
They’re being punished for making the offer of money for illegal and violent acts. Which is why my analogy is perfectly appropriate.
That’s why players applauded Ndamukong Suh when he stomped on that guy’s arm last season. They also cheered Albert Haynesworth for stepping on Andre Gurode’s head in 2008, right? Because those guys wanted to hurt their opponents.
Again, they were not. Do you honestly think Williams told his players to play dirty to deliberately injure players?
Of course I cannot, as the contracts usually not public, nor are the rationales for anything laid out explicitly. But you knew that; you just want to belief that you scored a point by pointing that out. That said, if you really think a guy laying out the other teams star QB won’t translate to more money come contract time, you are kidding yourself.
Why don’t you answer a few questions for me:
- If no money was involved, do you think the Saints would be in trouble?
- Do you think the money was a significant motivator for the players?
- Why aren’t the players more upset about this?
If they weren’t an inducement and brought them no benefit (real or imagined), then the Saints were insane to defy the NFL and keep offering them.
Wrong. They were not asked to make illegal hits. They are paid for violent act, so that part is the same either way.
Clearly both of those things were not in the course of play, and are obviously different situations. Nobody applauds dirty play. If the Saints were playing dirty, or trying to take people out after the play was over, few people would be defending them.
I agree
You said “The issue is whether the bounties were an inducement to deliberately injure players or engage in dirty play.” They were clearly an inducement to deliberately injure players because that’s exactly what they were: payments for injuring players. That’s why I quoted only part of your statement. If you want to own up to the fact that they were an inducement to injure players but not an explicit inducement to injure players by playing dirty, you can do that. But I think that would make the silliness of your argument a little too obvious.
Yes, I did know that. Since you’ve been talking about how we can’t prove the Saints did anything different as a result of the bounties (although there are indications they did), I thought it was reasonable to point out that your comment was completely unsupported.
I have a better idea: let’s discuss the actual situation instead.
So when the Saints placed a bounty on Brett Favre that rewarded players for knocking him out of the game and then got called for a series of illegal hits on Favre, that was obviously different because…
Players are given contracts because of their good play. Giving someone money for injuring a player creates an incentive for a player to at least try to cause injuries. These two ideas are not the same, morally or otherwise.
A “reward” or acknowledgement need not be an inducement. Do you know what an inducement is? To quote the dictionary:
Since you didn’t understand the word, allow me to rephrase. Do you think the money lead them to act the way they did? Do you honestly think $1500 is an real inducement for a person making millions? Would they have not done what they are accused of doing absent those payments? Do you think they would put themselves and their careers at risk by playing dirty for a few thousand dollars? Especially when deliberate dirty play would likely result in a net negative money-wise?
Which shows exactly how important intellectual honesty is to you.
Ducking questions again. That’s the true mark of a great debater. I’m glad you agree your position is so bereft of logic and consistency that you cannot apply it to any other analogous scenario, or investigate any tangentially related issues for fear your tissue thin argument will collapse on itself.
You don’t see a difference between stomping on a guy after the play, and what the Saints did to Favre? Rather than speculate, why don’t we look at what the players involved said:
Let’s take Bowen at his word for a second. If what he says is true, do you think Williams did anything wrong?
They gave $1500 for causing an injury that resulted in knocking out an opponent, and $1000 for causing an injury that resulted in an opponent unable to walk off the field. How is a financial incentive, no matter how small it may seem, not an inducement?
Because it didn’t actually INDUCE them to do anything.
Would you like to answer any of the questions I posed before?
I have no trouble believing it. For one thing, they never thought they would get caught and may not have even realized it was against the rules since the coaching staff was involved, and for another - as I’ve said repeatedly in this thread and at least one other - I don’t think it was really about the money for them. It was the pride, the team goal, and the knowledge that the players and coaching staff were acknowledging and rewarding guys who hurt opponents the same way they honored guys who made good plays like causing a fumble or intercepting a pass.
Exactly, thank you: if you insist other people can’t make assumptions about what was happening, even of the sort that is supported by some circumstantial evidence or which has been admitted or stuff that was explicitly part of the bounty pool, then you can’t say something like ‘players who injure opponents get rewarded with bigger contracts’ without a scintilla of evidence.
I’m not shy about admitting that I ignore hypotheticals, silly analogies, and off-topic questions. I prefer to stick to the actual issue instead of arguing about pretend ones that someone else says are similar.
I don’t see the difference if I go by your logic. If players want to hurt each other, why does it matter if it’s during the play or after, or if it’s a legal hit or an illegal one? Why does it matter that the Saints were called for several penalties for their hits on Favre, who they were targeting during the NFC Championship game? Why does it matter that Kurt Warner got nailed on a blindside hit during an interception return? (I admit Warner was arguably part of the play.) Or might those qualify as dirty play by a team that was targeting those players? Did the bounty pool have some kind of stipulation that the money would only be awarded for legal hits, or were they rewarding guys who knocked players out of the game no matter how they did it?
Yes, he did, and Bowen (assuming he’s being honest) sounds like a dupe. If you tell guys “knock the QB out of the game and you get $10,000,” you don’t have to tell them to break the rules. They’re already being told they’ll get rewarded for knocking the guy out of the game and that you don’t care how they do it.
No, because your questions are stupid. Offering a financial reward IS inducing. Period. End of story. :rolleyes: