[all day baby]

You really don't understand. Stopping someone from getting 100 yards is nothing at all like purposely injuring him, which is what the Saints and Greg Williams were doing.

[leedrane]

I do understand, its' really simple to understand, especially if you take your perspective and buy into exactly what the NFL is saying happened actually happened the way that they want you to beleive that it happened. You are the one leaving no room for there to be any possibility of this falling into another area or "pay for performance" meaning that they were paying all along for great hits, whether someone was injured or not. Let's assume that is the case, they are paying for different levels of bonus plays, so much for INTs, so much for forced fumbles, returns, and nice solid hits. Now if they said, if you place one of those nice solid hits on Favre then you get an extra bonus.....if he doesn't continue here is another bonus. BTW, just to be clear here....I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS OK EITHER, but it is an example of a system which is different than what the NFL said happened. I am fine with you not liking it, but if I am somehow being "blind" by accepting the same position that the judge basically has, that as shown the NFL has not proven this fully, then so be it.

In regards to Peterson you seem to be the one not understanding my question to you, or else you just aren't answering.....which is fine as well. If you try and stop Peterson from getting 100 yards, and you do that by injuring him.....do you still get the money? If so, are you fine with that scenerio?

ote='all day baby' pid='2115178' dateline='1347127608']
You really don't understand. Stopping someone from getting 100 yards is nothing at all like purposely injuring him, which is what the Saints and Greg Williams were doing.
[/quote]

---

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would like for the bonus pools for plays to be kept as it is a reward, especially for some of the lower tier guys, but it opens up too many other issues.

Also, the premeditated thing is a bit of a stretch, but I know where you are coming from. There are certain players that will always be targets, that is almost as old as football itself. Not paying money won't stop Defensive guys from taking shots at those guys regardless.......my main concern would be if it was being done in a dirty fashion. I don't think anyone would want to see that happen....and I honestly don't think and have not seen any case of that in regards to the Saints investigation. keep in mind that most players that talk about this have no issue with it....it doesn't make it right, but it shows the mindset of most of the NFL.

Well, hopefully, going forward, all the teams quit doing it.

Far fetched, but, who knows.

I mean, I don't have a problem if a coach or a group of players — say, a team's DBs or something — puts up a pot for whoever grabs an INT, recovers a fumble, etc. ... i.e., something tangible, something stat-related (most tackles, sacks, whatever).

I think the problem comes in where a coach or a teammate puts up the cash for something more related to the violence of the hit, as in something that can be interpreted differently by different people — was the hit legal, was he trying to hurt him, etc.

Plus — and this is really splitting hairs — it's probably a bigger issue whether coaches put up cash before the game or after the game.

I know it sounds silly, but it's kind of like the whole premeditation aspect of a murder case or whatever.

Anyway, I've got no problem with the Saints ... I was really into them when Reggie Bush got there, and Brees seems like a good dude and is obviously a great player.

---

Not sure about the word vacated, but overturned is the correct word for now. Here is the article that lays out what happened, and will happen if he suspends the players again, which he can do by merely changing the wording a little bit.


"A three-member panel has overturned the suspensions handed down to four players by the NFL in the bounty case, and all four suspended players -- New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, defensive end Will Smith, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and at-large defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove -- are free to play this NFL season. It is a crushing defeat for the league and commissioner Roger Goodell.

The original appeal ruling, given by arbiter Stephen Burbank, opined that Goodell was within his authority to suspend the four players for alleged "pay-to-injure" schemes and other pay-for-performance actions. Per the panel ruling, Goodell can re-suspend the players if there is concrete evidence of a pay-to-injure scheme, but he will have to be much more proactive about actually producing evidence this time. The panel did reportedly rule that there was evidence of pay-to-injure during the 2009-2011 timeline, but what evidence that may have been is still unknown.

If Goodell wanted to, he could say that all the suspensions were solely for pay-to-injure, and re-implement all of them as they were, and it's important to keep in mind that if the players are unhappy with the new suspensions, they can seek legal redress in the New Orleans court of Judge Helen G. Berrigan. Berrigan, who recently heard arguments in the NFL's appeal of Vilma's defamation suit against Goodell, said that she wanted more information from the league, but that she would likely wait for the panel ruling before making a decision of her own.

However, if the players go back before Judge Berrigan, the NFL is unlikely to be happy with the results. On Aug. 10, Berrigan said from the bench that if she could legally do so, she would rule in Vilma's favor, based on the evidence the league had produced."

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdo...--nfl.html

Don't know where your getting this, that their suspensions were "NOT" vacated, they were given an injunction that will "Temporarily" allow them to play, until Goodell proves that it was "pay to play" or "pay to hurt" and as to whom will make the decision as to how long the punishment will be.

The contention was that Goodell should not have been the one to hear the appeals, that Burbank should have been the one to hear the Appeals by the Players, and reduce or vacate, or allow the Punishment to stand.


at no time did the panel say that the punishment was vacated.