My only complaints about today's announcement are:
- Vilma should have been banned for life
- the other 25 or so Saints players who were involved to a lesser extent should all have at least a wrist slap, or declared to be fully exonerated.
Printable View
My only complaints about today's announcement are:
- Vilma should have been banned for life
- the other 25 or so Saints players who were involved to a lesser extent should all have at least a wrist slap, or declared to be fully exonerated.
The issue is: Is it okay to try to knock a guy out of the game with a really hard but legal hit? If the answer is yes (and I think it is, or at least up until now has been the accepted answer), then I think Vilma's penalty is way overboard.
Of course, I may have missed some testimony or evidence where Vilma mentioned someone's knees or condoned illegal hits; if so, then I think his penalty is justified (at least in terms of trying to make an example out of this ordeal to prevent it from ever happening again).
Of course it is the main issue regarding Vilma. How about you answer the question. Is it acceptable to attempt to knock a guy out with a legal hit? Yes or no?
And how does mistyping his name mean what I said is less important? Or were you being cute?
What "facts" am I changing by asking that question?
What is it with this thread, indeed? Some people get a little too sensitive when it comes to differing opinions/points. That is for sure.
I am talking about the player, not the coaches.
I am aware the pool is against the rules. I would say that if the pool awarded $10k for touchdowns (also against the rules) there is no way the player gets a year suspension. Which leaves your first claim, which is the one in doubt. And which is why my question is important.
Is it acceptable to try to knock a player out of the game with a legal hit? Yes or no?
You're manufacturing why the players were suspended. The players were suspended for everything I mentioned above:
“In assessing player discipline,” Commissioner Goodell said, “I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.”
Goodell would go on to say in that same statement that each of the players suspended met at least one of those four criteria.
In of itself, I'd say yes, although you'd most likely run afoul of the new rules regarding player safety and concussion awareness. Except that's not what they were doing.
Only the bolded point is remotely possible to warrant a year suspension in my view, and I have yet to hear any evidence about Vilma engaging in a cover-up. But if he did then I guess the suspension should be serious; I still think 1 year is too much, then again I don't know what he did (in terms of obstructing).
Being a leader on the team, having a pool, and contributing an arbitrarily defined "large amount" are all extremely minor things considering they all would apply to a pool for touchdowns and interceptions, etc.
As for what "they" were doing, who is the "they" you are talking about? I am fully on board with Payton and Williams suspensions because they were in charge, and they received the league warning. As for Vilma, I have yet to see any claim that he did anything other than offer money for legally knocking a guy out of the game. If he condoned illegal hits and/or obstructed the investigation then I would have less of a problem with the 1-year penalty.
The evidence was signed off on by a former United States Attorney, who conducted an independent review and gave her thumbs up.
That, and Williams already confessed.
This thread just goes around and around in circles.