Saints Player Suspensions Announced

[arnie_uk]

I fully understand the distinction you are making. But there are two assumptions that I think are being made here that I think would be disputed by many players and fans. One is that hits are only allowed to the extent that they achieve some kind of benign objective (blocking a guy, tackling a guy, etc). Two is that knocking a guy out of the game is the same as injuring them.

When Ray Lewis cracked back the Bronco on McAlister's FG return TD, there is no reasonable argument that he needed to do anything except get in his way to "prevent the player from making a tackle" (in fact he likely didn't even need to do that). Ditto for across the field blocks on returns, or Ward's block on Rivers, or about 75%+ of tackles in the NFL where the defender could just wrap a guy up and bring him down. Now, I understand that this does not prove intent, because as you say, it is a hard thing to prove; and of course it is subjective. Maybe those "overhits" are designed not to "injure" but to "cause pain" or "intimidate?" All the same, they occur and are part of the game. If there is an unstated rule that players should not intend to hit people any harder than necessary to achieve a very specific game-related objective (tackle, block) then this rule is completely unenforced (and I would argue that there is no such rule).

Additionally, the word "injure" is a subjective one. Is being "hurt" the same as "injured?" Is being temporarily hurt or injured the same as being injured? If your hit results in a guy leaving the field for a play before returning, have you "injured" him? These distinctions are relevant because many players will tell you, simultaneously, "I was trying to legally hit him as hard as I could (not as hard as necessary), but I never want to 'injure' anyone." How is that statement possible under your assumptions? One cannot hit any harder than "as hard as they can." A legal football hit "intended to injure" is not any harder than "as hard as one can." The former is illegal and the latter is legal according to you?

My point is, these players are so big and strong, it would be completely easy, almost guaranteed, to "injure" each other if that was the real priority and the in-game rules were of no consequence. It is much harder, and not guaranteed nor even likely, to "injure" someone while playing the game according to the rules (which is why multiple guys are not dropping like flies every single play). In this regard, the bounty pool could be thought of as a chance pool. A guy not being able to return to the field for the next play or beyond is a result of a big legal hit plus luck. The more big legal hits you as a player dish out the greater your odds of "winning."

In any case, it is patently and undeniably absurd to compare what was being incentivized with a terrorist attack or shooting someone. Absurd, no need for more debate about that comparison.

your missing the whole point, i was using by way of example that vilma was instigating taking players out by laying that $10k on the table, isnt that something that deserves punishment? that was my original point i was making to blah who say he disagrees with that

[Haloti92]

your missing the whole point, i was using by way of example that vilma was instigating taking players out by laying that $10k on the table, isnt that something that deserves punishment? that was my original point i was making to blah who say he disagrees with that

Oh yes, Vilma deserves punishment for sure. For violating several league rules, and possibly covering up and lying about his involvement. But he isn't guilty of condoning assault with a deadly weapon or condoning attempted mass murder. Nor would I say he necessarily (from what I have heard, admitting that I do not know what the NFL has by way of evidence any more than anyone else) is guilty of condoning cheap shots or illegal hits. Nor would I say that the number of people (both playing the game and fans of the game) who would accept as plausible his claim that all he was intending to incentivize was big legal hits is small.

[arnie_uk]

while your correct i shouldnt have used the examples i did, because they in no way relate to a football tackle, i was just trying to get through the point that even though he may not have been an offender in deliberatly trying to injure a person, and instigator (as in the examples i used) are part and even more so the problem

Oh yes, Vilma deserves punishment for sure. For violating several league rules, and possibly covering up and lying about his involvement. But he isn't guilty of condoning assault with a deadly weapon or condoning attempted mass murder. Nor would I say he necessarily (from what I have heard, admitting that I do not know what the NFL has by way of evidence any more than anyone else) is guilty of condoning cheap shots or illegal hits. Nor would I say that the number of people (both playing the game and fans of the game) who would accept as plausible his claim that all he was intending to incentivize was big legal hits is small.

[Flacco Seagulls]

This all seems very black and white to me. They all deserve what they got except Vilma, Williams and Payton,...which all should of gotten lifetime bans.

[arnie_uk]

Vilma is suing Roger Goodell for defamation, he "made public statements concerning Vilma which were false, defamatory and injurious to Vilma’s professional and personal reputation"

Does this mean he isnt actually challenging his suspension?

can someone elaborate a bit on the details of this

[moose10101]

Vilma is suing Roger Goodell for defamation, he "made public statements concerning Vilma which were false, defamatory and injurious to Vilma’s professional and personal reputation"

I think the probability that the NFL doesn't have its ducks in a row on this is microscopic. If Vilma wants everything aired in public, he just might get it.

[HoustonRaven]

This ain't going to go anywhere and, quite frankly, is very sad. Sounds a lot like a shakedown, designed to get a quick pay out.

Vilma is going to have a hard time arguing that he isn't a public figure. And if Goodell believes that the case, facts and evidence leads him to believe that Vilma did do these things, then he's acting in good faith and free of defamation.

And what injury has Vilma suffered from Goodell speaking about the investigation and it's findings?

[blah3]

your missing the whole point, i was using by way of example that vilma was instigating taking players out by laying that $10k on the table, isnt that something that deserves punishment? that was my original point i was making to blah who say he disagrees with that

Let's try to clear things up. I believe the suspension of Vilma is too long. Secondly, I believe that the claims of Vilma intentionally trying to hurt/injure someone are blown way out of proportion. I maintain that in most if not all NFL locker rooms there is (or was anyway) a money pool. Players try to hit other players as hard as they possibly can in an effort to knock them out of the game. What I am not convinced of, is that the money pot led to any kind of increase of illegal hits that normally wouldn't occur. For that kind of suspension I would need to see illegal hits that can be traced back to Vilma's monetary encouragement. I would also like to see punishment of the player who actually delivered the illegal hit similar to that of Vilma's. Has any Saint player been suspended anywhere near 1 full year of service for an illegal hit?