Man, Goodell and the NFL really botched this Bounty Scandal...

**JAB1985** · 06-20-2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

Florio again sounds too much like a failed attorney than a journalist. Here's another take: 3 days = 3 days, not that 72 hours that Florio just invented to be part of the CBA.

Interesting take. Perhaps Pash looked at all the evidence gathered, did a risk assessment for Goodell, and concluded that the hammer has come down adequately to prevent another bounty incident, so avoid the risk of having Goodell's decision overturned by a third party on substantive grounds.

However, "clearly over stepping his boundaries with his power". Huh? Exactly how has Goodell "clearly" over-stepped his boundaries? The NFL Commissioner has the authority under league rules and the CBA to mete out punishment for players' and coaches' behavior. What has he done which "clearly" violates that authority?

probably a little more harsh of word choice than intended, clearly being of opinion. being judge jury and executioner is too much power for anybody. Thats why we have the checks and balances system in place for our judicial system. I liked Goodell for cleaning up the game and holding the players accountable for their actions (he did a great job of it actually), but to me theres a difference in penalizing a player that gets in trouble with the law and/or is convicted by a jury vs penalizing him on his own accord without even a hearing. To me one is within his right the other, may be technically, but hes been using a gray area to do more than the intent, imo. If what happened to these guys anywhere else in America, there would be a mass uproar for injustice. Here we just assume theyre guilty and deserve it, even though theres never been anything proving the exchange of money from one player to another for an on field incentive, which is the only thing against the rules about the entire thing.

just for consideration about whats illegal here, when players pay a younger/poorer players fine (which does happen from time to time), would you think that is considered a bounty? on field action resulting in exchange of funds amongst players, by definition of the rule, it is. to me thats a pretty lame rule.

**Captain Silver** · 06-20-2012, 10:38 AM

Utter bullshit, all of this. The Saints, especially Vilma to the tone of 10 Grand, singled out Brett Favre to be taken out of the game via injury. I watched that Championship Game as I am sure ALL of you had, and if you didn't think to yourself, man Favre is getting beat up beyond normal, you have zero creditably giving an opinion on football in general. Regardless of your feelings on Favre, he played the game the way it was meant to be played and will be in the Hall of Fame. For a rag tag bunch of thugs to take shots at hurting him outside the confines of the spirit of the game is beyond reprehensible and I am stunned anyone here thinks that the punishment is too severe.

Additionally, I have seen footage of the Saints playing dirty against the Ravens, taking massive cheap shots on Flacco!

The defense that others do it or that they are being singled out is negated by the mere fact they were warned and lied directly to the NFL and Goodell. I have no love for the man, but he is 100% in the right on this.

**JAB1985** · 06-20-2012, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Where Goodell screwed the pooch was meting out the punishments to the players. They were simply too large for the nebulous "infractions." In terms of: prior warnings being ignored, the most effective way to discourage this from happening again, where the buck stops, and where the primary responsibility lies, the Saints organization should have been the most severely punished.

If Vilma's suspension was 4 games, Hargrove's 2 games, Smith's and Fujita's 1 game, PLUS the Saints organization was fined several million dollars, PLUS the Saints lost a few draft picks, then things would be a lot different. There still would have been appeals, but the issue would have passed by now. There wouldn't have been the same amount of league vs players animosity, and I think the chances of this behavior reoccurring (if such stiff penalties were given to the team itself) would still be zero.

id agree with that. to me its pretty obvious that Goodell is the owners employee and protecting them not only financially but from public scrutiny. Allowing such a thing to take place, or possibly even installing it in the first place, is a greater issue than what the players are being held accountable for.

**Mista T** · 06-20-2012, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Silver

For a rag tag bunch of thugs to take shots at hurting him outside the confines of the spirit of the game is beyond reprehensible and I am stunned anyone here thinks that the punishment is too severe.

I'm with you, Silver. The NFL wants thuggery removed from the game -- Goodell is doing exactly that.

**wickedsolo** · 06-20-2012, 10:47 AM

Can't say I really disagree with that.

Frankly, I think that they should take a more rigid stance with a lot of other things as well. DUI's, etc.

**JAB1985** · 06-20-2012, 10:58 AM

the problem is nothing on the field was outside the rules. the exchange of money is what was illegal and what they are being punished for. It wasnt a bunch of malicious illegal hits. Sure they hit him a lot, but why blame the bounty and not the offensive line for blocking better. whether there was a bounty or not, it doesnt effect the result on the field unless there was illegal hits, which they should have been penalized for. outside of the late hit on Steve Smith, which was "dirty" although certainly not with intent to injure, I havent seen anything illegal (hits on Favre and warner in particular were completely within the rules), certainly not to the point that its obvious outside the norm in football. I dont wish it to be in the sport anymore than the next guy but im not going to just blame it for every foul, injury, or poor game and call it good like the violent nature of the sport wont still end with the same results.

**Haloti92** · 06-20-2012, 11:09 AM

Indeed.

There is a difference between attempting to knock a guy out with a steady stream of hard legal hits and attempting to knock a guy out with a cheap illegal shot. In both cases, rewarding the 'knockout' hit is against the rules, but to me, the first case is much much less serious than the second.

**darb72** · 06-20-2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

the problem is nothing on the field was outside the rules. the exchange of money is what was illegal and what they are being punished for. It wasnt a bunch of malicious illegal hits. Sure they hit him a lot, but why blame the bounty and not the offensive line for blocking better. whether there was a bounty or not, it doesnt effect the result on the field unless there was illegal hits, which they should have been penalized for. outside of the late hit on Steve Smith, which was "dirty" although certainly not with intent to injure, I havent seen anything illegal (hits on Favre and warner in particular were completely within the rules), certainly not to the point that its obvious outside the norm in football. I dont wish it to be in the sport anymore than the next guy but im not going to just blame it for every foul, injury, or poor game and call it good like the violent nature of the sport wont still end with the same results.

The Saints were flagged for roughing Favre twice in that game, and the league later said they should have received another penalty for a brutal high-low hit from Remi Ayodele and Bobby McCray that hurt Favre's ankle. He was able to finish the game, but the Saints won in overtime en route to the NFL title.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/78...s-bounty-roles

Well there goes your credibility. It seems that at least three hits on Farve were illegal which pretty much makes the rest of your statement wrong. Two, possibly three, roughing the passer penalties in one game is quite a bit above the average, considering there were only 84 roughing-the-passer penalties in 2010.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/...ick-romo-brees

**Ravenswintitle** · 06-20-2012, 07:30 PM

Once again, it's about trying to get off on a technicality rather than proving innocence. It's all they've got...

**RavensNTerps** · 06-21-2012, 07:56 AM

Badell has botched just about everything since he's been commissioner so this is no surprise.

**RavensNTerps** · 06-21-2012, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

I'm with you, Silver. The NFL wants thuggery removed from the game -- Goodell is doing exactly that.

Word. I'd hate to root for a team that beats its chest about putting extra "hot sauce" on a tackle or anything like that. Damn dirty Saints!

Football is what football is. If you don't like it, if the fact that these massive men who get paid millions upon millions of dollars to beat the crap out of each other might take it further nauseates you then the game isn't for you. Maybe watch baseball (but be sure to turn it off before the first high and inside pitch).

NFFL - National Flag Football League - coming soon.

**arnie_uk** · 06-21-2012, 08:35 AM

hitting hard is a bit different than hitting with an intent to injure to make extra money. Thats a borderline assault...

When i played rugby i hit to stop, not hit to hurt, if he got hurt, or i got hurt, it was done within the spirits of the game. Earning money for hurting me, or me earning money to hurt someone else, is frankly, not...

Originally Posted by RavensNTerps

Word. I'd hate to root for a team that beats its chest about putting extra "hot sauce" on a tackle or anything like that. Damn dirty Saints!

Football is what football is. If you don't like it, if the fact that these massive men who get paid millions upon millions of dollars to beat the crap out of each other might take it further nauseates you then the game isn't for you. Maybe watch baseball (but be sure to turn it off before the first high and inside pitch).

NFFL - National Flag Football League - coming soon.