Saints violate NFL Bounty rules, paid bonuses to injure players
- Thread starter meStevo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 252
- Views 18K
I'll agree on one thing that seems to be the biggest complaint among the players and that is the inconsistency when it comes to suspensions. But, I have no issues with THESE suspensions. Payton got a year,Williams indefinite. The punishment for vilma fits IMO because he was part of this as much as those other two men when you consider the fact he used his own money for these bounties. And again the dictator works for the owners. They haven't said a peep yet.
Stallworth hit a jaywalker, fully cooperated and passed sobriety tests and only a blood test is why he was later charged. He not only paid for it career-wise with his suspension but also a number of punishments from the court (including never being allowed to have a license again) and a financial settlement with the family.
Comparing that to 3 years of being one of the leaders on defense and participating in a program that provided compensation outside of the salary cap, and personally offering money for injuries to specific players...Vilma and co. are lucky this doesn't fall under some kind of betting laws that would make them the target of prosecution.
Stallworth's punishment was in addition to legal consequences, while 16 games is the entirety of Vilma's.
Saying Vilma is getting the same punishment as someone who killed someone is an intentional gross oversimplification.
Comparing that to 3 years of being one of the leaders on defense and participating in a program that provided compensation outside of the salary cap, and personally offering money for injuries to specific players...Vilma and co. are lucky this doesn't fall under some kind of betting laws that would make them the target of prosecution.
Stallworth's punishment was in addition to legal consequences, while 16 games is the entirety of Vilma's.
Saying Vilma is getting the same punishment as someone who killed someone is an intentional gross oversimplification.
Last edited by a moderator:
He get PAID to hurt other players. Nancy Kerrigan got paid to skate...BIG difference.
Based on Goodell's history of how he has doled out punishment... it makes no sense. In Stallworth's case, REGARDLESS of what he did to help OR that the person murdered was a jaywalker, Stallworth was driving drunk, got and pleaded to get vehicular manslaughter. GOOD for him that he financial helped the family and even better that he pleaded because he thought it was "morally right"....but I am sure that BOTH actions are against Goodell's conduct policy. Now AGAIN, as I stated it earlier, IF this was more for lying if the office earlier questioned him and he he said they weren't doing it... I am fine with it because he lied.
And the inconsistency is my issue. And the fact the in the end, he is judge...jury and executioner of both punishment AND the appeals process.
If that were an issue with the owners he'd be out by now. And if it was an issue with the players they should've never agreed to it in the first place. If they didn't have an issue with it then why should any of us. Honestly I think we've established enough how we both feel about it. I got nothing else to add for now.
My opinion on the Stallworth situation versus this, and as it relates to nfl fines is, the two aren't comparable.
One happened in the public world. On happened under the supervision of and on company time.
Is what Stallworth did worse? Yeah. And overall, he got worse punishment. The nfl was in no way obligated to punish him in any work related scenario. No more so than I am for my employees and what they did off the clock.
In the case of the players involved in a "hit squad" as employees, they are, and I would be as well.
I don't see the reason to compare the two from a nfl response standpoint.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
One happened in the public world. On happened under the supervision of and on company time.
Is what Stallworth did worse? Yeah. And overall, he got worse punishment. The nfl was in no way obligated to punish him in any work related scenario. No more so than I am for my employees and what they did off the clock.
In the case of the players involved in a "hit squad" as employees, they are, and I would be as well.
I don't see the reason to compare the two from a nfl response standpoint.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
It's comparable in the fact that what they BOTH did had to do with conduct. Regardless of whether it was on the field or not... As I have stated, IF this punishment was due to lying after the fact. They lied and you were caught.
And he gets paid to do that. Look, you are seriously gonna sit here and think this has never happened and never will happen again do you? The ONLY difference is someone ratted them out. The simple fact the the league talk to them...and the rest of the league, CLEARLY tells you that they know this goes on and they 'better not find out'.
From an employers standpoint, the two are not comparable.
I employ a few people that have commited felonies.
I do not employ people that commit felonies on my time or on my property.
There is a distinct difference from an employers perspective. The two situations do not compare.
I can understand the emotional knee jerk to try to make them the same, but they are not.
No, he does not get paid to intentionally hurt people.
He gets paid to hit them within the rules of the game. Point out to me, in the rules, where people get paid extra to cause intentional injury.
Ill save you the time, it is not there.
If Vilma did nothing wrong than what did he refuse to talk to the investigators while this was being looked in to?
Hargrove would've also got a year if he didn't sign the "yeah, you got me" document. So I'm trying to figure out Vilma's defense.
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
Hargrove would've also got a year if he didn't sign the "yeah, you got me" document. So I'm trying to figure out Vilma's defense.
Sent from my iPad using SatelliteGuys
msmith198025 said:
Come on Smith, we arguing symantics. The intention in defense, is to hit/tackle. When a defender goes after to defend againt an offensive player, his "intent" is to hit/tackle. If you think there is no "intent" to hurt someone within the rules...well, I don't know what to tell ya. LOL!
No, there is no rule to intentionally hurt people, but there intent to hurt people.
But, like the coaches, and alot of you have expressed the same, I think the players were warned(like the coaches)...they were asked if there was this bounty thing going on(probably like the coaches)...they said no(wash, rinse, repeat)...and they were busted when someone turned them in(see the previous). And you don't lie to the dictator.
Hart5150 said:
To me, he has none if he was talk to previously. He was busted for lying and they are making an example of him for that. If that is the case, then I honestly don't have issues with it.
which is probably the case. remember when the investigation started and how they kept on doing this, including vilma. if they would've stopped when this first came up to the league then i feel that the punishments would've been less severe.
exactly. they should've stopped the first time they were caught. and while the defense is paid to hit/tackle within the rules, its clear they were aiming for things that are against the current rules. we've said this a million times already that bounties have always existed in the NFL. difference is no one has ever done it to this level and be stupid enough to leave a paper trail like the saints did.
