Tuesday, March 06, 2012

Bounty Hunting

The ongoing story surrounding the New Orleans Saints, and their penchant for putting bounties on certain key players, is a tough one to parse. Apparently we're supposed to be outrageously outraged about it, because that's what I'm being told, especially concerning the punishment the Saints meted out to Brett Favre in the 2009 NFC Championship game.

I get it, but only up to a point. The Saints were not playing within the rules, especially concerning the payment of bonuses under the salary cap regime the NFL had in place at the time. And it's a nasty thing to target your opponents for physical injury. At the same time, the opposition has ways to deal with such matters, such as blocking the bounty hunters. And there's a big difference between what happened to Favre and what happened to Jim McMahon back in 1986, in perhaps the most shameful moment in the history of my beloved Packers:


Martin was suspended for two games after that horrible play. Somehow I think Gregg Williams will get something more than that.

7 comments:

Night Writer said...

In the words of Wally Carbo, "there will be fines and suspensions" for the players. Of greater interest and impact, is what will happen to Williams and Payton who were in a posistion of institutional control and were not merely ignorant of the practice, but endorsers of it. I'm thinking there will be $1 million+ fines to the Saints and that both coaches receive one-year or more suspensions if the NFL really wants to make the point.

I am curious, though, about the hit along the sidelines that took out Payton's knee last year. Could it have been a "bounty" attack? Not likely, but it is still sweet irony.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

I'm all for making them pay dearly (and not entirely because I see the Saints as a threat.) I like my barbarism civilized.

Brian said...

I think there's a pretty bright line between engaging in a highly physical sport that includes a risk of severe injury (and even death) incidental to the nature of the game, and purposefully seeking to disable your opponents. Of course, it's very difficult to prove that sort of thing is happening because of the nature of the game. But when you have clear evidence of financial incentives for that behavior, the penalties should be severe.

I'd even argue that assault charges wouldn't be completely out of bounds.

Gino said...

i'm suprised there wasnt a big brawl after that cheap shot.

Mr. D said...

i'm suprised there wasnt a big brawl after that cheap shot.

I remember watching that game and it shows you how disciplined a team the Bears were in those days. The 1986 Packers were a terrible team, terribly run. The Bears, despite all the bluster associated with their Super Bowl run the year previous, were a top-notch team with a lot of high-character guys.

Mr. D said...

I'd even argue that assault charges wouldn't be completely out of bounds.

That actually may happen, Brian. I was listening to an attorney on the radio on my drive home today and he thought there was a better chance of a criminal complaint than a civil complaint. And there is precedent; the Todd Bertuzzi case in hockey ended up with criminal charges and a conviction.

Bike Bubba said...

One of the things I'd love to see in any league; if a flagrant foul results in an injury to the other player, the fouler doesn't get to play again until the other player does--including season and career ending injuries.

Of course, before I watch the NFL much again, they're going to have to do something about the Cialis ads, too. Do we really need to discuss that over football?