Support NeoGAF

[Invisible_Insane]

Good question although I don't imagine the results matter, just the intent behind the actions.

I'm not trying to say that the intent doesn't matter. Just that I don't see how an insignificant financial reward would make any difference.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I'm not trying to say that the intent doesn't matter. Just that I don't see how an insignificant financial reward would make any difference.

Because football is a game, not a gladiator match. Concern for player safety is the highest it's ever been in the league. We're just now starting to learn (or at least pay attention to) about the effects that multiple concussions, injuries, etc. have had on aging stars.

One (weak) argument is that, every single team does this, and only the Saints got caught. Most players don't go out there and try to end someone's career. You'll always have your exceptions.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm not trying to say that the intent doesn't matter. Just that I don't see how an insignificant financial reward would make any difference.

Do it for the team? I have no idea either.

 

[HeySeuss]

You shut your whore mouth!

Come over to the dark side. It's more fun and there are gift bags.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

can we like....organize all this shit into a list of most important, to least flying fuck given, and force the government to stick to it? I mean we all pay their salaries right?

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Because football is a game, not a gladiator match. Concern for player safety is the highest it's ever been in the league. We're just now starting to learn (or at least pay attention to) about the effects that multiple concussions, injuries, etc. have had on aging stars.

One (weak) argument is that, every single team does this, and only the Saints got caught. Most players don't go out there and try to end someone's career. You'll always have your exceptions.

You'll note that that's not my argument. My point is two-fold: first, as far as we know, there's no material evidence that having bounties in place produces a significant increase in risk of player injury. I do realize that's not the point.

More importantly: the incentives that exist to attempt injure a player on an opposing team are not significantly altered by these incentives. If a player is determined to win at any cost, the presence or absence of an incentive program is unlikely to produce a significant difference in his behavior. I don't know much about football, but consider the example of James Harrison two or three years. As far as we know, there were no financial incentives in place for him to attempt to injure players--quite the opposite, in fact. And despite repeated warnings, fines, suspensions (I don't remember if this happened), he continued to play in a way that threatened the health and safety of opposing players. What reason is there to believe that a tiny financial incentive would have modified his behavior?

 

[Anton Sugar]

More importantly: the incentives that exist to attempt injure a player on an opposing team are not significantly altered by these incentives. If a player is determined to win at any cost, the presence or absence of an incentive program is unlikely to produce a significant difference in his behavior. I don't know much about football, but consider the example of James Harrison two or three years. As far as we know, there were no financial incentives in place for him to attempt to injure players--quite the opposite, in fact. And despite repeated warnings, fines, suspensions (I don't remember if this happened), he continued to play in a way that threatened the health and safety of opposing players. What reason is there to believe that a tiny financial incentive would have modified his behavior?

I disagree with the bolded. James Harrison might act like that, but the majority of players are aware of the rules designed to promote player safety, so they will/do "pull" back if possible. You have players with the hard-nosed, "I'm going to murder the opposing team" attitude, and you have those who just want to win and do it fairly. Who knows what the actual numbers are, but a lot of players respect each other and enjoy playing with and against each other.

All it takes to win is preventing the other team from making plays. This could involve taking them out of the game, or just being better than them and preventing/stopping plays. The Saints went so far as to name specific players to "take out".

Harrison is/was a phenomenal player, but a poor example when we're discussing concerns for player safety.

 

[Rentahamster]

Don't really get the "more important things" comments. A senate is supposed to tackle a lot of issues every year, not just a small handful. Not to mention the republicans are in power and are a party of solving problems by doing nothing, AND not to mention plans to solve major problems are already underway.

If they need to make up controversies in order to hold hearings in an effort to appear like they have shit to do, then that is a waste of time and money.

We need to hold them to a higher standard than this.

 

[mre]

Come over to the dark side. It's more fun and there are gift bags.

Look, we can talk about a +1 system all day long. But keep that "p" word away from major college football.

 

[FyreWulff]

For me it is more what do they hope to accomplish? The NFL and NHL are probably the only sports that need to worry about bounties and both of these sports are aggressively fining and suspending players for certain violent actions. I just don't see what the government is going to do that the various Leagues aren't already doing themselves.

Congress can take away their monopoly exemption. As long as they want the draft etc, Congress has control over their activities.

Also, technically the bounty system WAS conducted across state lines, so it's their jurisdiction anyway.

 

[sangreal]

Well, it is a form of gambling in addition to the safety issues.

 

[mre]

Well, it is a form of gambling in addition to the safety issues.

I'm sure the Federal government is also interested in whether the players who received the bounties reported that additional income on their tax return.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Fuckin' Durbin. The man is a sham.

 

[tuna on toast]

Did it happen? And more importantly, did it happen at a rate that significantly exceeded injuries incurred by teams playing without a bounty system in place?

no

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

"Focus on the fights we can win, not the fights we must win."

 

[FyreWulff]

I'm sure the Federal government is also interested in whether the players who received the bounties reported that additional income on their tax return.

From what I read the NFL is also considering it a rule break as extra compensation outside of their contract, in addition to the other rules.

 

[mre]

From what I read the NFL is also considering it a rule break as extra compensation outside of their contract, in addition to the other rules.

I don't see how it could be considered anything other than that, but I'd rather have the NFL pissed at me than the IRS.

 

[oxrock]

Quite honestly, I couldn't find a "firstworldproblems.jpg" dumb enough to express my feelings on this. I think it's bogus that people are being given incentives to intentionally hurt each other and this should be stopped. I'd be all for having the police involved, sounds like premeditated assault. I don't think the senate should be looking into fucking sports however. Focus on kony or something at least, sheesh.

 

[akira28]

Don't they have better things to do?

Of course not. Sports are a sacred blah blah blah. Yeah I can't do this with a straight face. They're avoiding doing actual work by doing this and the doping scandal bullshit. But you know, bread and circuses, etc. Fuck them all.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I disagree with the bolded. James Harrison might act like that, but the majority of players are aware of the rules designed to promote player safety, so they will/do "pull" back if possible. You have players with the hard-nosed, "I'm going to murder the opposing team" attitude, and you have those who just want to win and do it fairly. Who knows what the actual numbers are, but a lot of players respect each other and enjoy playing with and against each other.

All it takes to win is preventing the other team from making plays. This could involve taking them out of the game, or just being better than them and preventing/stopping plays. The Saints went so far as to name specific players to "take out".

Harrison is/was a phenomenal player, but a poor example when we're discussing concerns for player safety.

Harrison is precisely the right example for my point, which is that the presence or absence of this particular incentive likely has little to do with the occurrence of the relevant behavior. Just as there are players on teams without incentive structures who play in ways that are likely to be damaging to players on opposing teams, I'm sure there were players on teams with incentives in place who nonetheless refused to conduct themselves in a way that would be injurious to their opponents. The incentive in question is too small to matter.

Another point: it bears pointing out that injuring opposing players to some non-incapacitating extent is a routine element of legitimate defensive play (e.g. wearing down the quarterback through consistent pressure). So the argument here is over the extent to which it is acceptable to injure players on the opposing team, not whether such action is acceptable at all.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Don't they have better things to do?

This is what everyone says any time Congress does anything they don't like or personally care about. It seems reasonably important enough to me. They really don't have as much to do as you're imagining.

 

[charsace]

They'll do anything to take attention away from important issues.