Saints Player Suspensions Announced

[arnie_uk]

and my orignial point remains.

The comment to Which I replied to, before you commented, said that he disagreed Vilma deserved a ban for throwing down $10k to take the QB out of the game. To which i referenced them criminal activites to give examples of instigating something.

How is vilma innocent, if he instigated injury to an opposing QB and then paying $10k for it?

Except we aren't talking about "attacks" at all. And we aren't talking about "outside the sport." Which is exactly the point. Players step onto the field entirely voluntarily, and as such, they accept a certain amount of risk of injury. There is a reason Ray Lewis was not arrested when he knocked Hines Ward out of the game last year. And in his case the hit was actually deemed "against the league rules."



Yeah, "schemes" to "cause" brain damage would be bad. How about schemes to legally hit a guy so hard that he happens to leave the game? Or are you implying they are the same thing? I don't see any "agreement" to "commit" any "illegal act" at all (in the case of Vilma, at least; and frankly from what has been made public, not in Williams case either, though it is closer since he mentioned specific injuries).



Violations of the "rules" is completely and entirely different than violations of criminal "law." And what is ludicrous is to equate a perfectly legal play according to both the football rules and the law to something that is against the rules and illegal. Simply put, every game players are forced to leave the game as a result of hits/contact. And every game there are not laws being broken.

As for people claiming that no one violated any "rules," I don't see many people doing that, certainly not me. As for the incentivizing and monetary rewards and circumventing the salary cap, totally against the rules. As for lying and covering up, etc about the circumventing, even worse.

But knocking a guy out during the game of football, assuming a clean hit, is absolutely within the rules, at least up to this point, maybe not in the future. It isn't an "attack" nor is it illegal "battery." Rewarding/incentivizing the "knocking out" is definitely against the rules.

My original statement stands: There is nothing against the rules/law about hitting a guy so hard he has to leave the game, unlike "terrorist attacks" and "shooting people." The incentivizing is a different issue, and as you can see, it isn't contained in my statemtent to which you responded.

[bmorecareful]

Except we aren't talking about "attacks" at all. And we aren't talking about "outside the sport." Which is exactly the point. Players step onto the field entirely voluntarily, and as such, they accept a certain amount of risk of injury. There is a reason Ray Lewis was not arrested when he knocked Hines Ward out of the game last year. And in his case the hit was actually deemed "against the league rules."

Accepting risk of injury doesn't relieve an injurer from liability if they intentionally injured a person. That's what you're not understanding here at all. There is a significant difference between tackling the ball-carrier as a football play (which is within the boundaries of the rules,) and attacking a particular part of a person's anatomy with intent to cause them serious injury (that's outside the boundaries of the rules.)

The NFL has credible evidence that the latter was happening--guys like Jonathan Vilma were offering money intended to solicit players intentionally causing others grievous physical harm in the form of hits to the head to cause concussions, hits low to target weak ankles and knees, etc. Those actions are illegal--it doesn't matter that they're occurring in the context of sports because they are totally outside the scope of the sport. It's also irrelevant whether they were flagged or not. Just because someone isn't punished doesn't mean they didn't do something that merits punishment.

You might want to Google Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals. The court ruled that a player does not give up his right to not be injured simply by consenting to play a game, in part because the game has boundaries and constraints wherein certain activities are clearly outside the scope of the game, such as players intentionally trying to injure other plays. That case is very relevant to this discussion.

In short, players never consent to being intentionally hurt when they agree to play the game. That case was of course in the context of civil law, not criminal law, but the principles still apply.

Yeah, "schemes" to "cause" brain damage would be bad. How about schemes to legally hit a guy so hard that he happens to leave the game? Or are you implying they are the same thing? I don't see any "agreement" to "commit" any "illegal act" at all (in the case of Vilma, at least; and frankly from what has been made public, not in Williams case either, though it is closer since he mentioned specific injuries).

Violations of the "rules" is completely and entirely different than violations of criminal "law." And what is ludicrous is to equate a perfectly legal play according to both the football rules and the law to something that is against the rules and illegal. Simply put, every game players are forced to leave the game as a result of hits/contact. And every game there are not laws being broken.

As for people claiming that no one violated any "rules," I don't see many people doing that, certainly not me. As for the incentivizing and monetary rewards and circumventing the salary cap, totally against the rules. As for lying and covering up, etc about the circumventing, even worse.

But knocking a guy out during the game of football, assuming a clean hit, is absolutely within the rules, at least up to this point, maybe not in the future. It isn't an "attack" nor is it illegal "battery." Rewarding/incentivizing the "knocking out" is definitely against the rules.

My original statement stands: There is nothing against the rules/law about hitting a guy so hard he has to leave the game, unlike "terrorist attacks" and "shooting people." The incentivizing is a different issue, and as you can see, it isn't contained in my statemtent to which you responded.

If you attack someone with the intent of injuring them, it's a crime, or (depending on the level of proof) in the very least a tort (wrongful act that violates someone's rights.) It's not part of football. Period. I think you're struggling to understand this point. It doesn't matter whether it was flagged or not, it doesn't matter that it happens all the time. What DOES matter is intent.

If Ray Lewis tackles Hines Ward with the intent of stopping him from advancing the ball, that's a football play and it doesn't matter whether he's flagged for leading with the helmet, etc. (since intent is never a required element in penalties.) But if Anthony Hargrove tackles Brett Favre low with the intent of breaking his ankle, that's NOT a football play, it's prohibited conduct, and whether he's flagged or not is irrelevant. It could be a "legal" football play by the definition you appear to be using, i.e. he wasn't flagged or fined. But whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with the punishment, only with the act itself.

Now, you might make a credible argument that it's very hard to prove intent. Oftentimes it is. But not in this case, because the NFL has a big pile of evidence that players went into games determined to hurt people so they could cash a fat check. That's some strong evidence of intent, about the strongest you'll find.

[arnie_uk]

Accepting risk of injury doesn't relieve an injurer from liability if they intentionally injured a person. That's what you're not understanding here at all. There is a significant difference between tackling the ball-carrier as a football play (which is within the boundaries of the rules,) and attacking a particular part of a person's anatomy with intent to cause them serious injury (that's outside the boundaries of the rules.)

The NFL has credible evidence that the latter was happening--guys like Jonathan Vilma were offering money intended to solicit players intentionally causing others grievous physical harm in the form of hits to the head to cause concussions, hits low to target weak ankles and knees, etc. Those actions are illegal--it doesn't matter that they're occurring in the context of sports because they are totally outside the scope of the sport. It's also irrelevant whether they were flagged or not. Just because someone isn't punished doesn't mean they didn't do something that merits punishment.

You might want to Google Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals. The court ruled that a player does not give up his right to not be injured simply by consenting to play a game, in part because the game has boundaries and constraints wherein certain activities are clearly outside the scope of the game, such as players intentionally trying to injure other plays. That case is very relevant to this discussion.

In short, players never consent to being intentionally hurt when they agree to play the game. That case was of course in the context of civil law, not criminal law, but the principles still apply.



If you attack someone with the intent of injuring them, it's a crime, or (depending on the level of proof) in the very least a tort (wrongful act that violates someone's rights.) It's not part of football. Period. I think you're struggling to understand this point. It doesn't matter whether it was flagged or not, it doesn't matter that it happens all the time. What DOES matter is intent.

If Ray Lewis tackles Hines Ward with the intent of stopping him from advancing the ball, that's a football play and it doesn't matter whether he's flagged for leading with the helmet, etc. (since intent is never a required element in penalties.) But if Anthony Hargrove tackles Brett Favre low with the intent of breaking his ankle, that's NOT a football play, it's prohibited conduct, and whether he's flagged or not is irrelevant. It could be a "legal" football play by the definition you appear to be using, i.e. he wasn't flagged or fined. But whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with the punishment, only with the act itself.

Now, you might make a credible argument that it's very hard to prove intent. Oftentimes it is. But not in this case, because the NFL has a big pile of evidence that players went into games determined to hurt people so they could cash a fat check. That's some strong evidence of intent, about the strongest you'll find.

the problem for some people is the wont believe anything until this evidence is made public, which it never will and nor has RG any obligation to make it.

Unless of course it goes to court

[Haloti92]

Accepting risk of injury doesn't relieve an injurer from liability if they intentionally injured a person. That's what you're not understanding here at all. There is a significant difference between tackling the ball-carrier as a football play (which is within the boundaries of the rules,) and attacking a particular part of a person's anatomy with intent to cause them serious injury (that's outside the boundaries of the rules.)

The NFL has credible evidence that the latter was happening--guys like Jonathan Vilma were offering money intended to solicit players intentionally causing others grievous physical harm in the form of hits to the head to cause concussions, hits low to target weak ankles and knees, etc. Those actions are illegal--it doesn't matter that they're occurring in the context of sports because they are totally outside the scope of the sport. It's also irrelevant whether they were flagged or not. Just because someone isn't punished doesn't mean they didn't do something that merits punishment.

You might want to Google Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals. The court ruled that a player does not give up his right to not be injured simply by consenting to play a game, in part because the game has boundaries and constraints wherein certain activities are clearly outside the scope of the game, such as players intentionally trying to injure other plays. That case is very relevant to this discussion.

In short, players never consent to being intentionally hurt when they agree to play the game. That case was of course in the context of civil law, not criminal law, but the principles still apply.



If you attack someone with the intent of injuring them, it's a crime, or (depending on the level of proof) in the very least a tort (wrongful act that violates someone's rights.) It's not part of football. Period. I think you're struggling to understand this point. It doesn't matter whether it was flagged or not, it doesn't matter that it happens all the time. What DOES matter is intent.

If Ray Lewis tackles Hines Ward with the intent of stopping him from advancing the ball, that's a football play and it doesn't matter whether he's flagged for leading with the helmet, etc. (since intent is never a required element in penalties.) But if Anthony Hargrove tackles Brett Favre low with the intent of breaking his ankle, that's NOT a football play, it's prohibited conduct, and whether he's flagged or not is irrelevant. It could be a "legal" football play by the definition you appear to be using, i.e. he wasn't flagged or fined. But whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with the punishment, only with the act itself.

Now, you might make a credible argument that it's very hard to prove intent. Oftentimes it is. But not in this case, because the NFL has a big pile of evidence that players went into games determined to hurt people so they could cash a fat check. That's some strong evidence of intent, about the strongest you'll find.

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 (including Ray on Ward) 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? Is the guy lying by making this statement? 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."

As for Hackbart v. Bengals, that case essentially hinged on the "legality" of the hit according to NFL rules.

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.

[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.

[RavenousD]

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?