Saints Player Suspensions Announced

[darb72]

I thought that there would be even more players punished, but Goodell says he went after the leaders of the bounty scheme.

Hard-nosed defense is what the Ravens are all about and yet I can't remember a single game where three hits against opponents wound up being fined like in the Vikes/Saints game. Then the Panthers/Saints game where Harper drilled Steve Smith two seconds after he crossed the goal line. Smith's knee-drop on Flacco.

I dislike Goodell a lot, but I think he's done a great job during this entire bounty scandal.

[Haloti92]

How can you say that it doesn't matter how much we know about what happened and then, in the same breath, ask me what a fair sentence would have been?

I can say it doesn't matter how much we know if all we are doing is discussing fair penalties for hypotheticals or guesses of what happened. If "not knowing" exactly what happened meant one couldn't talk about the penalty and its fairness then what are we doing here? No one could say it is fair and no one could say it is unfair.

I look at Vilma's sentence and I think to myself, the evidence against him must have been pretty damning. Williams and Payton both got pounded like that, and we have been led to believe they lied to investigators.

Well, I am not sure I agree that "damning" is necessary for a guy like Goodell (who has good intentions I am sure) to bring down the hammer (excessively in some people's opinions). As for Williams and Payton I consider them in an entirely different category. They give orders. The players follow them. And Williams is accused of (and apparently there is audiotape) mentioning cheap hits and targeting pre-existing injuries. Like I said, if Vilma "obstructed" then that could get me to change my mind. It isn't necessary for me to know whether he did or didn't obstruct to say that I think the penalty is too severe if all he did was reward legal hits, or to say I would consider it fair, or wouldn't have a problem with it, if he indeed obstructued after the fact.

Plus as I understand it he was, in the clubhouse, an advocate for the entire scheme.

No doubt in my mind about that. But to me the issue is the scheme, and what it was rewarding. And I stipulate that any scheme involving payment, even for legal in-game achievements, is against league rules.

I understand your point that the individual hits appear to have been, on a case-by-case basis, within the realm of NFL football.

I am more concerned with the message(s) given by Vilma regarding the scheme/reward to the defense. To me, it matters whether he said one sentence like "let's get after their QB and kick their azz, anyone who puts Favre on the sideline gets $10k from me" or rather, he headed 15 minute scheduled, habitual briefings detailing which opponents' ankles are gimpy and telling people to hit guys low and late and illegally to injure them (which is how Williams apparently sounded).

You don't appear to care that (a) there was an incentive to injure and cause "cart offs," or (b) this was circumventing the salary cap, or (c) there were lies and a cover up. Each of those things is an aggravating factor. If you reject that they *should* be aggravating factors, that's fine, but they are.

I care about all those things, as I have said. At no point have said he deserves no punishment. Not only do I care about a), apparently I am the only one who cares about whether, and would view differently if, the player was encouraging illegal hits or intentional serious injury rather than just saying "let's knock this important player out." To me the penalty for the former should be multiples more severe than the latter. But apparently I am the only one who thinks this between the two of us. As for b) I care very little about this, while admiting it is against the rules. This is why I mentioned the TD rewards as hypotheticals. To me, if that were all that happened, then the suspensions should have been minimal; maybe just the coaches, maybe Vilma for a game or two at most. As for c) I am not sure if Vilma lied or not; the media specifically mentions Hargrove as obstructing, but maybe everyone did to some extent. Like I said if Vilma engaged in a serious cover-up, like calling people and bribing or threatening or asking them to lie, etc, then my opinion about the suspension would change. Again, this is why I am asking those questions, as to what people feel is fair and what they think happened.

I find your dismissal of the lies and the cover up particularly troubling. These aren't six year olds with icing on their fingers claiming they didn't poke the birthday cake, this is serious and when the NFL investigators come calling the entire league should know there are serious consequences for failing to cooperate.

Except I haven't dismissed anything. In fact, once again, I said the exact opposite of what you are claiming. I said I would have less or no problem with the punishment if Vilma lied and covered up. I am not sure it is as serious as some are making it sound, but I understand Goodell wants to make an example of the situation to prevent it happening further, which is fine. We are talking about whether a one year, multi-million dollar penalty for a player is fair; this discussion can occur even if everyone agrees the issue is "serious."

In the end it's often the cover up that gets people in trouble. Al Capone lied on his tax forms to conceal the money he'd brought in, right? It's often the cover up that gets people.

Yeah, so it sounds like you are saying that you feel the penalty is fair assuming Vilma covered up. Which is what I have basically been saying for many posts.

I don't know what all the facts are leading to the one year suspension, so I don't feel compelled to answer your question about what would be fair. It would be kind of presumptuous of me.

Yet you are vehemently objecting to other people who think the penalty is unfair. And that would be fine if you just said "how do you know it is unfair when you don't know what happened," but that isn't what you have been doing. You have been talking about conspiracies and mentioning specific violations, despite not knowing what happened any more than anyone else. And as for being presumptuous, I completely disagree. It would be courteous of you. It would clarify where you stand, it would save a lot of time, and it wouldn't harm a soul. That is why they are hypotheticals, and you aren't under oath here, this is a message board. For all I know, you think a year suspension for a player is warranted if they set up a pay-for-TD pool; and if I knew that, there would no point for me to keep focusing on the what was actually being incentivized, the discussion would be over and we could agree to disagree.

[blah3]

blah, so what do you propose should have been vilmas punishment for putting down 10k to anyone who injured Warner (or favre i cant remember which)? they have video evidence off this... so whats the punishment? or is that allowed?

How about something equal to the punishment a player would have gotten for an illegal hit? Doesn't that seem more fair? A year is entirely too long.
EDIT:
I could see even doubling it if they covered it up.

[blah3]

I suppose I'll take you at you're word that you aren't some arrogant kid, which means you and I are both better off if I put you back on ignore.

From someone who questioned my maturity I find it painfully ironic that you decided to deal with a person who disagrees with you by ignoring said person. How does that work in real life for you? You just refuse to deal with people who you disagree with? That doesn't seem very mature to me.
But hey, you probably aren't reading this anyway.

[blah3]

No because if he was the only thing he would have to do is take a shot at his knees. If I am correct Suggs has the most hits on Ben as far as the Ravens goes and they are legal. As far as your sticker example you're in incorrect, players get stickers for performance not illegal hits. By your logic a FS would get a sticker if he gave up the winning touchdown but in the process of getting beat there is helmet to helmet contact which the player has to be carted off.. You're getting clean hard hitting confused with illegal hits especially targeting another players previous injury. I am sorry you're not understanding what everyone is trying to explain to you.

This goes back to my point about there not being a number or illegal hits. I've heard Kurt Warner brought up and guess what, that hit on him was perfectly legal. It was brutal, vicious and clean.
I've watched all the Brett Favre hits, and there is nothing in them to show that players were attempting to use illegal hits to 'take him out'.

[blah3]

Haloti92, you say "a large amount" of the evidence has leaked out.

You don't know who was interviewed, what they said, what bank records were reviewed, how many videos and audio recording were reviewed. Is "a large amount" more than half? Less than half? Less than a quarter? Less than your .1 percent?

I'll give you credit for having a more interesting position than blah3 did. At least you've thought about it and you're being responsive to us. In circles, and exaggerating and wrong, but at least you're trying.

Actually, we have pretty much the same argument. Except since I put in a grammatical error, you decided I was a teen and not worthy to have a discussion with you. Though I've seen that you apparently have issues with anyone you disagree with and has the nerve to type something incorrectly.

[Ravenswintitle]

I'm late to the thread but have to admit I was thinking maybe 3 games for Vilma. I don't think any of us (or at least very few) thought it would be this severe.

As in the penalties for Payton, Williams etc. I believe the continued denial and lying lead to this more than the acts themselves. if you get caught, don't lie about it.

[arnie_uk]

no... not when he put 10k down to take a player out, that alone deserves a year at least.. then there is the matter of lying and covering up, as well as the fact he tried (may not have succedded) to injure players on the pitch...

How about something equal to the punishment a player would have gotten for an illegal hit? Doesn't that seem more fair? A year is entirely too long.
EDIT:
I could see even doubling it if they covered it up.

[festivus]

*chuckle*

Haloti92, how am I supposed to have a conversation with you when you become more thorough, articulate, and courteous with every post?

I don't have anything to add.*

Carry on.

* edit: Not completely true. One thing to add: We know quite a bit about why Payton's and William's were as long as they were - lies, prior history, and so on - and in those cases the punishments seemed reasonable to me. We don't know why Vilma's was as long as it was, but recognizing that gap in knowledge I'm not going to say the punishment was too long. I can understand, though, if you assume there was nothing other than exhorting the other players to play hard and collect his own $10,000, you might say it was too long. There, that's the most direct answer you'll get out of me, h92.

[HoustonRaven]

Getting back to the penalty themselves, I admit I was stunned at the length of Vilmas.

I figured, at most, he'd get 6 games. I never thought he'd get a full season. In any event he's going to serve the whole thing. For one, I don't think Goodell is going to shorten it since he's being uncooperative. Second, in spite of Vilmas bluster, the last place he wants this to go is to court. This whole "I have not seen the evidence" is a smokescreen. The league offered all the players involved to see the evidence and they all refused. Refusing to see the evidence gives them the out.

[blah3]

no... not when he put 10k down to take a player out, that alone deserves a year at least.. then there is the matter of lying and covering up, as well as the fact he tried (may not have succedded) to injure players on the pitch...

Then we are just going to disagree.
IMO players are trying to 'take a player out' in every game. That's why they hit them as hard as they can each time. To inflict pain and intimidate. It seems you believe that Vilma had the intention of doing it illegally. I am not convinced of that.
You had a player fined 20,000 dollars for the Minn game, with the infamous bounty on Brett Favre. That's for what actually happened in the game, (though I would argue those hits as well). So a guy gets fined 20K and the guy who puts the bounty on the head gets a full 1 year suspension?

[arnie_uk]

so your trying to tell me, terrorists who plan attacks, are innocent until they actually carry them out?

Or if i tell someone and put 10k on the table to go and shoot you, i have done nothing wrong and deserve no punishment?

Then we are just going to disagree.
IMO players are trying to 'take a player out' in every game. That's why they hit them as hard as they can each time. To inflict pain and intimidate. It seems you believe that Vilma had the intention of doing it illegally. I am not convinced of that.
You had a player fined 20,000 dollars for the Minn game, with the infamous bounty on Brett Favre. That's for what actually happened in the game, (though I would argue those hits as well). So a guy gets fined 20K and the guy who puts the bounty on the head gets a full 1 year suspension?

[Haloti92]

so your trying to tell me, terrorists who plan attacks, are innocent until they actually carry them out?

Or if i tell someone and put 10k on the table to go and shoot you, i have done nothing wrong and deserve no punishment?

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."

[arnie_uk]

im talking about him laying down $10k to anyone who takes a player out... he is as bad as williams, he was an instigator

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."

[phacts]

Haloti92 +1

[Haloti92]

im talking about him laying down $10k to anyone who takes a player out... he is as bad as williams, he was an instigator

You were talking about "terrorist attacks" and "shooting people," which, like I said, is completely and crucially different from knocking a guy out of a football game.

[arnie_uk]

You were talking about "terrorist attacks" and "shooting people," which, like I said, is completely and crucially different from knocking a guy out of a football game.

the premise of being an instigator is still the same, which you clearly failed to see

[Haloti92]

the premise of being an instigator is still the same, which you clearly failed to see

One can "instigate" all manner of things. For example, Goodell "instigated" an investigation into this matter. As to what was "instigated" here, it was not mass murder, nor did it involve any guns.

[bmorecareful]

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."

Actually, there is. Attacking someone with intent to cause serious injury is aggravated battery, which is a felony in most jurisdictions, and is totally outside the scope of the sport. I doubt any criminal charges will be brought against anyone over Bountygate since no prosecutor will want to wade into this and adduce enough evidence to actually prove it in court, but there's prima facie evidence of a crime.

If two or more Saints players/coaches/etc. concocted a scheme to attack other players' ACLs, cause them brain damage, etc., that's a criminal conspiracy (or possibly criminal solicitation depending on the specifics of the situation.) In a criminal conspiracy it's irrelevant who actually commits the crime and it's not always even necessary to prove that the crime was committed. All you need is proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act which it looks pretty obvious that we have here.

Obviously we haven't seen all the facts of the Bountygate case but it seems ludicrous to suggest that nobody did anything against the rules or against the law. Looks pretty clear that the Saints conspirators were involved in some pretty flagrant violations here and the punishment looks to fit the crime IMO.

[Haloti92]

Actually, there is. Attacking someone with intent to cause serious injury is aggravated battery, which is a felony in most jurisdictions, and is totally outside the scope of the sport. I doubt any criminal charges will be brought against anyone over Bountygate since no prosecutor will want to wade into this and adduce enough evidence to actually prove it in court, but there's prima facie evidence of a crime.

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."

If two or more Saints players/coaches/etc. concocted a scheme to attack other players' ACLs, cause them brain damage, etc., that's a criminal conspiracy (or possibly criminal solicitation depending on the specifics of the situation.) In a criminal conspiracy it's irrelevant who actually commits the crime and it's not always even necessary to prove that the crime was committed. All you need is proof of an agreement to commit an illegal act which it looks pretty obvious that we have here.

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).

Obviously we haven't seen all the facts of the Bountygate case but it seems ludicrous to suggest that nobody did anything against the rules or against the law. Looks pretty clear that the Saints conspirators were involved in some pretty flagrant violations here and the punishment looks to fit the crime IMO.

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.