Saints started 4-1, then Payton broke his leg during the Tampa Bay game. They ended up losing that game. They blasted the Colts, then lost to the winless Rams. After that, Payton made his way back to the sidelines, and the Saints didn't lose again until the 49ers game.
I'd say things don't look great for the Saints.
You're judging Carmichael's success on 3 games? Not sure if you watched the Rams game, but they simply didn't show up after trouncing the Colts. They thought they were entitled to the win because of the previous week performance. It had nothing to do with Carmichael.
Also, as I stated, Carmichael stared plays calls with Payton upon his return so he has to get some credit for the winning streak as well.
Do you really think that the chump change (by their standards) they were putting into this was really their motivation?
I swear, this place is filled with some of the most dense sheeple around.
are you fucking retarded? It makes a difference legally, I don't think it made a difference at all with play on the field, but it's highly illegal activity to pay someone to injure another person, and therefore, threatens the league and the vast sums of money it produces. Not only that, but it harms the image of the league as well.
The last thing the NFL wanted to do was to bring this all up, in fact they tried to control it recently within the last several years by sending out private memos to teams to tell them to stop. So yes, pay for performance programs have gone on forever, but only relatively recently has the NFL tried to stop it, especially with respect to injuring players. The Saints and other teams probably still continued it, but when the league actively contacted the Saints and their owner to stop it, they did not stop.
The reason this ruling was so punishing isn't really simply because the Saints participated in a bounty program, it's because they actively defied the league and tried to deceive and mislead the league in their investigation, as stated in Goodell's ruling. If you try to mislead and trick/lie to the league office, of course you're going to get your ass handed to you on a plate, as it should be. There ought to be a sever deterrent against lying to the league.
Uh oh, Gregg Williams was caught on a voice recorder in a defensive team meeting where he told his defenders to target specific players and specific body parts for injuries before they played the 49ers:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...lliams-urged-saints-to-injure-49ers/#comments
if you don't think this happens anyways, then you have to be the most naive sports fan ever...
if you don't think this happens anyways, then you have to be the most naive sports fan ever...
The NFL is gonna laugh in their faces during the "appeal" process.
There should be criminal charges. That black girl got arrested for beating on that white girl in that soccer video. This is no different other than the scope of it and the similarities to organized crime instead of sports..
There should be criminal charges. That black girl got arrested for beating on that white girl in that soccer video. This is no different other than the scope of it and the similarities to organized crime instead of sports..
tl;dr: Since illegal hits in a game involving consensual violent contact are foreseeable and since penalties for such have been agreed upon by private parties, no players engaging in bounties for foreseeable on-field actions should be criminally liable. Motive for causing injury is legally irrelevant.
In general, if you intentionally hit someone, you are guilty of a battery (a criminal offense)
However, there are circumstances where your behavior is "excused" -- two of the most common excuses are (1) you are defending yourself from an aggressor and (2) the "victim" gave his consent for you to hit him
Undoubtedly, every NFL player has given his consent to be hit during a game by any other NFL player during the course of a game just like a boxer gives his consent to be punched by an opponent.
Now, there are certain "hits" that are not within the rules of the game -- faskmasking, chop-blocking, hands to the face, spearing, late hits, scuffling, fighting, etc. Consequences for illegal hits are executed both during and after games. Penalties range from yellow flags to fines and suspensions.
Every player recognizes that illegal hits are natural by-products of a violent game where large men are moving at full speed with the intent to cause contact. That is, these types of "illegal" hits are foreseeable actions by opposing players. There is implicit legal consent for players to be hit illegally to the extent that the penalties for such actions are essentially contracted for, as proscribed by the NFL rulebook and by the commissioner, who is the final arbiter of any penalties.
Therefore, foreseeable hits carried out on the football field, whether "legal" or not according to the rules of football, are governed by rules agreed-upon by private parties, as opposed to public criminal statutes and common law.
Unforeseeable hits, which are those that would be wholly unexpected on a football field, would not be consented to and therefore, would be governed by public law. For example, it is entirely unforeseeable to be shot or stabbed on the football field. Neither action has a rational connection to the game of football, and players would not be expected to assume the risk of such actions occurring in the course of a game.
On the "intent" issue...
That a given player indends to cause violent contact carrying a high risk of hurting or injuring another player is enough to establish "scienter", or the knowledge of wrongdoing.
It is immaterial whether a player's intent is to simply tackle or block, to harm, or to injure, another player. Legally, we don't care since the consented actions of players inherently carry an extremely high degree of violence and risk of injury. Likewise, when general intent is established, the motivation behind the intent -- e.g., monetary reward -- is irrelevant. Motive plays a part in homicide, not battery.
Essentially, the only legal reason for criminally prosecuting players who have agreed to bounties on other players is that the consent to hit such players was obtained through "fraud." That is, a bountied player has not consented to other players receiving monetary rewards for injuring him.
But this is a weak argument given that intent to cause grave and violent contact on every play of every game has already been consented to. Illegal hits (i.e., the effects of bounties) that have the sole intent of injuring another player are already governed by agreed-upon rules and regulations of the NFL.
So while the NFL is well within its rights to punish any sort of conspiracy for producing illegal hits, the contractual/consensual nature of the foreseeable on-field activity renders players immune from criminal prosecution in any event.
All NFL players sign legal waiver forms with full knowledge and consent that they may get a career (and possibly even life) ending hit at any point. There's a high possibility that this will not get legal.
I highly doubt most coaches say, 'target <player's> acl'. That's pretty despicable.
Also, it's my understanding that most bounties are led by players and coaches don't get involved.
NEW ORLEANS -- The suspensions of Jonathan Vilma and three other players in the NFL's bounty investigation were lifted Friday by a three-member appeals panel and the league reinstated those players a few minutes later.
The panel said commissioner Roger Goodell did not have jurisdiction to hear the players' appeals of their punishment for their roles in the New Orleans Saints bounty program that paid cash bonuses for hits that injured opponents.
ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter says suspended players Jonathan Vilma, Will Smith, Anthony Hargrove and Scott Fujita won a major legal victory and are eligible to play on Sunday.
The ruling clears Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove to play this weekend.
"Consistent with the panel's decision, commissioner Goodell will, as directed, make an expedited determination of the discipline imposed for violating the league's pay-for-performance/bounty rule. Until that determination is made, the four players are reinstated and eligible to play starting this weekend," the NFL said in a statement.
cool, so no punishment for such savage behavior.
good to see.
You clearly did not read anything related to the article.
Arbitrators said that Goddell was out of line because he acted as prosecutor, judge, and jury for the original ruling AND the appeal.
The players have sworn under oath in federal court they did not intend to hurt other players. They are in much bigger trouble if they actually did.