Good thing Gregg Williams didn't take the Packer Job...

[pbmax]

Were any of the plays that caused injury far outside the rules of the game? Were the players fined? Were they even penalized? If the plays occurred without the "bounty" system, would there have been a cause of action?

If players had been targeted, but without the bounty, the league would not have made a big deal about it, and no one would be suggesting civil liability. The fact that there was a bounty does not change the legal culpability, in my opinion.

Physical intimidation is and always will be a part of the game. Focusing that on key players from the other team is and will always be a part of the game. Teams often hide or misreport injuries to protect players from other teams going at the injury.

Trying to put a player out of a game is not unique to a bounty system, and it is a risk assumed by all participants in a contact sport. Defensive players have been trying to knock QBs out of the game forever.

I agree that the bounties would not be trump in a court case about this, but criminal charges have been leveled and successfully prosecuted against hockey players for egregious conduct on the ice (though the case I am thinking about was in Canada). So its not far fetched. It's simply not a slam dunk only to have been on such a list.

Reggie White turning Brett Favre's arm to land squarely on his shoulder might not get you there. But to do it after identifying Favre as a target and being offered extra-legal and extra-rule monetary incentives to do so could be enough. Especially after a public admission that that was precisely what you intended to do.

Injuring Favre's non-throwing shoulder might not have been enough to initiate an action. But if it had been his head or knee and took him out of the game, I could see it. And in the civil cases, the threshold of proof would be lower.

[swede]

Reggie White turning Brett Favre's arm to land squarely on his shoulder might not get you there. But to do it after identifying Favre as a target and being offered extra-legal and extra-rule monetary incentives to do so could be enough. Especially after a public admission that that was precisely what you intended to do.

?

What year was this, old timer?

[K-town]

1992.

[Patler]

I agree that the bounties would not be trump in a court case about this, but criminal charges have been leveled and successfully prosecuted against hockey players for egregious conduct on the ice (though the case I am thinking about was in Canada). So its not far fetched. It's simply not a slam dunk only to have been on such a list.

Reggie White turning Brett Favre's arm to land squarely on his shoulder might not get you there. But to do it after identifying Favre as a target and being offered extra-legal and extra-rule monetary incentives to do so could be enough. Especially after a public admission that that was precisely what you intended to do.

Injuring Favre's non-throwing shoulder might not have been enough to initiate an action. But if it had been his head or knee and took him out of the game, I could see it. And in the civil cases, the threshold of proof would be lower.

The hockey incidents I know of have all been the result of extremely egregious conduct, most involved going after a player with their stick. Typically, the players received long suspensions by the league before any legal action occurred. Even so, by and large the cases have amounted to little of nothing in the criminal courts. Most have been dismissed, or resulted in small fines. I'm not aware of any significant civil litigation that was successfully completed, even when players careers were ended.

But, there is a real good example from hockey, Todd Bertuzzi's attack on Steve Moore:

- Moore hit a Vancouver player (Naslund) causing a concussion and elbow injury. The hit was at center ice, no penalty on the play, reviewed after by the league and ruled to be a legal hit.
- Vancouver coaches and players were incensed, criticized it openly, and said they would go after Moore. One of Naslund's linemates put up a bounty on Moore, and it was well-known at the time. Bertuzzi was very vocal about it, too. So much so that:
- League officials came to the next game between the teams, to try to maintain control. Nothing happened.
- In a later game that season, players went after Moore. Moore accepted a fight very early in the game. Traditionally, that should have been the end of it. Vancouver stood up for it's scorer (Naslund) and Moore defended his own honor by taking an early fight challenge. But Bertuzzi kept going after Moore the rest of the game. Moore didn't take the bait early from Bertuzzi.
- As Moore was skating rather nonchalantly late in the game, Bertuzzi came from behind, grabbed Moore, sucker punched him to the back of the head, threw him to the ice and jumped on him as other players also piled on.
- Moore was seriously injured, laid on the ice a long time, and has never played since. It ended his career.
- Bertuzzi was in tears the next day, apologizing profusely.
- Within a couple days, the NHL suspended Bertuzzi indefinitely and the team was fined.
- The IHF also suspended Bertuzzi so he couldn't play in any international leagues or world play (Important because of the lockout).
- Bertuzzi was reinstated about a year and a half later.

Criminal charges against Bertuzzi amounted to little of nothing, plea bargained down to community service. An interesting aspect of the case was that a probation sentence for assault in Canada would have prevented Bertuzzi from being where Moore was, so if Moore had been able to play, Bertuzzi could not have played against him. Since Moore's career was ended, this amounted to nothing.

Moore sued Bertuzzi both in Colorado and in Ontario. The US case was dismissed. The last I heard, the Canadian case is still pending, 8 years after the fact.

Bertuzzi still plays.

[pbmax]

I was specifically referring to Bertuzzi. The US civil case was dismissed because the judge ruled that it should be filed in Canada, not because it was without merit. The Canadian case was filed two years after the incident, so it has been ongoing for 6 years, not eight and there have been reports of two settlement offers made and not accepted. One of those settlement offers was facilitated by the Commissioner and if Wikipedia is to be believed, the plaintiff hasn't asked for the case to begin until all remaining medical issues are known. Its possible it will amount to nothing, but at least both sides agree it was worth settling for some amount of money.

I think the fact that Bertuzzi was charged and plea bargained to guilty of assault and battery speaks for itself. Whether Bertuzzi paid a heavy price or not, he plead guilty in court.

Bertuzzi claims he was encouraged in the attack by his coach at the time. The team and coach denied this. There is no evidence that I know of that the Canucks had a system of reimbursing players for retaliatory hits, and so the bounty would appear to be either a one time thing or on an ad hoc basis.

In the case of people targeted by the Saints, there is a record of both penalties and fines for hits on players who were on the bounty list. There is a publicly acknowledged system for reimbursing players (whether money actually changed hands and changed hands for those incidents is unknown to me). The system was run by an assistant coach, and known to the Head Coach, General Manager and the Owner. They were dumb enough to keep a record of contributions in email. Some of them may have been dumb enough to have kept a record of who was on the list, or who got paid what, elsewhere.

I think there is a case there for anyone willing to go there, though as I said, there may not be as obvious a victim (or as big a financial loss) as Moore.

[Lurker64]

Wouldn't any lawsuits raised by players injured by Gregg Williams defenses be contested in civil court where the burden of proof is significantly lower? All you would have to prove that Williams's players are liable for damages in civil court is that they are more culpable than not.

I imagine a good lawyer (and Peyton Manning could hire good lawyers) could make that case.

[sharpe1027]

If you can cobble together enough of an argument to make it to the Jury, anything can happen. Just ask OJ or Casey Anthony.

[Patler]

I was specifically referring to Bertuzzi. The US civil case was dismissed because the judge ruled that it should be filed in Canada, not because it was without merit. The Canadian case was filed two years after the incident, so it has been ongoing for 6 years, not eight and there have been reports of two settlement offers made and not accepted. One of those settlement offers was facilitated by the Commissioner and if Wikipedia is to be believed, the plaintiff hasn't asked for the case to begin until all remaining medical issues are known. Its possible it will amount to nothing, but at least both sides agree it was worth settling for some amount of money.

Not sure if you intended this as a rebuttal to something I wrote or not, but I didn't write or intend to suggest that the US case was dismissed on merit, just that it was dismissed, to make it clear that it no longer exists in active form. The dismissal speaks neither to the merit or nonmerit of the case.

As to the case in Canada, again I didn't say the Canadian case was pending 8 years, I said it was still pending eight years after the fact, ie. the event alleged as the basis for the cause of action. That's a long time, even for Canada were civil litigation tends to drag on a long time. (I have some experience with the Canadian court system, albeit a lot out of date by now! ) It's especially long for a plaintiff who can no longer play, so lost his then form of income.

I don't put a lot of stock in early settlement offers being any sort of indicator of the merit of the case for a defendent. They generally relate more to what the party thinks it might spend even if found without liability, or with minimal liability than it does on an estimate of value in the c.o.a. In Canada you have an additional factor as a defendant that you will be assessed for a reasonable amount of the other party's legal fees, even if the judgement is small. You can be correct in assessing your liability as small, but still have to write a pretty hefty check at the end of the case.

I think the fact that Bertuzzi was charged and plea bargained to guilty of assault and battery speaks for itself. Whether Bertuzzi paid a heavy price or not, he plead guilty in court.

Actually, I think it is just the opposite. This was a pretty blatant attack. He, his team mates and even some of the coaches "announced" that they would get even with Moore. The league was trying to guard against it, with top officials at their games, but it happened anyway. Everyone's conduct for the entire game was memorialized on tape for all to see. What did he get as a penalty? A couple weeks of community service as I recall, and probation for one year. If memory serves me correctly, his record was to be expunged if he made it through the probation without incident. Why wouldn't you accept that offer from the prosecutor, even if you thought yourself completely innocent? I sure would, because there is always a risk of the finder of fact deciding against you if you go to trial.

Bertuzzi claims he was encouraged in the attack by his coach at the time. The team and coach denied this. There is no evidence that I know of that the Canucks had a system of reimbursing players for retaliatory hits, and so the bounty would appear to be either a one time thing or on an ad hoc basis.

There was a well-announced intent to get the one guy, however, and a bounty on him. The coach, GM and players all spoke publicly about it. The league went to the effort of sending people to games to try and stop it, with the top league officials at the first rematch between them. It was in the papers and talked about before it even happened. It was a much more blatant undertaking than what the Saints did, but it was focused on just one guy

In the case of people targeted by the Saints, there is a record of both penalties and fines for hits on players who were on the bounty list. There is a publicly acknowledged system for reimbursing players (whether money actually changed hands and changed hands for those incidents is unknown to me). The system was run by an assistant coach, and known to the Head Coach, General Manager and the Owner. They were dumb enough to keep a record of contributions in email. Some of them may have been dumb enough to have kept a record of who was on the list, or who got paid what, elsewhere.

I think there is a case there for anyone willing to go there, though as I said, there may not be as obvious a victim (or as big a financial loss) as Moore.

But, in my opinion, it still come down to whether or not there was any action by a player that was so outside the course of normal play that it exposed the injured player to risk well beyond that he naturally assumes by being a pro football player.

As I said, I doubt the hit list in and of itself would have been as big of a deal. They exist at all levels in contact sports, whether spoken or unspoken. The fact a reward system existed specifically violates league rules, apparently, but if the players still perform within the generally accepted parameters, I don't see how it makes anyone more culpable just because they got paid.

If Favre, for example, got knocked out on a legal hit, how is there liability even if the bounty system existed?

Were any Saints suspended or fined (significantly) for their play that year? I don't recall, but I don't remember thinking of them as being a "dirty" team.

[Freak Out]

Man......I let football fall off the radar for a couple of weeks and the shit hits the fan. Can't say I'm surprised by any of this.....we've all seen it before. It wouldn't surprise me if their wasn't a suspension as well as big fines.

[MJZiggy]

So I have a question: if the league comes down hard on these teams and they start losing draft picks--let's say to make things easy that the combined enforcement means that 10 picks are lost--what happens to those 10 picks. Are there 10 players who would have been drafted who are now left on the street or is there another way to distribute those picks?

[Joemailman]

So I have a question: if the league comes down hard on these teams and they start losing draft picks--let's say to make things easy that the combined enforcement means that 10 picks are lost--what happens to those 10 picks. Are there 10 players who would have been drafted who are now left on the street or is there another way to distribute those picks?

The picks won't be distributed. There will just be fewer picks. It's probably not that big a deal though since those last players who don't get picked will likely be signed by someone as UDFA's. Sometimes those players are better off since they can choose what team they go to.

[woodbuck27]

The hockey incidents I know of have all been the result of extremely egregious conduct, most involved going after a player with their stick. Typically, the players received long suspensions by the league before any legal action occurred. Even so, by and large the cases have amounted to little of nothing in the criminal courts. Most have been dismissed, or resulted in small fines. I'm not aware of any significant civil litigation that was successfully completed, even when players careers were ended.

But, there is a real good example from hockey, Todd Bertuzzi's attack on Steve Moore:

- Moore hit a Vancouver player (Naslund) causing a concussion and elbow injury. The hit was at center ice, no penalty on the play, reviewed after by the league and ruled to be a legal hit.
- Vancouver coaches and players were incensed, criticized it openly, and said they would go after Moore. One of Naslund's linemates put up a bounty on Moore, and it was well-known at the time. Bertuzzi was very vocal about it, too. So much so that:
- League officials came to the next game between the teams, to try to maintain control. Nothing happened.
- In a later game that season, players went after Moore. Moore accepted a fight very early in the game. Traditionally, that should have been the end of it. Vancouver stood up for it's scorer (Naslund) and Moore defended his own honor by taking an early fight challenge. But Bertuzzi kept going after Moore the rest of the game. Moore didn't take the bait early from Bertuzzi.
- As Moore was skating rather nonchalantly late in the game, Bertuzzi came from behind, grabbed Moore, sucker punched him to the back of the head, threw him to the ice and jumped on him as other players also piled on.
- Moore was seriously injured, laid on the ice a long time, and has never played since. It ended his career.
- Bertuzzi was in tears the next day, apologizing profusely.
- Within a couple days, the NHL suspended Bertuzzi indefinitely and the team was fined.
- The IHF also suspended Bertuzzi so he couldn't play in any international leagues or world play (Important because of the lockout).
- Bertuzzi was reinstated about a year and a half later.

Criminal charges against Bertuzzi amounted to little of nothing, plea bargained down to community service. An interesting aspect of the case was that a probation sentence for assault in Canada would have prevented Bertuzzi from being where Moore was, so if Moore had been able to play, Bertuzzi could not have played against him. Since Moore's career was ended, this amounted to nothing.

Moore sued Bertuzzi both in Colorado and in Ontario. The US case was dismissed. The last I heard, the Canadian case is still pending, 8 years after the fact.

Bertuzzi still plays.

Here is the way it was:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz9RE9RGrVY

[woodbuck27]

So I have a question: if the league comes down hard on these teams and they start losing draft picks--let's say to make things easy that the combined enforcement means that 10 picks are lost--what happens to those 10 picks. Are there 10 players who would have been drafted who are now left on the street or is there another way to distribute those picks?

Sticking with that number or Ten. There would be ten less college players drafted (ten picks omitted from the Colllege Draft) and presumably these ten unidentifiable College players would consequently become UFA's (Undrafted free Agents).

[Lurker64]

So I have a question: if the league comes down hard on these teams and they start losing draft picks--let's say to make things easy that the combined enforcement means that 10 picks are lost--what happens to those 10 picks. Are there 10 players who would have been drafted who are now left on the street or is there another way to distribute those picks?

When the league takes away picks as a penalty, those picks just disappear. When the Patriots lost a first round pick from Spygate, there were only 31 picks in the first round and the rest of the draft went along as usual.

Normally there are 256 picks in a draft, but in 2008 (the Spygate year) the Patriots lost a first round pick due to spygate, the 49ers lost a 5th round pick due to a tampering charge, and the Chargers and Ravens gave up picks in the 2007 supplemental draft, so there were 252 picks.

Since the difference between being a 7th round pick and an undrafted free agent is not generally significant, there was no recompense given to the four players who were not drafted but would have otherwise been.

[woodbuck27]

I heard there was a $10,000 bounty on Favre in that playoff game!

These bounties are nothing new. I have no problem with guys pooling monies to pay teammates for INTs and such but purposely injuring another player is beyond the pale.

I agreee but then you get this reaction to this issue:


Updated: March 5, 2012, 3:21 PM ET

NFL should pay all players in bounties


Comments196


By DJ Gallo Page 2

I couldn't get the LINK to work in this post so I will include the entire article and ask you all.Is this fella (the writer - DJ Gallo) entirely serious?



Getty ImagesDon't hide, Gregg Williams. That alleged "bounty" system might have its place in the NFL yet.



The bounty program the Saints had in place the past three seasons is the talk of the NFL. But as much as the league might wish it so, the Saints are not the only team that offered player bounties.


NFL Security is asking former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams about bounty programs in Washington and Buffalo. Linebacker Bart Scott, who has spent his career with the Ravens and Jets, says bounties have been common during his career. Retired players say bounties have always existed.


Instead of punishing the Saints and opening up a can of worms that might force the NFL to punish every team in the sport, the league should instead embrace bounties.


An NFL full of bounties would be a far better product. Here's how it would work.


Base salaries + bounties



The NFL already has base salaries in place. The minimum for rookies in 2012 is $390,000. That basement increases to $465,000 for players with one year of experience on up to a minimum salary of $925,000 for veterans with 10-plus years in the league.


The existing salary structure could be kept as is, or every player could be paid a base salary of $500,000 regardless of experience. Either way, no player could make less than the minimum -- but the only way to make more would be to perform well on the field by accruing bounties. There would be no massive salaries for Peyton Manning or Chris Johnson or Albert Haynesworth. The only way to get rich would be to collect bounty bonuses.


The benefits of such a system are obvious:


• Player pay based on merit, not past performance


• No underpaid players


• No overpaid players


• An increased quality of play, with everyone playing for their paycheck on every snap


But the positives don't stop there.


Veteran players



[+] Enlarge Jerry Lai/US Presswire"Everyone to the end zone! Papa needs a new flat-screen TV."




Under a bounty-based player-payment system, the Colts would not be in the difficult position of deciding whether they want to keep franchise legend Peyton Manning. He would get his base salary, and if he could come back, show he's healthy and perform at his 2010 level -- say, 33 touchdowns at $200,000 per -- that would be $6.6 million right there, not including his base salary plus any other bounties available to him (game-winning drives, beating the Patriots, winning a playoff game). Whatever. Since Jim Irsay would be involved in the negotiation, Manning likely would be offered a substantial bounty in exchange for joining Twitter and retweeting his team owner.


With Manning locked in, the Colts still could draft Andrew Luck and have him on hand in case the veteran can't perform. They wouldn't be stuck paying two quarterbacks a huge salary. Whoever plays would make money; whoever doesn't would make the minimum.


Fan favorites on the obvious downside of their careers could stick around longer under the bounty system as well. The Steelers wouldn't have had to cut Hines Ward. Keep him for the $500,000 base and offer a $100,000 bounty for every touchdown and a $200,000 bounty for every Ravens player felled by a block. At the very least, the fans would be happy and Ward would barely dent the team's payroll; at the most, Ward would play with the joy and energy of a man half his age, pulling in touchdowns and knocking out rivals at a frightening clip.


Rookie players



Without huge guaranteed contracts for top picks, teams would no longer be financially doomed by busts. Instantly productive players such as Cam Newton and Andy Dalton would earn pay they deserved. Underperforming players such as JaMarcus Russell and Blaine Gabbert would have to survive on the league minimum, forcing them to make difficult personal financial decisions -- decisions that could compel them to abandon their expensive cough syrup or hair-care habits and perhaps ultimately increasing their focus on football.


Bounties could change game-to-game



Teams could offer bounties around each week's game plan. Does a coach want to win the time-of-possession and turnover battles? His chances of doing that go up if he offers each player 10 grand to make it happen. Make it 50 grand, and you won't see a team possess a ball longer or tighter.


Fan interaction



The line between real football and fantasy football gets blurrier every year. A huge percentage of weekly NFL viewers are watching simply to see how their fantasy players perform. Players openly acknowledge trying to score touchdowns for their fantasy owners.


[+] Enlarge Joe Robbins/Getty ImagesWho wants to help fund Chris Johnson's fantasy touchdown Kickstarter?




So why not do away with the line completely and merge real football with fantasy football? Allow fans to offer up bounties. Would you offer $10, $20, $100 or even $1,000 to a player on your fantasy team for a touchdown? You might not, but plenty of others would.


If the NFL partnered with an online crowdfunding service like Kickstarter, players could see what bounties are available to them each week. You alone offering Chris Johnson 20 bucks for a touchdown might not do much, but 1,000 people nationwide doing the same? That's $20,000. Now we're getting into real money -- enough to possibly convince Johnson to turn upfield with some spring in his step.


The benefits are obvious. But are there some issues to work through? Sure.


How would the NFL prevent bounties for injuring other players?



A bounty system would be self-policing. If a player takes out an opponent, he would know that a bounty would be raised -- both on the opposing team and by angry fans on Kickstarter -- to have him injured in return. Soon kill shots would be a thing of the past. The NFL would be like Texas rules: If everyone has a gun, people might think twice before drawing.


How does a team reward non-glory positions like offensive line or fullback?



Bounties don't have to be given just for touchdowns or sacks or interceptions. Want to give a player $100,000 for picking up a linebacker in the hole? Giants fullback Henry Hynoski could be the highest-paid player in the NFL. It's up to teams to structure their bounties around what they truly think is important. If they only want to reward touchdowns or knockout hits, it's their funeral. (Perhaps literally, in the latter case.)


Wouldn't good teams have massive payrolls while bad teams would be paying most of their players the league minimum?



Yes. Good teams would also make more money in season ticket revenue, merchandise sales and playoff games. Bad teams wouldn't make that money. Nothing would change. There wouldn't have to be a salary cap. A team's success would still be based on finding good players in the draft and through free agency, but there would be more pressure on management to win now. Smart fans can start a Kickstarter offering large sums to players who "accidentally" run over the team owner on the sidelines.


When Gregg Williams is called before Roger Goodell and NFL Security, he shouldn't be punished; he should be offered a job at the league office and put in charge of instituting a NFL-wide bounty program.


Bounties raise the level of play and create a meritocracy. Bounties are perfect. But just for football. Not for real life. Let's not have them seep into real life. You're probably reading this at work or in class, right? You would not be in line for a production-based bounty today. No, let NFL players get paid for their production. The rest of us are doing just fine.



DJ Gallo is the founder of SportsPickle.com. He has written a book and written for Comedy Central, The Onion and ESPN The Magazine. You can follow him on Twitter at @DJGalloESPN.