Everything You Need to Know About BountyGate In One Paragraph

[Kiwon]

Are you his supervisor? With the ability to hire and fire him?

The players already knew that the bounty program was illegal. Owner Tom Benson had already addressed it.

If they wanted to be, the players could be whistleblowers and turn in their coaches. The players had that power.

As a coach, you are not going to put in your 2nd or 3rd best position player just because your 1st team wouldn't look to take cheap shots.

The players do the tackling, not the coach. Certain players were complicit with the plan and share responsibility.

[pbmax]

The players already knew that the bounty program was illegal. Owner Tom Benson had already addressed it.

If they wanted to be, the players could be whistleblowers and turn in their coaches. The players had that power.

As a coach, you are not going to put in your 2nd or 3rd best position player just because your 1st team wouldn't look to take cheap shots.

The players do the tackling, not the coach. Certain players were complicit with the plan and share responsibility.

You can't punish someone for NOT being a whistleblower. Brees knew about it and so did Sharper. Were they complicit or merely reluctant to hurt their own team? If you punish by that standard, the whole team would need to be suspended.

But you have hit the nail on the head, proverbially. The players, even if complicit with the plan, did nothing wrong on the field. No player was sanctioned for on-field play. They couldn't, because the Saints played like everyone else. The penalty totals show they weren't even the worst offenders. The questionable hits were by non-suspended players and were not egregious enough to be both flagged and fined.

The whole illegality was off field pay for performance (or lying for Hargrove). And no player had been suspended for half a season for that before. Goodell reacted emotionally because he thought Williams actually had players out there trying to cause injuries above and beyond normal play. He had no idea that D Coordinators since time immemorial (well, at least since 1994) talked about the importance of hitting the QB by saying: "Kill the head and the body dies".

Roger is very emotional and not very pragmatic.

[Kiwon]

You can't punish someone for NOT being a whistleblower. Brees knew about it and so did Sharper. Were they complicit or merely reluctant to hurt their own team? If you punish by that standard, the whole team would need to be suspended.

But you have hit the nail on the head, proverbially. The players, even if complicit with the plan, did nothing wrong on the field. No player was sanctioned for on-field play. They couldn't, because the Saints played like everyone else. The penalty totals show they weren't even the worst offenders. The questionable hits were by non-suspended players and were not egregious enough to be both flagged and fined.

The whole illegality was off field pay for performance (or lying for Hargrove). And no player had been suspended for half a season for that before. Goodell reacted emotionally because he thought Williams actually had players out there trying to cause injuries above and beyond normal play. He had no idea that D Coordinators since time immemorial (well, at least since 1994) talked about the importance of hitting the QB by saying: "Kill the head and the body dies".

Roger is very emotional and not very pragmatic.

I'm not a big Goodell fan, he overreached his authority.

But let's quit kidding ourselves, many people had to know what was going on and just accepted it as part of the game and/or the culture of the organization. And that, even after Tom Benson, their employer, told his GM and HC to knock it off.

Paul Tagliabue's response was a PR CYA move for the League, maybe even with Goodell's blessing. Goodell created a mess by the very public prosecution of the Saints players and coaches.

The Player's Union pushed back and something had to be done to help make this thing go away sooner.

However, again, coaches don't tackle anyone, players do and certain players are responsible for the roles they played whether they were successful in taking someone out or not.

I'll repeat what I wrote before, "Interesting......we have Hate Speech laws where the intent of the words determine whether they are criminal or not.
Teens are arrested under "Columbine" laws for talking about wanting to do violent acts. People are arrested under Terrorism laws for talking about wanting to do terroristic acts. The Secret Service pays a visit to people who talk about wanting to harm government leaders.

But NFL players can get into trouble for talking about betting on NFL games even if they never actually do, right?"

If "intent" is criminal in these cases, why not in BountyGate?

[pbmax]

Because you are missing the primary point of this thread, as did Goodell. The intent in this case was to hit players hard enough, legally, to cause them to leave the game. Temporarily or otherwise. The same intent Reggie White had in sacking Favre in 92 and landing, purposefully, on his shoulder. There was nothing illegal about that, its how football has been played for years.

The violations you are looking for are in pay for performance. And Tagliabue said there is no precedent for suspending players for that kind of conduct. Fines, yes.

And given that each of the players has missed game checks, that still stands unless they get back pay from Tags ruling.

[mission]

There's no way Goodell is capable of writing a paragraph like that.

Makes me wonder where this league is really headed...

[Kiwon]

Because you are missing the primary point of this thread, as did Goodell. The intent in this case was to hit players hard enough, legally, to cause them to leave the game. Temporarily or otherwise. The same intent Reggie White had in sacking Favre in 92 and landing, purposefully, on his shoulder. There was nothing illegal about that, its how football has been played for years.

The violations you are looking for are in pay for performance. And Tagliabue said there is no precedent for suspending players for that kind of conduct. Fines, yes.

And given that each of the players has missed game checks, that still stands unless they get back pay from Tags ruling.

What is it with you and individual responsibility?

So a coach that sets up a bounty program is guilty - $10,000 to whoever knocks the QB out of the game.

Five guys, motivated by that $10,000, try and fail. They're innocent according to you.

Player #6, though, gets in a blindside hit or nails the QB after an interception and knocks him out of the game. He collects the kitty after the game. That guy is guilty.

So to you, 2 out of 7 are guilty. Or it is only still the coach? To me, all 7 are guilty if they willingly and intentionally participated in a program that they know is against the League rules and against the expressed directive from the team owner himself.

Whether a personal foul is called on the play or not is irrelevant. The goal is not to avoid a personal foul. The goal is knocking the QB out of the game and collecting the $10,000 and the admiration of your co-conspirators.

[Patler]

So what if there is no precedent for a suspension? There is always a first time, and when a situation was particularly egregious, as this was, an increased penalty can be justified very easily.

[pbmax]

What is it with you and individual responsibility?

So a coach that sets up a bounty program is guilty - $10,000 to whoever knocks the QB out of the game.

Five guys, motivated by that $10,000, try and fail. They're innocent according to you.

Player #6, though, gets in a blindside hit or nails the QB after an interception and knocks him out of the game. He collects the kitty after the game. That guy is guilty.

So to you, 2 out of 7 are guilty. Or it is only still the coach? To me, all 7 are guilty if they willingly and intentionally participated in a program that they know is against the League rules and against the expressed directive from the team owner himself.

Whether a personal foul is called on the play or not is irrelevant. The goal is not to avoid a personal foul. The goal is knocking the QB out of the game and collecting the $10,000 and the admiration of your co-conspirators.

Individual responsibility for what the coach was saying or doing? Exactly what do you wish the players to be held accountable for?

They cannot provide a transcript that indicates what questions Hargrove was answering, which is the only evidence left in their case against him.

Vilma flat out denies he offered $10,000 for either Warner or Favre. Have you seen evidence that he did so seriously? Did he give someone the money? Did someone actually collect? Because Favre had to leave that game. And if your assertion is to be believed, someone should have collected the money. Have you seen evidence they did?

Fujita, after the second adjustment to his original suspension, was suspended for failure to lead.

Curiously, you seem to not believe that a fine in the form of game checks constitutes a punishment. All these players missed paychecks prior to Tagliabue's ruling.

[pbmax]

So what if there is no precedent for a suspension? There is always a first time, and when a situation was particularly egregious, as this was, an increased penalty can be justified very easily.

Tagliabue seems not to agree with you on precedent in this case, though as has been discussed above, his motivations could be mixed. But while its true new precedents can be set for all manner of reasons, its important to ask why it should be so in this case.

I am not convinced the players acted egregiously. Especially when there is scant evidence of money changing hands. And the bulk of the egregious and offending behavior was on the part of a coach. For the players cited, there is virtually no evidence of on field misconduct.

And because I take Goodell at his word that he wishes to change the culture of football to be less violent. And if he wishes to do so, he cannot achieve that end simply by applying more punishments. In the words of his predecessor, new punishment absent other measures simply will breed resentment and hamper cooperation. The NFL cannot be in every locker room and cannot control what coaches say to the their players or review the standards to which they hold the players for their play.

If Goodell wishes to move beyond self-preservation as a method of regulating violence on the field, he needs their help. Both coaches and players.

“In this context, confronted with the events here, Commissioner Goodell correctly set out aggressively to address them. But when an effort to change a culture rests heavily on prohibitions, and discipline and sanctions that are seen as selective, ad hoc or inconsistent, then people in all industries are prone to react negatively — whether they be construction workers, police officers or football players. They will push back and challenge the discipline as unwarranted. As reflected in the record in the present appeals, they will deny, hide behind a code of silence, destroy evidence and obstruct. In other words, rightly or wrongly, a sharp change in sanctions or discipline can often be seen as arbitrary and as an impediment rather than an instrument of change. This is what we see on the record here.”

[pbmax]

Chris Mortensen @mortreport
As former Saints defensive asst Mike Cerullo faces more documentation of alleged instability & lack of credibility, NFL paying legal fees


It occurs to be that the NFL ought to be better at this kind of thing than it is.

[Patler]

Tagliabue seems not to agree with you on precedent in this case, though as has been discussed above, his motivations could be mixed. But while its true new precedents can be set for all manner of reasons, its important to ask why it should be so in this case.

I am not convinced the players acted egregiously. Especially when there is scant evidence of money changing hands. And the bulk of the egregious and offending behavior was on the part of a coach. For the players cited, there is virtually no evidence of on field misconduct.

And because I take Goodell at his word that he wishes to change the culture of football to be less violent. And if he wishes to do so, he cannot achieve that end simply by applying more punishments. In the words of his predecessor, new punishment absent other measures simply will breed resentment and hamper cooperation. The NFL cannot be in every locker room and cannot control what coaches say to the their players or review the standards to which they hold the players for their play.

If Goodell wishes to move beyond self-preservation as a method of regulating violence on the field, he needs their help. Both coaches and players.

Quote Originally Posted by Tags Ruling quoted from PFT
“In this context, confronted with the events here, Commissioner Goodell correctly set out aggressively to address them. But when an effort to change a culture rests heavily on prohibitions, and discipline and sanctions that are seen as selective, ad hoc or inconsistent, then people in all industries are prone to react negatively — whether they be construction workers, police officers or football players. They will push back and challenge the discipline as unwarranted. As reflected in the record in the present appeals, they will deny, hide behind a code of silence, destroy evidence and obstruct. In other words, rightly or wrongly, a sharp change in sanctions or discipline can often be seen as arbitrary and as an impediment rather than an instrument of change. This is what we see on the record here.”

Well obviously Tagliabue doesn't agree with me, he decided the case oppositely to what I think I would have (knowing only the public facts that we do.)

The problem is, as evidenced by what you quoted from his decision, his reasoning is non-supportive of his decision. The acts referred to; "they will deny, hide behind a code of silence, destroy evidence and obstruct. " occurred before the punishment was handed down. It was not a result of the increased sanctions, etc.; but instead it should have been the basis for those increased sanctions.

In my opinion, (again, knowing only what we know) Tagliabue's decision is not well-reasoned.

I'd file a petition for cert.

[pbmax]

Well obviously Tagliabue doesn't agree with me, he decided the case oppositely to what I think I would have (knowing only the public facts that we do.)

The problem is, as evidenced by what you quoted from his decision, his reasoning is non-supportive of his decision. The acts referred to; "they will deny, hide behind a code of silence, destroy evidence and obstruct. " occurred before the punishment was handed down. It was not a result of the increased sanctions, etc.; but instead it should have been the basis for those increased sanctions.

In my opinion, (again, knowing only what we know) Tagliabue's decision is not well-reasoned.

I'd file a petition for cert.

A fine point. This section should have been better labeled by me as more of a continued response to Kiwon's concern about unsuccessful conspirators. I don't buy that the sanctioned players bought into Williams enhanced bounty program and I don't buy them as co-conspirators.

As such, I think this section speaks less to the reasons to vacate the suspensions than it does to a backdoor critique of how Goodell proceeded. Tags dumped the suspensions as not supported by available evidence and then told everyone that Roger needs to invert the process next time. If he doesn't he will be met with the same resistance and an absence of cooperation.

And both actions (the vacated suspensions and the critique) are reasons why Tags would not support new, unprecedented sanctions. I believe he is saying if Roger had responded as Rozelle did when implementing PED testing, then the enhanced sanctions would be justified for this offense, even if not for the players in this particular instance.