1. To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Bountygate

Discussion in 'RAMS - NFL TALK' started by bluecoconuts, Mar 2, 2012.

  1. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    It's just the wording. "Illegal" only in the sense that it's against the league rules. I suppose a better phrasing would be simply "against the rules", but that's too many words. So yeah, you're right. Nobody's going to jail. That's not to say that lawyers won't be monitoring this closely for an opening. That's why we won't see Goodell say, "Okay, here's your fines and suspensions for doling out non-contract bonuses" and then leave it at that. He's going to drop the hammer and use the words "player safety" numerous times in his statement/ruling.
     
    #201
  2. bwdenverram Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    363
    Re: Question for the board

    Thanks X. And that is pretty much what I figured but when your on the PD and people keep saying it's illegal and lawyers will be involved it gets to be way too much. However the one legal issue I could see is if these payments, depending on how much any one single payout is, can be considered tax evasion if not reported? I don't know the amount off hand that would have to be considered enough to be reported to the IRS but I would think it could be something to be considered. I don't know..
     
    #202
  3. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    Re: Question for the board

    It's actually not a bad point and you can bet the IRS already has or will be requesting a copy of that report so that they can get "their cut" of the bounties. Depending on the time span, there will likely also be some penalties and interest involved. Hell, I was late 2 days - yes 2 days - one time on my payroll taxes and they fined me a couple hundred bucks on about a grand. I got them to waive it but only because I had never been late and I clearly was not trying to avoid paying my taxes.
     
    #203
  4. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    I'm not that educated on this, because I have a CPA and I don't care what he does, as long as I don't have to pay taxes after he's done preparing my forms. So, someone answer me this. Since it appears most of these bounties were player-pooled, and payment was made via a pot, then what can the IRS do about it? It's like me and 3 of my friends sitting on my couch and each of us throwing $500.00 into a pot on a series of UFC fights we're watching on Pay-Per-View. I have to report that? Sure. I'll get right on that.
     
    #204
  5. JdashSTL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Question for the board

    This was all pretty suprising to me because I had no idea players had their own system with money. I have no problem with that. The part where players are payed to injure opponents, now thats taking it too far. Im still not sure how I feel about coaches getting involved with that, it doesnt feel right, but I think that agent should be getting a lot more blame for being involved. Anyone heard a peep about him? I havent heard much.
     
    #205
  6. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    Are you talking about Ornstein? Dude's a lightning rod for bad press.

    From Nola.com

    Among the 18,000 documents league investigators examined is an email from Ornstein to Saints' coaches last season in which he pledged money for a knockout blow to Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers before the NFL kickoff game, according to a source familiar with the situation.

    That same source insists Ornstein sent the message in jest. Payton reportedly told NFL investigators last week he did not read the email.

    Whether the NFL buys either claim remains to be seen. This isn't a court of law. The league can and will rule on its own volition.

    Ornstein politely declined to comment when reached at his Los Angeles home Wednesday.

    His involvement in the scandal, however peripheral, will not help the Saints' cause. He's persona non-grata to the NFL and the fact that he remained affiliated with the club even after his second conviction displeased some league officials.

    The Saints' association with Ornstein has sullied the image of the league and exacerbated an already serious problem for the organization. The Saints' future will be negatively impacted by it. They will pay the price for their hubris.

    This isn't about the fleur de lis. It's about the NFL shield.

    If the Saints didn't respect that before last week, they certainly do now.
     
    #206
  7. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    Re: Question for the board

    You mean writing THAT?

    Goodell's first statement on the issue: "It is our responsibility to protect player safety and the integrity of our game, and this type of conduct will not be tolerated.”

    X's quote shown above: "The payments here are particularly troubling because they involved not just payments for 'performance,' but also for injuring opposing players," Commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday in a statement. "The bounty rule promotes two key elements of NFL football: [1]player safety and [2]competitive integrity."

    Huh. Looks like his chief concern is player safety from what I read.

    I can't answer to your claim that people didn't know there was a rule. I haven't seen it. I have seen what you consider to be "rule-ignorant" statements but I would contend that those people clearly understand there is a rule against bounties or bonuses for performance. They just don't appear to agree with you that the chief problem here is that the rule itself was violated. Instead they want to see how these bonuses affected the number of cheap shots being delivered by the players and teams in question. The reason? Because without the injury angle, this story and the severity of the actions have no legs. With the injury issue, the practice is abhorrent and should have severe repercussions.

    If there are indeed people who don't know performance bonuses are against the rules - ok. I have no reason to argue that point as it really has nothing to do with the subject.

    If you are speeding through a construction zone, the fines double. Do you think it is because of the basic speed rule or because you are potentially endangering peoples' lives?
     
    #207
  8. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    Wow. Nice analogy. That really cuts to the heart of the issue.
     
    #208
  9. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    Re: Question for the board

    Well.... You are supposed to. Watch out... the IRS agent will be knocking on your door tomorrow.

    I think the potential problem here is that no one knows about your $500 pool - well... until now. :sly: But now everyone knows - including the IRS - about the players receiving extra income in the form of bonuses. They are probably not going after the $100 bills but that $50K HAS to be at least a little intriguing to them. And without the report, there would probably not be enough evidence to go after them for it but......

    Bye the way, if you are talking about throwing in $500 each for a fight that costs $1500. That is totally different. If you are talking about throwing $500 into a pool and the winner takes the $1500 if the fight ends in a certain way, then I believe that is considered proceeds from gambling and is taxable. I'm not sure exactly how that works and I would assume there is some sort of dollar threshold before it kicks in but I'm almost certain it is taxable.
     
    #209
  10. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    K. Well. freak 'em. I'm not reporting the thousands of dollars a year I make on friendly bets within the confines of my house. I blow all the proceeds on things that yield no material possessions anyway. So... prove it.
     
    #210
  11. Anonymous Guest

    Re: Question for the board

    I don;t think it does.

    In part because people seem to be arguing with a case no one made. People seem to be arguing with someone who said that this is entirely about a narrow rule violation. But no one did argue that.

    To straighten all this out you will need to patiently read all of this.

    Basically, I see it this way. Without a bounty system run by Saints coaches or a bounty rule then there is nothing the league could or can do about the Vikes/Saints playoff game except fine a player or 2 for an illegal hit.

    With the bounty rule, and with the Saints coaches guilty of violating it, you have the combined circumstances of coaches violating league rules AND doing so in the name of injuries. Without that there is no issue at all.

    Just depends on what you mean by "bounty rule issue" and for me that means several things, all equally and all at once:

    1. Coaches can't violate rules. Not if you expect players to respect them. THIS ALONE IS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR THE LEAGUE TO DO WHAT IT IS DOING. No other explanation or justification is needed. That's it right there. It gives them everything they need to pursue a case.

    But it's not the only part of the issue.

    2. Non-contractual rewards of any kind, including bounties obviously, undermine the cap. And that way lies madness. Imagine a situation where an unscrupulous deep-pocketed owner attracts players with a huge award system.

    3. Beyond rewards themselves, bounties are bad because they violate the spirit and integrity of the game. And is therefore bad for the image of football. You do not want a situation where it is known that coaches pay under the table to injure opposing players. That's not football, that's Rollerball. And I was a linebacker in high school and loved me some hits. This has nothing to do with hitting. It turns a game into something else...something worse. We KNOW players go after players, and league rules about unnecessary roughness and late hits and facemasks and illegal blocks deal with that. BUT it is another thing entirely when coaches reward players with money for hurting other players (and again, it doesn't matter if no one is ever injured--even OFFERING A BOUNTY violates both league rules and the spirit of the game.)

    Now...imagine if there WEREN'T the new player safety drive. Do you honestly think if there weren;t, the league would ignore signs that a team had a coach sponsored non-contract rewards system that including rewards for injuries?

    You don't NEED the safety issue to address the bounty issue--the bounty issue is outrageous enough in its own right.

    ALSO, I have spent a lot of time arguing with 2 types.

    1. Type 1 says that the severity of the punishment should depend on whether the Saints really did have a lot of illegal hits. That's Bernie, for one. No, in fact, you don't even need the hits for the bounties to be illegal. So that argument on Bernie's part misses the point.

    2. Type 2 says that the commish is doing this to WMs. to water down the game. No he isn't. Hits are still hits. Illegal hits are still illegal hits and they get flagged and fined. Above and beyond and independent of that, a bounty system is completely intolerable in its own right--and you don't have to dread them watering down the game just because they go after a coach who sponsored bounties.

    As the discussion goes along, some people I notice are taking the arguments against Type 1 and Type 2 as the entire argument my side is making. Nope, that's mere application in relation to 2 different errors. It's not the whole argument.
     
    #211
  12. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    I think it does. I know you want to keep reeling people in to the rule, and put the primary focus on the rule, but like you said, the rule is only part of the issue. The league office has complete autonomy here, and can turn this into whatever they want. Like I said, they'll use the rule-breaking aspect of this as the warrant to go out and punish the Saints for having the unmitigated gall to endanger players' careers (phrasing I'm assigning to the league office, not mine). Even if there's not even an element of truth to that, and no evidence to support it, the league can do (and say) whatever the hell they want, and put the focus wherever they want.

    Most of what you said there doesn't apply to the point I'm trying to make. I'm not focusing on hits (illegal or otherwise). This media propaganda that has spawned a thousand conversations that stray from the actual rule is going to motivate the league to further their agenda of player safety. In other words, it doesn't matter that the Saints paid players for things outside the stipulations of their contracts. That would just be a wrist-slapping offense. Punishable by fines. Goodell is going to turn this into more than that, and heads are going to roll.

    I understand what you're saying. We're just looking at it from two different viewpoints. There is no right or wrong here either. For the purpose of this discussion, we're both right. And we'll both see our opinions on this matter substantiated in Goodell's statement when it finally comes out.
     
    #212
  13. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    Re: Question for the board

    :lmao: Really? :shock:

    I patiently read it. It looks like all your other posts combined into one. I don't see any new relevant information there.

    Um... bingo? I think I called it "safety crusade" but I'll accept your point.

    No... the bounty issue without the injury issue is not OUTRAGEOUS at all. It is a simple rule violation that would receive a commensurate level of punishment and public outcry - not several game suspensions and/or lifetime bans.

    No offense but on THAT I have no doubt.

    No it doesn't miss the point. It addresses the severity of the point and whether the bounty system was truly affecting player safety - which most people agree is at the heart of the issue. We all - including Bernie - know the bounties are against the rules. Where I don't agree with Bernie is that the results may be what they are but the very idea that a coach or player would pay for injuries is outrageous - successful or not.

    How many are arguing that really? That Goodell is trying to water down the game? Are you saying that because some people think the rule violation is no big deal by itself and that this has been going on for ever, that they are equating Goodell's crackdown to watering down the NFL and its inherent violent nature? A bit of a stretch if that is where you are going. I've seen a few intimating that but not as their main point.

    I'm really trying to see how you come to this conclusion. It seems to me that your point and what we have been arguing for several pages is that you think the main point is that there is a rule violation and the Commish can't sit idly by and let it continue. And that is the driving force behind the actions of the NFL. I happen to think that while there is obviously a rule violation issue here, that has nothing to do with the severity and outrage at the forefront of the discussion. It is about paying for injuries. Without that, there are no severe fines, no severe suspensions, and no public outrage.
     
    #213
  14. Anonymous Guest

    Re: Question for the board

    We absolutely completely disagree there, and I think the public reaction backs me.

    People get that football is a physical game and that injuries happen.

    People simply do not accept the idea that a coach would pay bounties for hits that cause injuries.

    It goes against the integrity of the game and undermines the spirit of the game.

    In terms of the NFL league office, as I said, it can legislate rules in the name of player safety (which it has done) and increase fines and awareness for certain kinds of plays (which it has done).

    This goes beyond that. And bear in mind that there doesn't even have to be an injury for the bounty to be illegal and wrong.

    If nothing else, you can't have a system where coaches flaunt rules.

    Bounties by definition mean rewards for injuries. The NFL has a rule against any kind of non-contractual reward, but in all of its statements it underscores the fact that BOUNTIES--which means by definition rewards for INJURIES--go beyond that.

    Honestly, if there were no safety campaign, finding out a coach contributed to and supported a bounty system would be a scandal all on its own. You don't need the safety campaign to react to the bounty issue with the same kind of dark stern disapproval the league is actually expressing.
     
    #214
  15. Stranger How big is infinity?

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    5,021
    Likes Received:
    844
    Re: Question for the board

    Yeah, I'm with 503 on this one.

    Sorry, but this entire pretense that this there is any integrity in the NFL is laughable. It's a blood sport to ingratiate the masses and to keep them from other more fruitfull activities on Sunday's, and beyond. The NFL arose out of criminal elements, who have found that appearing legitimate is good for business. The entire farse is beyond insulting.

    Again, the only real concern I can think the NFL owners have here is that a paid bounty system could upset the Vegas money making machine, and that would be bad for the NFL and bad for business. These owners couldn't give a freak about stupid (and mostly people of color) players' health and safety, otherwise, they'd pay-up on all those injured former players who desparately need healthcare, but are now having to sue to get their just benefits finally negotiated by the NFLPA last year.

    Let's watch the game, but let's not convince ourselves that this is anything but bread & circus for the masses and that there is anything but sharks behind the scenes pulling the strings.
     
    #215
  16. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    There have been SO many words in this thread over this, that I'm now having trouble understanding what it is you're trying to say. Are you saying that without the focus on player safety, that the league (and the public) would be outraged to find out that a coach threw around money for performance benchmarks? If so, I disagree. In fact, I'd probably say, "so what." That's a completely unglamorous offense.

    If you're saying that without the focus on player safety, that the league (and the public) would be outraged to find out that a coach threw around money for injuries to another player, then I agree. That's the part of this that is driving the propaganda machine. And the people who are saying, "sack up, players try to hurt each other all the time", are the ones that derail the conversation and lose sight of the issue(s). There aren't any of THOSE people here.
     
    #216
  17. Anonymous Guest

    Re: Question for the board

    I think that;s unlikely to the point of impossible.

    The league has always taken the rewards issue seriously when it comes to coaches, and that's independent of bounties. Bounties make it worse. They would have gone after this no matter what. You have a coach violating rules, you have a little crack in the cap which means bolder teams can circumvent the cap more tenaciously, and above all you have a system that encourages injuries. The league would never have said so what to that.

    It has nothing to do with players hurting eachother per se (which the present bounty scandal doesn;'t change anyway). This is a coach encouraging it by breaking a rule.

    If that ever hit the press before the league handled it, it would be a major national black mark scandal of the first order.

    Here's a snippet from another post:

    Not a phone call. Reps were sent out there.
     
    #217
  18. -X- I'm the dude, man.

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    19,259
    Likes Received:
    7,839
    Re: Question for the board

    I guess we'll just see how it plays out. I've said all I can say on this, and my opinion isn't going to change.
     
    #218
  19. RamFan503 Grill and Brew Master

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    11,141
    Likes Received:
    2,415
    Re: Question for the board

    Really? Oh... OK.

    In virtually EVERYTHING that I have read, the outrage centers around paying for injuries - not breaking a rule about throwing some cash at players. Yes it is the throwing of cash at players that breaks the rule but time and time again I read the qualifier that if they were just paying for good plays - forced fumbles, interceptions, and the like - no one outside of the NFL front office would give a damn.

    I find it amazing that you would continue to talk in circles about this. Even you can't help but insert injuries to emphasize the point - "above all you have a system that encourages injuries."

    Would the league office work to stop this just for the rule violation in itself? Most certainly. Would there be outrage among the public, players, former players, or the league office without the injury issue. Most certainly not.
     
    #219
  20. Anonymous Guest

    Re: Question for the board

    First off, you mischaracterize what I am saying. In this discussion I did not say that the public was outraged at rule breaking. In fact, leaving the public out of it, as much as people want to read that in, I never said that either--I said something different from that. I never said this was just simple rule enforcement. If you doubt me quote some place where I said it.

    Anyway, in this immediate exchange, within the last couple of posts, I said the public was outraged at bounties. My point, which you misses, is that they would have been outraged at bounties regardless whether there was some league-driven safety campaign.

    THAT is the immediate point you responded to.

    You said this:

    And I disagreed this way:

    I have NO idea how you then turn THAT into a point I didn't make about people being outraged at simple rule-breaking and no more. (???)

    I suspect you're just not following me on this at all.

    Anyway, that aside--now another point. The people can't be upset at SPECIFIC INJURIES in this case because no one has claimed there was any specific injury that resulted from the Williams bounties.

    In fact, no one has to prove that. The league nailed him on the simple fact that he offered them. The public outcry was that he offered them.

    The public got upset because a coach offered rewards for injuries. As I say above, that violates the spirit of the game, and people got that.

    BUT what you're completely missing is that I made that point for a simple reason---the public does not need an NFL safety campaign to get upset at the offer of a bounty.

    ERGO, the 2 things are not directly related. There would have been a public scandal about the bounties without an NFL safety campaign. In fact the NFL itself would have been compelled to respond harshly to a the discovery a coach was offering bounties even if there never was an NFL league-office safety campaign.

    ...
     
    #220