PFT on bounties

[ALP]

i dont see this anything like wut happened in GB, this is not against an individual of the other team, and turnovers are not something that can hurt another player...

also, the money isnt just given by one teammate/group, its a pot, which is really all the fines and stuff....

nowhere near the same thing

 

[Robdude]

Thanks for posting the rule by the way. I appreciate it. I dislike these articles that hint at something and do not give the actual facts

 

[Pujo]

I see what you are saying but it is for the next turnover and if it happens every week then it is not a against a particular team but it is then against every team and no one in particular.

So if a player gets $50 for each and every broken QB's legs, that's not a bounty against a particular QB, as the rule is written? Of course it is.

Also, your example with breaking someones leg is very different because this in no way calls for any illegal actions

That difference is immaterial here, the rule doesn't say anything about illegal actions, injuries, or whatever, it just mentions that players can't give each other bonuses for performance. Besides, all the involved parties are using that interpretation. The NFL said it's against the rules, the Packers said they won't do it anymore. The precedent is set.

 

[Pujo]

The PFT headline was very misleading. The USA Today article wasn't about bounties. It was about a fine system that Willie Mac started 7 years ago to make sure guys came to meetings on time and didn't miss their assignments.

I think NE should keep this Kangaroo Court going and just give the money to charity instead of dispensing it among highly paid athletes. I don't think there's anything Goodell could do about that.

Agreed. I think the issue is hidden money outside the salary cap ("Come play for us, we'll give you a smaller contract but you have a chance to earn a bonus every week"). If the money doesn't go to the players, I don't think there's an issue. Hell, I think they could give the money to one of the coaches and there wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Robdude]

You keep comparting this to breaking someones leg and this is entirely different. There is a completly different intent.

By your argiement all incentives need to be thrown out because all players gain them by playing against other teams. In particular the next team on the schedule. It makes no sense

 

[Robdude]

I guess though it really does not matter because the other article makes a very different point like people have pointed out. I have no real arguement against that on but the PFT article really does not connect the dots for me

 

[Pujo]

You keep comparting this to breaking someones leg and this is entirely different. There is a completly different intent.

It may feel different to us, "Oh, he's not hurting anyone", but that's not what the rule says. It makes no distinction between a bounty for an action that can result in injury versus a bounty for an action that can't result in injury. Again, there is a difference, but it's not pertinent to the interpreation of the rule.

By your argiement all incentives need to be thrown out because all players gain them by playing against other teams. In particular the next team on the schedule. It makes no sense

Those incentives are accounted for on the salary cap (either as LTBE or ULTBE incentives). These aren't.

 

[spacecrime]

Of course the "next game" is against a "particular team". By your reasoning, a bounty for "whoever break's the next quarterback's legs" is OK, as long as they don't name the particular quarterback.

You need to study a text on logic and analogies.

 

[Fencer]

In some cases in some sports, fines go to charity.

Having a contest to see who gets to pick the lucky charity would probably be within the rules.

IIRC, one year the Pats' main charity was the late **** Rehbein's kids' trust fund, and there were jokes that Terry Glenn pretty much paid to put his kids through college.

I think the charitable destination of fines is why Law wasn't even more POed about the game check fine for his Ecstasy border crossing problem than he was.

 

[alamo]

Why a new topic just because PFT posted exactly what was in the old one? Nothing new at all.

Anyway, here's what I wrote there...

This is the violation -- Clubs and players are prohibited from offering or accepting bonuses to a player for his or his team's performance against a particular team, a particular opposing player, or players or a particular group of an opposing team.

I personally think it does NOT violate the spirit of the rule you cited. (And maybe not even the letter, but the NFL will probably say it does because it would look bad not to.)

The rule specifically mentions "a particular opposing player or players or a particular group". That's the typical well-known "bounty", and that is NOT what the Patriots' situation represents. Look at the Packers situation -- that is a typical bounty, and completely different.

The "this rule is being broken" people will point to "bonuses for his or his team's performance", but if you think about the possible bonuses that covers and is likely meant to prohibit, a reward for the first turnover is among the most benign. My guess is people on most teams would say there's nothing wrong with it.

In the end, though, the NFL is unlikely to say "that's OK, Patriots", and the pot will be converted into an end-of-season party fund on the Pats and 20 other teams.

 

[Pujo]

You need to study a text on logic and analogies.

As a computer programmer I've studied logic for a long time. You need to stop using meaningless quips, and if you have an issue with what I said, point out what the problem is.

 

[emoney_33]

As a computer programmer I've studied logic for a long time. You need to stop using meaningless quips, and if you have an issue with what I said, point out what the problem is.

As a computer programmer myself, your analogy is terrible.


The rule specifically states "particular team". Earning a small pot based on doing something in ANY game against ANY team is NOT against the rule. ANY is the opposite of PARTICULAR.

The leg breaking thing is a terrible analogy because breaking legs is already an illegal action. If it was LEGAL to break a qb's legs as long as you don't specify who's legs you are trying to break it would be different, but it's not.

 

[Pujo]

The rule specifically states "particular team". Earning a small pot based on doing something in ANY game against ANY team is NOT against the rule. ANY is the opposite of PARTICULAR.

The leg breaking thing is a terrible analogy because breaking legs is already an illegal action. If it was LEGAL to break a qb's legs as long as you don't specify who's legs you are trying to break it would be different, but it's not.

I see, so if the players earn $50 for each interception of the next quarterback, that's OK, but if they earn $50 for each interception of Peyton Manning, then it's a problem. There's a sensical rule...

No, that still doesn't address the "teams getting around the salary cap by paying players off-the-board incentives" issue.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

I see, so if the players earn $50 for each interception of the next quarterback, that's OK, but if they earn $50 for each interception of Peyton Manning, then it's a problem. There's a sensical rule...

No, that still doesn't address the "teams getting around the salary cap by paying players off-the-board incentives" issue.

Because of the transitive nature of money, and it comes from the players, I can't see this being a way around the salary cap.

 

[Fixit]

Here's an idea: how about we let players do whatever the f*** they want with their own money? Crazy, huh?

 

[Pujo]

Because of the transitive nature of money, and it comes from the players, I can't see this being a way around the salary cap.

Even if it comes from another player, it can still mess with the cap.

Say you have a player that got a $1M signing bonus on a 5 year contract. His cap hit is prorated over the 5 years, and counts for $200K a year (ignoring his salary).

Now imagine, just imagine, that he takes half that signing bonus (which he got up front), and gave it as a bounty to a player with a one year contract. If the deal was done above board (by renegotiating both players contracts to move money from one to the other), there would be an accelerated hit, since the receiving player can't have his bonus prorated over 5 years. By passing the money under the table, the team avoids that.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

There are only two things that bother me about this;

1: That a Belichick ran team would have a pretty nice "stash" in late meeting, missed assignment, etc... funds.

2: That Seymour would open his damn mouth about it.

What goes on in Vegas......

 

[Pujo]

Here's an idea: how about we let players do whatever the f*** they want with their own money? Crazy, huh?

It's not a players' rights issue, not when there's a cap involved. Believe me, if the players' rights were being stepped on, we'd be seeing a grievance.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Even if it comes from another player, it can still mess with the cap.

Say you have a player that got a $1M signing bonus on a 5 year contract. His cap hit is prorated over the 5 years, and counts for $200K a year (ignoring his salary).

Now imagine, just imagine, that he takes half that signing bonus (which he got up front), and gave it as a bounty to a player with a one year contract. If the deal was done above board (by renegotiating both players contracts to move money from one to the other), there would be an accelerated hit, since the receiving player can't have his bonus prorated over 5 years. By passing the money under the table, the team avoids that.

But the "team" is not involved in any way, shape or form. This is the players money that they have already earned. The example does not apply to what is happening.

 

[Pujo]

But the "team" is not involved in any way, shape or form. This is the players money that they have already earned. The example does not apply to what is happening.

No, but it's a precaution to prevent deals with a nod and a wink. A team could always find a willing player, pretend it had no knowledge, and sit back as they transfer money.

Like I said above, "If you come here, we'll pay you less than another team. But I think Brady might be willing to throw $250,000 of his money your way in the form of a 'bounty'."