Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by BadMoFo, Nov 29, 2007.
Bounty-Gate. I can see it now.
A SECOND asterisk for the AWESOMES??
I would be surprised if every (or most) teams DON'T do this in one form or another.
Ha! This has deteriorated to the elementary school level. No one will stop at trying to squeal on the slightest thing. Yaaawwwwnnnnnnn. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . .
Well, now we'll see if Goodell really treats us differently. Anyone want to take a bet on whether we'll be punished? My feeling is we get treated just like Green Bay did.
Bruschi talks about this in his book (I think that's where I had read this before)............what's the big deal?
The "pot" goes to the guy on defense that forces the first turnover which is incentive based, but it's not like the GB case where they were actually trying to shut down a guy (AP). Someone could get hurt a lot easier when you target a specific player. Am I being a homer or does that make sense?
Would it be wrong if the pot simply went to the player(s) who put the least money in?
Perfect, absoutely perfect.
If a Patriots player loses more than $5 in a locker room cribbage game, the ensuing NFL investigation will merit "BREAKING NEWS".
NFL is truly turning into the No Fun League. this is stoopid!
Next they will be saying we are not allowed to score touch downs becuase it is unfair.
Wasn't this exact same thing shown in "Hard Knocks" with the Ravens in 2001? Much ado about nothing, but when you're 11-0 and knocking on history's door, every little thing is going to be blown out of proportion...maybe a 0.05 on the significance scale
I am not sure how the rule is stated but i would be surprised if what the Pats do is actually against any rule. I would like to read it for myself. The Packers focused on stopping certain players which could lead into hurting specific players. What the Pats do is reward someone for a good play (turnover). It is very different.
This type of reward is very common practice in pretty much everywhere in the world (car sales, food service, general sales) If it does break a rule I wonder the intent of the rule or the actual wording
The rule reads: "...offering or accepting bonuses to a player for his or his team‚Äôs performance against a particular team, a particular opposing player or players, or a particular group of an opposing team.‚ÄĚ (emphasis mine).
It doesn't seem like targetting specific players is a necessary element of the rule. In my opinion, this rule's purpose is to keep teams from circumventing the salary cap, as opposed to protecting players from injury.
Yeah, but the way I understand it, the pot of money collects during the week and then is awarded to the players that gets the first turnover in the game.
They are not targeting a PARTICULAR team, opposing player(s), or group. It is just a weekly award for getting the first turnover.
The "next game" is not a "particular" team, opposing player or group of an opposing team. There's a pot that can be won by good performance in any game not a specific opponent. No rule break here, move along.
Of course it's against a "particular team" - that week's opponent. It doesn't have to be the same team week to week.
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.
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.
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. Also, your example with breaking someones leg is very different because this in no way calls for any illegal actions
Separate names with a comma.