PFT on bounties

[Fixit]

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.

$100 bucks from one guy to another doesn't affect the cap one bit. The cap argument is laughable. Unless they've learned how to multiply money, I don't see the issue of rewarding your teammates for good play out of your own pocket.

 

[Michigan Dave]

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......

Meh. Players are fined by the second. It's a running gag to have fun and discipline team meetings. It's not an indictment on the coach at all.

 

[thewaylifeshouldbe]

Meh. Players are fined by the second. It's a running gag to have fun and discipline team meetings. It's not an indictment on the coach at all.

Yeah, you're probably right about that. I can accept that.

Saymore should know better though.

 

[alamo]

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.

I think you are wrong. I think the rule is intended for both cases.

Noone in his right mind would argue that bounty in the Green Bay case and now the pot in our case were intended to circumvent the cap. It just doesn't make sense. Yet the NFL still told Green Bay to stop. So obviously it is not solely a cap concern.

And if a team does circumvent the cap via the sorts of scenarios you have mentioned, I believe the NFL would come down hard on the team, probably taking a draft pick as a penalty. That has become a standard cap-related penalty.

So I think your argument is mostly theoretical, not really applying to the cases we have before us, which is why people are inclined to disagree.

 

[TruthSeeker]

...that still doesn't address the "teams getting around the salary cap by paying players off-the-board incentives" issue.

I'm sorry, did I miss the rule that specifically said this?

 

[Pujo]

I think you are wrong. I think the rule is intended for both cases.

Noone in his right mind would argue that bounty in the Green Bay case and now the pot in our case were intended to circumvent the cap. It just doesn't make sense. Yet the NFL still told Green Bay to stop. So obviously it is not solely a cap concern.

And if a team does circumvent the cap via the sorts of scenarios you have mentioned, I believe the NFL would come down hard on the team, probably taking a draft pick as a penalty. That has become a standard cap-related penalty.

So I think your argument is mostly theoretical, not really applying to the cases we have before us, which is why people are inclined to disagree.

It's a rule, the NFL is always going to enforce it. I don't think anyone believes Green Bay was circumventing the cap, but I do think rule exists to keep that kind of thing from happening. See, lots of people here apparantly think NFL rules are enforced arbitrarily. For the most part, if the NFL has a rule, it enforces it, often after a warning if it's not a commonly brought-up rule. It doesn't matter that Green Bay probably wasn't circumventing the cap. It matters that they were violating a rule. They were told to stop, and they did. It didn't matter that some posters on PatsFans.com thought they weren't violating the spirit of the rule, they were simply violating the rule and they agreed they'd stop.