Saints HC Sean Payton suspended for ONE YEAR

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Pro Sports ▸ Saints HC Sean Payton suspended for ONE YEAR
F

Fred Flintstone

Senior Member

366 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:07 PM
The Saints are not as bad off as they could be, Carmichael called plays when Sean Payton was out last year and they seemed to be fine, ask Detroit about the Sunday night game. Spags has head coaching experience. They may win one or two fewer games this year but could win the NFC South or grab a wild card.

Mar 21, 2012 10:07pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:11 PM
Harsh punishment, but what would the NFL do otherwise? This is borderline criminal behavior, and extremely high legal liability. Certainly injuries occur in sports, but to actually admit you're trying to hurt someone? Just stupid.
Mar 21, 2012 10:11pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:14 PM
"It's called fines for illegal hits. So now a few thousand changes hands for hits within the rules, and it's an issue?"

It is a big difference if the coaches tell a player to make an illegal hit.
Mar 21, 2012 10:14pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:17 PM
More than I thought it would be.

But this goes far beyond sports. You are talking about intentionally hurting people. If this stuff continues, you bet players would be suing the league...and winning a LOT of money off it. NFL really had no choice, once this went public. There is a difference between an illegal hit, late hit, etc that gets a you a fine and all those same hits, but the intention is now know. And it is that you wanted to end someones career.
Mar 21, 2012 10:17pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:37 PM
What does the intent matter if it's within the rules of the game? This isn't criminal behavior, it's behavior within the rules of the game.
Mar 21, 2012 10:37pm
Skyhook79's avatar

Skyhook79

Senior Member

5,739 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:49 PM
lhslep134;1123537 wrote:What does the intent matter if it's within the rules of the game? This isn't criminal behavior, it's behavior within the rules of the game.
Offering money or some sort of an reward to hurt someone is criminal behavior.
Mar 21, 2012 10:49pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:54 PM
lhslep134;1123537 wrote:What does the intent matter if it's within the rules of the game? This isn't criminal behavior, it's behavior within the rules of the game.
If I'm a pitcher and bean a batter unintentionally, it's bad for both of us but it isn't criminal. If someone pays me to intentionally throw at a batter, both of us (the payer and me) are going to jail. The rules of the game includes a pitcher throwing a ball at a high rate of speed towards a person, it doesn't include a pitcher intentionally throwing the ball at another guy's face.

There is legal history on this (mostly with hockey), consult one of your professors.
Mar 21, 2012 10:54pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:55 PM
lhslep134;1123537 wrote:What does the intent matter if it's within the rules of the game? This isn't criminal behavior, it's behavior within the rules of the game.
Intentionally breaking the rules is not within the game. You, as a lawyer, should know this stuff.

Accidentally breaking the rules is one thing. No one would be able to prove the intent of going after my head and turning me to a vegetable. But if the intent is there, and can be proven (with the bounty), than you have lawsuits.
Mar 21, 2012 10:55pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Mar 21, 2012 10:59 PM
My uncle is a judge and actually had a case very similar to this.

Some Bowling Green player tried to sue a player on the opposing team for messing up his knee and career. It LOOKED very intentional, and the proof they tried to use was that they had been in a few spats in the game. But it wasnt near enough.

When you take the field, you assume risks. Those risks are that accidents may happen beyond control of the ref and rules of the game. By the same token, you are protected by those assumed risks as someone who commits the foul. But as soon as you do it intentionally, you are committing a criminal act.

My uncle didnt put the guy in jail or charge him a fine. But I believe it went up to an appeals court and the BG player got a smallllll settlement. With proof, he gets all he was asking for, and the guy is lookign at jail time (for whatever assault would be).
Mar 21, 2012 10:59pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:00 PM
lhslep134;1123537 wrote:What does the intent matter if it's within the rules of the game? This isn't criminal behavior, it's behavior within the rules of the game.

rules within the game? what does that even mean? No where in the rules does it say it's okay to hurt someone. Offering money to hurt someone is completely fucked up. It's a game, this isn't the coliseum in ancient Rome.
Mar 21, 2012 11:00pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:26 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;1123556 wrote:
There is legal history on this (mostly with hockey), consult one of your professors.

Yeah there is. Because it's within the rules of the game and foreseeable that a batter can be hit intentionally, a hitter is precluded from bringing suit because of assumption of the risk (Avila v. Citrus Community College 2006).
Mar 21, 2012 11:26pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:28 PM
DeyDurkie5;1123560 wrote:rules within the game? what does that even mean? No where in the rules does it say it's okay to hurt someone..

What is being used to hurt someone? A tackle. As long as the tackle is within the rules of the game, what the hell does the intent behind the tackle matter?
Mar 21, 2012 11:28pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:30 PM
Laley23;1123558 wrote:Intentionally breaking the rules is not within the game. You, as a lawyer, should know this stuff.

Accidentally breaking the rules is one thing. No one would be able to prove the intent of going after my head and turning me to a vegetable. But if the intent is there, and can be proven (with the bounty), than you have lawsuits.
There's nothing criminal going on. Players were being paid for legal hits. There's rules and fines against illegal hits, the league already polices what the actual subject matter here, hitting.

Are you guys completely ignoring that the vehicle used in this "bounty" system is tackling? The most basic part of football? The players are already getting paid to tackle as often and hard as they can, I don't understand the issue with a little extra incentive with LEGAL HITS.


I would have a serious problem with players getting paid for taking illegal shots, but that's not the case here.
Mar 21, 2012 11:30pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:31 PM
lhslep134;1123573 wrote:What is being used to hurt someone? A tackle. As long as the tackle is within the rules of the game, what the hell does the intent behind the tackle matter?
an extended tackle. Not in the rules of the game. When you are in top 5 for personal foul calls and penalties for however many years, you are going against the rules of the game.

You can try and act all lawyery with us(oh he didn't use a bat or shank, so the tackles are clean!!!!!), but it's jut a retarded argument.
Mar 21, 2012 11:31pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:32 PM
lhslep134;1123576 wrote:There's nothing criminal going on. Players were being paid for legal hits. There's rules and fines against illegal hits, the league already polices what the actual subject matter here, hitting.

Are you guys completely ignoring that the vehicle used in this "bounty" system is tackling? The most basic part of football? The players are already getting paid to tackle as often and hard as they can, I don't understand the issue with a little extra incentive with LEGAL HITS.

it's not LEGAL hits, they were top 5 in personal fouls/illegal hits/penalties for the past whatever amount of years.
Mar 21, 2012 11:32pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:37 PM
lol. Where are you getting these hits are legal? Players are saying they are the illegal hits, the late hits etc.

And yes, you can be charged with criminal activity for purposefully doing something outside the rules of the game. The problem is, its never been able to be proven. Now it can be.

Even if the Saints are doing it within the rules (they arent, btw. Dont know where that comes from), the precedent has to be set by the league in case a person was to take a stupid 10 second late hit to Tom Brady and paralyze him or something.
Mar 21, 2012 11:37pm
DeyDurkie5's avatar

DeyDurkie5

Senior Member

11,324 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:40 PM
Laley23;1123582 wrote:lol. Where are you getting these hits are legal? Players are saying they are the illegal hits, the late hits etc.

And yes, you can be charged with criminal activity for purposefully doing something outside the rules of the game. The problem is, its never been able to be proven. Now it can be.

Even if the Saints are doing it within the rules (they arent, btw. Dont know where that comes from), the precedent has to be set by the league in case a person was to take a stupid 10 second late hit to Tom Brady and paralyze him or something.
he goes to law school man, just let him try and argue against the facts
Mar 21, 2012 11:40pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 21, 2012 11:42 PM
DeyDurkie5;1123578 wrote:it's not LEGAL hits, they were top 5 in personal fouls/illegal hits/penalties for the past whatever amount of years.
Then that's a problem, and not what I'm talking about in my argument. I'm only arguing the irrelevance of intent when speaking of legal (CLEAN) hits within the rules of the game


If a hit that's not penalized knocks someone out of the game (ie a clean knockout shot on a route over the middle), and the player get a little money afterwards for it, what's the problem? This is my main point. I don't see a problem with this scenario. If a hits not clean then I have a problem.
Mar 21, 2012 11:42pm
Iliketurtles's avatar

Iliketurtles

Senior Member

8,191 posts
Mar 22, 2012 9:18 AM
lhslep134;1123587 wrote:Then that's a problem, and not what I'm talking about in my argument. I'm only arguing the irrelevance of intent when speaking of legal (CLEAN) hits within the rules of the game


If a hit that's not penalized knocks someone out of the game (ie a clean knockout shot on a route over the middle), and the player get a little money afterwards for it, what's the problem? This is my main point. I don't see a problem with this scenario. If a hits not clean then I have a problem.
The problem is playing the player is ILLEGAL within the rules of the game...so even though the hit is legal by that player getting paid for the hit makes it illegal and the NFL could potentially be sued.
Mar 22, 2012 9:18am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 22, 2012 9:44 AM
Iliketurtles;1123734 wrote:so even though the hit is legal by that player getting paid for the hit makes it illegal and the NFL could potentially be sued.

If the hit is within the rules of the game (clean), then it falls under assumption of the risk and there's no court in the country that would entertain a lawsuit.

If the hit isn't clean, and breaks the rules of football, and the illegal hit was intentional, then there could be liability. It's the former situation that I have no problem players getting paid for.
Mar 22, 2012 9:44am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 22, 2012 9:54 AM
lhslep134;1123764 wrote:If the hit is within the rules of the game (clean), then it falls under assumption of the risk and there's no court in the country that would entertain a lawsuit.

If the hit isn't clean, and breaks the rules of football, and the illegal hit was intentional, then there could be liability. It's the former situation that I have no problem players getting paid for.
You have been in law school for one year, get over yourself. If you are being paid to intentianally hurt somebody, the act of getting paid for something like that is immediately illegal. I don't care if the hit is legal or not.

Pete Rose bet on baseball, and despite the fact everything he did ont he field was "legal," he is still banned from baseball.
Mar 22, 2012 9:54am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 22, 2012 10:00 AM
like_that;1123783 wrote:You have been in law school for one year

How would that invalidate my point?
like_that;1123783 wrote: If you are being paid to intentianally hurt somebody, .
They're already being paid to intentionally hurt people, that's inherent in football, which is why if it's within the rules I don't see the harm. Late hits, helmet to helmet kill shots (especially because the helmet can be used like a weapon) those are all things that the league should penalize if paid to do. But extra money because of a clean killshot that the player was going to deliver anyways? Sorry, but I don't see the harm (and neither did Golic or Wiley on ESPN when this whole thing first came out).
Mar 22, 2012 10:00am
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Mar 22, 2012 10:02 AM
I love how everyone jumps on lhslep for being in law school. He's not a lawyer yet guys, and even if he was, this isn't a court of law.
Mar 22, 2012 10:02am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Mar 22, 2012 10:10 AM
sleeper;1123795 wrote:I love how everyone jumps on lhslep for being in law school. He's not a lawyer yet guys, and even if he was, this isn't a court of law.

By going to law school I accepted a lifetime of being hated solely because of my profession. Not going to care if it starts early lol. People are entitled to their opinion, I just don't see the relevance here.
Mar 22, 2012 10:10am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Mar 22, 2012 10:23 AM
lhslep134;1123792 wrote:How would that invalidate my point?



They're already being paid to intentionally hurt people, that's inherent in football, which is why if it's within the rules I don't see the harm. Late hits, helmet to helmet kill shots (especially because the helmet can be used like a weapon) those are all things that the league should penalize if paid to do. But extra money because of a clean killshot that the player was going to deliver anyways? Sorry, but I don't see the harm (and neither did Golic or Wiley on ESPN when this whole thing first came out).
They are getting paid to essentially win football games, not hurt people. Golic always takes the meathead side of these type of issues, especially since he played during an era where players weren't coddled.
Mar 22, 2012 10:23am