lhslep134;1123809 wrote: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.

Typically people will attack the person when their own argument is lacking. Get that JD, and let the haters hate.

like_that,

Do you have a problem with a player getting extra money for delivering a clean killshot they were going to deliver anyways? If so, why?

lhslep134;1123855 wrote:like_that,

Do you have a problem with a player getting extra money for delivering a clean killshot they were going to deliver anyways? If so, why?

Yes, because when you play the game of football you are going out there to make a play. It's an instant reaction to make a "kill shot" to disengage the ball from a player. When you are getting paid to hurt people and knock them out of the game, you are no longer stepping on the field to make plays, you are looking to physically harm somebody, and possibly end their career.

Huge difference.

like_that;1123860 wrote:. When you are getting paid to hurt people and knock them out of the game

I wholeheartedly agree that purposely targeting a specific player to knock them out of a game is wrong and breeds a dangerous mentality.

However, we're just going to disagree about a player receiving extra money for a clean killshot they were going to deliver.

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.

That's just my point even though the hit is clean(legal within the rules of the game) the act of getting paid for the hit is not legal within the rules of the game. Which would make the NFL liable if they didn't do anything to try and stop it from happening. Players have the assumption of risk that playing with concussions would probably damage their brains but they did it anyway so now the NFL has put new procedures in place to make it less likely that a player will play with a concussion so that way they hopefully won't be sued.

Also I'm in agreement with like_that's opinion about paying players for hits.

Iliketurtles;1123962 wrote:That's just my point even though the hit is clean(legal within the rules of the game) the act of getting paid for the hit is not legal within the rules of the game

That's one of the places I have a problem. If the hit was going to happen anyways, and it's a clean hit, then the only rule it's breaking is, imo, an arbitrary and administrative rule, not a rule regarding how the game of football is played.

Football players are getting paid to win football games. They aren't getting paid to intentionally hurt someone. You are really going to suck as a lawyer if these are your arguments.

DeyDurkie5;1123995 wrote:Football players are getting paid to win football games. They aren't getting paid to intentionally hurt someone. You are really going to suck as a lawyer if these are your arguments.

You obviously aren't understanding my argument then.

Can you even state what my argument is?



Also, I love how some of you find that a messaging board is in some way representative of the field of law. Quite funny.

lhslep134;1123792 wrote:They're already being paid to intentionally hurt people, that's inherent in football

lhslep134;1123999 wrote:You obviously aren't understanding my argument then.

Can you even state what my argument is?



Also, I love how some of you find that a messaging board is in some way representative of the field of law. Quite funny.

I stopped reading after that, because it's false.

DeyDurkie5;1124005 wrote:I stopped reading after that, because it's false.

Okay so you can't answer my question because you don't know what my argument is. I figured.

Quote from Bengals player representative Andrew Whitworth:

[INDENT] "That's the game. That's the way it is when one huge man is trying to move another huge man," Whitworth said. "No one is intentionally trying to hurt anybody. But what coach or player hasn't said, 'Take out that receiver when he catches it over the middle.' Or, 'Hit the quarterback hard enough so the next time he pulls the ball down or flinches or knocks him out of the game.' I mean, that's football."
"That's how the NFL sells their game. You see the hits on the highlights. The intent is different than the rhetoric," he said. "You're not trying to go out there and hurt people. This is a very physical game of collision and contact and you have to have a certain kind of mindset. But what the communication is and what's actually meant, it's just not the same."

[/INDENT]

lhslep134;1123982 wrote:That's one of the places I have a problem. If the hit was going to happen anyways, and it's a clean hit, then the only rule it's breaking is, imo, an arbitrary and administrative rule, not a rule regarding how the game of football is played.

You don't think a company could be sued for an arbitrary/administrative rule? Also the rule is in regard to how football is played... The rule is there to make it so that way if someone is injuried it is within how the game is meant to be played.

I mean take this for example is having to write "Caution Handle With Care I'm Hot" on a coffee cup is arbitrary to me because I'm not a fucking moron who expects coffee to not be hot. But someone spilled coffee on themselves and sued for a bunch of money because they were not told that coffee was hot. It is expected for played to possibly get hurt yes but the players have the mind set that they are untentionally being hurt but when you start playing players it become intentional according to the rules of the game. Now if it was legal for players to be paid for hits then there wouldn't be an issue.

Also I understand your agrument... it is that if a hit is legal by and player and gets paid for it then they NFL shouldn't be liable to be sued for it because they player did not do anything legal within the game and the only illegal thing they did was accept money that was illegally(according to the rules the NFL currently has in place) given to him by someone from that players organization.

Iliketurtles;1124011 wrote:You don't think a company could be sued for an arbitrary/administrative rule? .

Absolutely, when it breaks the law.

A clean hit within the rules of the game falls under the assumption of risk doctrine. Intent is irrelevant from a legal standpoint, as shown by the court's refusal to create liability for intentional beanballs in baseball.

I would argue that a bounty system paying players for hits that come outside the rules (dirty hits) with the intent to affect someone's profession is absolutely grounds for potential liability and the NFL should absolutely police it.

My quarrel here is that I don't think what the Saints did truly fell in either category because I think there were aspects of both involved. Some players may have refused to hit dirty when they had the opportunity to, and only gave crushing hits when they were assured it would be a clean hit, while others certainly engaged in dirty hits for the little extra payday.

DeyDurkie5;1123995 wrote:Football players are getting paid to win football games. They aren't getting paid to intentionally hurt someone. You are really going to suck as a lawyer if these are your arguments.

If certain players are knocked out of the game (with clean shots) doesn't that help your team win the game?

Al Bundy;1124032 wrote:If certain players are knocked out of the game (with clean shots) doesn't that help your team win the game?

They aren't getting paid to do that. If it happens, it happens. But it's not in their contract, that you are getting paid to knock someone out of the game.

DeyDurkie5;1124046 wrote:They aren't getting paid to do that. If it happens, it happens. But it's not in their contract, that you are getting paid to knock someone out of the game.

Unless they have an incentive clause, they aren't getting paid to win football games either. They are getting paid to play in games.

Al Bundy;1124049 wrote:Unless they have an incentive clause, they aren't getting paid to win football games either. They are getting paid to play in games.

LOL they are getting paid to perform on the field to win ball games. So yes, they are getting paid to win games. What are you talking about?