In his Final Game at Age 19, Kyrie Irving Drops 29, 9 and 9
March 22, 2012Player Profile: Josh Tomlin and the Other Shoe
March 22, 2012
When the “bounty” program that the Saints were running came to light, I was one of the first ones to wonder what the big deal was. I would never claim that a bounty system is legal or even ethical, but in a game where it is a defense’s primary objective to use physicality to stop the opposing offense from moving the ball, it just didn’t seem all that crazy to me. I didn’t know the full story. What the Saints did was far worse than just running a bounty system that rewarded players for big plays and injuring opposing stars. They lied about it in order to keep their illegal system going long after the NFL first started investigating.
The cliché is that the cover-up is worse than the crime. I don’t even necessarily agree with that, because covering up your crime is a pretty natural defense mechanism. Again, I am a pretty understanding person and ultimately we are talking about a game that is violent by nature. The bounty system is over the line, but I’m not going to pretend like I am outraged or that I don’t understand. Where I finally started understanding Roger Goodell is that the Saints kept their bounty program going even after it was first investigated. In the end, this seems to be what drew the level of punishment that the Saints received. In my mind it is the thing that ultimately justifies the NFL’s actions as well.
It is one thing to run a bounty program that encourages big plays and, yes, knocking out opposing teams’ star players. It is quite another to cover it up in order to keep the program going. That is a spit in the face of rules and leadership that is more dangerous than just the program. The NFL has to be able to exert control over NFL clubs and players at least with regard to rules.
You may think the NFL overstepped in something like the salary cap penalties against the Redskins and Cowboys, but it is hard to argue that the NFL doesn’t need to retain the kind of control they’re exerting over the Saints. To have a team get called out for illegal activity as the Saints were in early 2010 by the NFL’s investigation and then brashly continue the program was the ultimate crime. Early 2010 indicates to me that it was after the 2009 season, yet the Saints continued their illegal program in the face of investigation for two seasons thereafter.
The NFL’s extensive investigation established the existence of an active bounty program on the Saints during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons in violation of league rules, a deliberate effort to conceal the program’s existence from league investigators, and a clear determination to maintain the program despite express direction from Saints ownership that it stop as well as ongoing inquiries from the league office.
So back to my original premise, I think a bounty program deserves a (relative) slap on the wrist type punishment compared to the giant one Roger Goodell handed down. I don’t think it is out of character with the spirit of the sport even if it does definitively step over the lines of ethical and sportsmanlike behavior. Call me old fashioned, but I’m firmly in the “boys will be boys” camp on that one. But, when the Saints lied about it, they didn’t thank their stars they might have gotten away with one and ended the program. They kept it going. This pushes it way beyond any kind of “boys will be boys” category for me.
Is the NFL hypocritical on injuries? Sure. Their proposal for an 18 game schedule is not really in line with the talk about player health and safety, especially with regard to concussions and head trauma. So what? Just because they can be somewhat hypocritical doesn’t mean that the penalties handed out to the Saints are overkill. If the NFL went lighter on the Saints would it make them less hypocritical? That argument doesn’t lead anywhere. It is a distraction and nothing more.
We’ll see where it goes from here, but I’m guessing Scott Fujita and his teammates aren’t looking at meaningless little punishments. Even if you believe Scott Fujita that he wasn’t anything like Jonathan Vilma – named in the report for ponying up $10k for Brett Favre – you have to think he is in serious danger of missing games this season. He already admitted to paying for plays. If he has one saving grace, it might be that he was in Cleveland immediately following 2009 meaning that unless he was questioned by the NFL directly in early 2010, he didn’t have anything to do with the cover-up.
You can read the full announcement from the NFL at ProFootballTalk.
54 Comments
The lying and cover up definitely was the nail in the Saints coffin. They should have just admitted it and said this isn’t touch football. I can understand the penalties but for me it’s a slippery slope. Football by nature is a violent sport and has been since it’s inception I don’t know if all of the “governing” by Goodell is necessarily good in the long run.
…
You’re seriously defending a program in which people are paid to intentionally physically injure, and possibly end the career of another human being?
Yeah, football is a violent sport, but it’s controlled violence, it’s not supposed to be about trying to kill someone.
I am quite honestly repulsed by this article and your stance on the situation.
I disagree strongly, Craig. This is a serious issue; playing the game tough and making legit tackles can be painful enough. I was center/long-snapper in high-school, and routinely I’d have my hand stepped on so that I couldn’t snap properly. While yes, these little injuries happen and are purposeful, to condone or make the frat-esque “boys will be boys” comment does advocate fair play in a football game and is rather sad. I thought you better than that.
I’m just not willing to say I’m surprised or shocked. I fully understand that it is unethical and illegal. I said the harsh punishment was justified. I’m starting to wonder if I somehow didn’t make my point effectively enough that you would say this. I thought the penalty was harsh and justifiably so. That should be the takeaway.
I’m not sure what you think my takeaway was from this whole thing, but it is that the NFL’s punishment was justifiably harsh. I am arguing against the people who say Goodell was too harsh on the Saints. That should have been the takeaway that I was trying to give everyone.
“I don’t think it is out of character with the spirit of the sport even
if it does definitively step over the lines of ethical and sportsmanlike
behavior. Call me old fashioned, but I’m firmly in the “boys will be
boys” camp on that one.”
That little gem was one of my take-aways.
You’re essentially condoning the behavior because you think its just boys will be boys stuff? But, then you go on to say that you don’t think they were punished too harshly?
That doesn’t make sense; if you think it is SOP for this happen in-game, then I’m surprised you don’t think the punishments are overly harsh.
I don’t hear anyone saying that they think this is the right way to run a football game. You can stretch the ethics of football only so far, and a bounty program doesn’t fit within 4 sides of a paper.
The bounty system doesn’t bother me. They are already get paid massive sums of money to hit one another. And people DO get hurt. The fact that some will try extra hard to hit someone for an extra grand doesn’t disillusion me about the NFL.
Of course, if it’s against the rules, it’s against the rules. Gotta follow the rules.
It seems to me you’re saying there should be a harsh punishment not because of paying people to go out of their way to cause grave bodily harm, but because of the coverup after.
I agree with you that the cover up makes it worse, but to quote you: “I think a bounty program deserves a slap on the wrist type punishment”. I strongly disagree with that sentiment. These guys were being paid above and beyond to go out there and headhunt. I’m honestly a little bit shocked that no players blew the whistle on it. It could have happened to them just as easily.
The next time you give me the benefit of the doubt will be the first. I honestly don’t know why you still visit the site.
Not condoning the behavior, but I get it. We’re talking about a league that had “JACKED UP” on ESPN up until just a couple years ago. “Boys will be boys” behaviors deserve discipline, but let’s not pretend like they’re crazed sociopaths or something. That’s the point I was trying to make.
I’m sorry that I created that impression. By slap on the wrist I kind of meant in comparison to the gauntlet the NFL threw down yesterday. I didn’t mean to say they should have gotten off scott free.
What I apparently did a poor job of conveying is that while I think the Saints deserved a punishment for the bounty thing, the real kicker that makes them deserve this extreme level of punishment is the cover up AND CONTINUED USE of the system.
In no way was I trying to say they should get away with it if they hadn’t covered it up etc. I was trying to argue against those who think the Saints’ punishment is too harsh.
I instantly thought of Ray Lewis stating, during the lockout, that if you took their game away, they would start committing crimes.
Is he a sociopath? Probably; I don’t think he speaks for the entire league, but players like him and Frostee Tucker, etc., have all been accused of major crimes, some even found guilty of them.
Benefit of the doubt? I go on what you write; you’re the one who’s putting your ideas out there. Why should I infer more than what you write? Why should anyone? If you have the courage/ability to write something and then put it in the grandest of stages, the internet, then I don’t think you should be taken aback when anyone questions what you write.
If you don’t want someone to do this, then stop writing for the website.
Football is a violent sport by nature but the purpose of the game is to put up points, not to injure the other teams players. When you start paying players to do that you’re shifting the focus away from what the game is about.
It cracks me up that during the lockout the NFLPA was all about showing solidarity between the players. They tried to get the new draft picks miss one of the most important days of their lives by skipping the NFL draft to prove that they were one with the players.
Couple months later we find out that the players were paying each other to try and stop the careers of their opponents. Some solidarity, eh?
If oribiasi didn’t visit the site who would we all argue with? 🙂
another would fill the void. always happens.
You seem to question everything I write.
The penalty in this situation was excessive for no other reason than it was a penalty driven by a power struggle, not for some altruistic concern over “player safety.” That’s precisely why the hypocrisy is a problem – because it pretends that the penalty was necessary for the latter, while it was imposed (at least to the degree that it was) solely by reason of the former.
The Saints were penalized, yes, for lying, but moreso for flaunting the authority of the Commissioner and the “shield.” The league thrives on violence and big hits, but when the Commissioner says “player safety is the watchword” (not an actual quotation), nobody associated with the shield is permitted to do anything that breaks from this line, even if it means thriving personally and privately from the violence upon which the league, and the league only, is permitted to thrive.
The Saints were penalized not for instilling unnecessary violence in the league, but for bucking against the authority (and gilded image) of the NFL. Noting the hypocrisy does not distract. The self-righteous claims of the NFL are the distraction. They should have just said that the NFL wouldn’t tolerate attempts to usurp its authority, and left “player safety” out of it.
Agree. This has been going on since the inception of the NFL, and a great number of the players that have participated in such things are almost certainly enshrined in Canton as the “heroes of the game.” In the last few years, however, the NFL has decided to take an ersatz “high road” on issues of “player safety.” It is this moral position, and the NFL’s desire to be perceived as the champions of it, that drives the situation with the Saints. The 1-year suspension of Payton is a shot across the bow, not of those coaches and teams that may be running a so-called “bounty program” (though they will certainly get this ancillary message), but of those teams that might be subverting the NFL’s “player safety” message.
Let’s face it, if the NFL and the Commissioner were truly concerned about “player safety” enough to be issuing 1-year suspensions, James Harrison would be on a 2- or 3-year unpaid vacation. Unfortunately, James Harrison (and a super-secret bounty system, without players ratting on it) is good for the NFL. Once the secret is revealed, however, a rogue coach/staff/team isn’t.
always
I was agreeing with Chris so thank you for making it right, because the article really sounds like it wasn’t a big deal and that the cover up and continuation of the program was a bad thing.
I think that players giving each other money for big plays isn’t a bad thing, it’s like a bet or reward, in a nutshell it’s just to spur competitiveness. What I believe draws the line is 1) the intent to injure a player (!!) and 2) that it was institutionalize with the involvment of the coaching staff. The penalties are well deserved for that matter. And yes football is a violent game but those types of behaviors have nothing to do with sport and it actually makes me sick. If it was basket ball we were talking about there wouldn’t be this argument and neither should it be mentioned in the case of football
I would even go further than you, Chris. I think it’s a bit lazy to call football a violent game, and prefer to think of it as a game of controlled aggression (which is why penalties exist for “unnecessary roughness” and “personal fouls”). Targeting other players with intent to injure them passes the threshold from aggression to violence, and should therefore be punished harshly.
As others have said, I’m in total disagreement w/ Craig’s “boys will be boys” sentiment. To extend his argument, if war crimes were committed and a country sought to cover them up (a la the US in Fallujah), Craig would have less of a problem with the violation of human rights than the subsequent cover up. That’s just crazy talk.
As annoying as I find Brett Favre, if you watch some clips of the Saints greatest hits on him in that NFC championship game, you have to admire his guts. The Saints beat the hell out of him, but Favre stayed out there and took it.
I’d love to know what Favre thinks of all of this. My bet is that he doesn’t give two . . . chits . . . that he was targeted for injury.
I’m sorry, what war crimes did we commit in Fallujah? I was in the vicinity, and don’t seem to recall any of those.
That’s just crazy talk.
He said he’s glad it is out in the open, but that he doesn’t hold a grudge or any ill will toward any of those guys on the Saints defense. I think that is a pretty accurate paraphrase.
But isn’t that part of why the NFL had to punish the Saints even harder? The team was told in no uncertain terms to stop and they continued to run the program and lie about it. If the NFL let them get away with it then why would any other team follow any rule?
The league is trying to make a violent game as safe as possible. Everyone involved understands that people are going to get injured in the natural course of the game, but this is the difference between hitting someone and an injury happening and hitting someone with the intent to injure them on purpose.
I don’t understand the nonsense that because football is a violent game that anything should go or that the league should never evolve in any way. The NFL has always adapted the game – head slaps used to be the norm, for example, and blocking rules have changed so linemen don’t have their knees blown on out a regular basis.
Times change and the players and teams adapt. The Saints thought they were above the law and learned the hard way no one is bigger than the league.
Let me be clear: you’re doing the Lord’s work. Writing about Cleveland sports can be as much fun as a barbed wire enema. You take time out of your life to do so and should be lauded for it.
But, with doing so, on the internet, you open yourself to criticism. It’s not just me, either; from the look of it, more than one person disagrees with your assessment here.
And, I don’t usually see a chorus of supporters for everything you write good sir. Some agree, some disagree, and some are just dumb, koolaid drinkers who will buy whatever garbage is spoon-fed to them before nap-time.
Again, its part of the kitchen, so if you can’t stand the heat, etc. etc.
Now…if you’d let me write an article or two…you might really be amazed, and it’d give you a chance to fire back.
You think I’m the only one who thinks the same way I do? That’s silly.
When you deal with facts others will always hate it. I don’t live in LaLa Land where the Browns are good and all is well. I live in the real world. What terrible things have I said that you disagree with?
Why would I stop stating the facts about the Browns when they don’t change and others insist that things are different now? I can’t abide b.s. and neither should you. Have some respect for yourself and your city’s football team (presumably you’re from here).
Gary, I honestly don’t know what happened in Fallujah, and strong arguments have been made for and against the perpetration of human rights abuses. I go with what I’m told from the soldiers I work with, but obviously anecdote — whether mine or yours — is no confirmation of the truth. Let’s hope there were no war crimes committed…I have my doubts.
But that’s beside the point. You can insert any historical example of concealed war crimes into the analogy above and Craig would still have to defend his premise that the cover up of a violent act is worse than the crime.
I think that’s my point, even if I went a little “conspiracy theory” in my approach. The punishment is completely about flaunting the NFL’s rules, not player safety. Player safety is just the impetus for the conflict, not the real reason that they brought down the hammer.
Look, as a former CFB player that had his career ended by multiple concussions – the last administered by a roid-enraged maniac in a 7-on-7 practice, I’m all for the game evolving and changing to become safer. The question posed, however, is whether the punishments inflicted on the Saints were appropriate or excessive. I simply submit that they were excessive, and excessively administered, not because of the severity of the potential injuries to players, but because of the severity of the affront to the NFL’s authority on a popular pet issue.
It’s probably splitting hairs, and a nuance that I certainly wouldn’t want to be hoisted on my own petard over, but I do think it’s relevant on the issue of whether the NFL’s hypocrisy is something of concern.
I understand. “Relative slap on the wrist”, not a true slap on the wrist. That makes sense, and I thank you for clarifying. I believe we’re in agreement, then.
Yeah, I have no problem with money for big plays, huge stops, clutch performance, etc. You have to draw the line at intentional grievous bodily harm, though.
I agree with the (clarified) takeaway on this post.
Yes, football is a *physical* game. But it need not be a *violent* game, and to turn it into a game with directed acts of violence undermines the game (and is why there are appropriate penalties in place). Having a bounty obviously is turning it that way.
But it’s one thing to create a bounty, which is bad enough; it’s another to actively mislead the league about it in order to specifically continue a program which the league says is illegal. That takes a special level of chutzpah, and definitely makes the punishment necessary exponentially worse.
A good difference is a foul vs. worse fouls in basketball – when you foul someone, you’re actively accepting the ‘punishment’ it comes with – free shots for your opponent. But a clear path foul would be using this punishment to punish the other team, so it gets the shots and the ball; and a flagrant foul is used to actively hurt, so that gets not just the shots and ball, but possibly greater punishments as well.
Thanks, Craig.
I tend to think that most players, especially the “Brett Favres” of the NFL, know exactly what they’re getting into, including the occassional “hit” hit, and know that it is primarily incumbent upon them to protect themselves while on the field. This (kind of) proves it. To me, anyway.
Not saying bounties (for injuring players, anyway) are good, in any way, but I’m just really skeptical of the after-the-fact sanctimonious posturing (not you) on the behalf of players who know “what’s up.”
I think it’s amazing how you fashion yourself a crusader who strikes down ignorance and complacency wherever it spawns.
Cool. Thanks for the clarification.
How about we go with a different analogy, then? Some folks are a little emotionally “close” to unfounded analogies like the one that you chose. War sucks, for everyone, even well after the fact, and unsupported hints and innuendo about what some surviving people may or may not have done in the context of war also suck.
Hitler is always good. Let’s just stick with Hitler and equating Craig with Hitler. Or maybe some other historical fact? My Lai?
(Kidding, Craig.)
So is Fran Tarkenton a “sanctimonious poser”? See
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577265522200050922.html.Trying to injure someone is disgusting and pathetic, period.
*Trying* to injure someone is disgusting. (Part of post got clipped.)
Book it!
Well to be honest I can usually be 50/50 on your arguments. I think I lie somewhere between kool aid drinker and bitter fan (seeing as how I’m only 21 I may not have had enough time to really get bitter yet). I don’t understand some of the moves our front office makes but I usually like to see how they actually play out on the field before I start calling for heads to roll.
But I have no problem with you. I think you provide much needed counterpoints to the “kool aid” guys. Sometimes you can get a little personal and go directly at Craig or the other users, but nobody seems to take anything too personally.
I was just having some fun with you is all.
might want to re-read that. i said another would fill the void.
if there was only one, then how could another emerge?
Random thought of the day:
NO defenders don’t go out of their way to put the hurt on Favre. Vikings win NFC Champ game. 50/50 on beating Indy in that SB (remember it took the onside kick momentum swing to really kickstart NO winning it).
Our current OC was that close to being a SB winning HC. Just saying 🙂
I can stand the heat, but if I was a chef and a guy who hated my food kept coming in to eat every day, I might question the sanity of the patron.
And you are welcome to write as many articles as you choose. I don’t understand why you haven’t started your own blog yet.
Reductio ad adsurdum
Wasn’t talking about him.
What’s more amazing is that I have to do it at all.
Well, thanks I guess. TBH, I’m not such a bad guy. I love my sports teams and I go to church on Sundays.
I just can’t stand bullcrap and whenever I see it I morph into w dervish of hatred against the crap itself and those who spew it.
No one should ever take anything personally. This is sports; an outlet in life. In the end we all want our teams to win; I just want it done in a certain, and what I consider, correct way.
Some don’t have a problem waiting 100 years for that to happen. I’m not of that ilk.
Can you? Instead of bemoaning a criticism, why not take it as a chance to refine your statements?
hmm…I seem to recall an email from you where you said you wouldn’t publish an article written by me here…but now I’m sure you’ll say “I meant you can write anything you like on your own time and distribute it among friends.” Amirite?
Start your own blog.