If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   In the story that keeps on giving, Saints coaches told players to do what it took to protect the coaches in Bountygate   (espn.go.com) divider line 218
    More: Obvious, Saints, Jonathan Vilma, Jeffri Chadiha, Scott Fujita, Joe Vitt, Anthony Hargrove, defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams  
•       •       •

1554 clicks; posted to Sports » on 08 May 2012 at 10:24 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-08 10:22:19 AM  
Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."
 
2012-05-08 10:35:23 AM  

HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."


Even if they don't have a history of concussions, that's what should happen.
 
2012-05-08 10:38:29 AM  

HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."


What if they were taking steroids and getting over 50 homers a year?
 
2012-05-08 10:39:28 AM  
i feel like greg williams is the modern day jack nicholson from "a few good men"
 
2012-05-08 10:43:27 AM  
Just wait until the truth comes out. The NFL went on a witch hunt and messed with the wrong organization. It is an absolute shame Goodell thinks a better position on upcoming former player lawsuits is worth disgracing great men who do nothing but play hard football.
 
2012-05-08 10:44:40 AM  

HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."


Of course, you really have to go out of your way to try to injure someone in baseball.
 
2012-05-08 10:44:46 AM  

HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."


Too bad Bud doesn't have a damn thing to do with football... but that five-game suspension for Hamels for admitting he intentionally hit Bryce Harper? Weak. He won't even be affected, you jerk.

digistil: What if they were taking steroids and getting over 50 homers a year?


/whistles
 
2012-05-08 10:44:47 AM  
i272.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-08 10:44:59 AM  

digistil: What if they were taking steroids and getting over 50 homers a year?


Then they probably have the herp?
 
2012-05-08 10:47:03 AM  

just_intonation: Too bad Bud doesn't have a damn thing to do with football... but that five-game suspension for Hamels for admitting he intentionally hit Bryce Harper? Weak. He won't even be affected, you jerk.


Shouldn't even be suspended. You crowd the plate, you get a baseball thrown at you. Can't just let batters control the whole plate with no worries in the back of their minds about where the ball's going.
 
2012-05-08 10:48:08 AM  

The Muthaship: HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."

Even if they don't have a history of concussions, that's what should happen.


So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?
 
2012-05-08 10:50:56 AM  
So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?

When you bean a batter are you trying to knock them out of the game?
 
2012-05-08 10:51:34 AM  

Tad_Waxpole: So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?


At least the ones dumb enough to admit it.

Ban the first couple, and you won't have the problem anymore.
 
2012-05-08 10:53:29 AM  
It's all fine and good that they're making an example of the Saints, but I'm wary of the limited context. The last few scandals, it seems as if the media keeps painting Team X (this time the Saints) as the ONLY team that cheats that way. I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out half the teams in the league had similar or worse things going on. I'm not a fan of "so vote Republican" but big-money pro sports are an exception -- the leagues are thoroughly sold out. Cheating leads to winning and winning leads to $$$, so they enable cheating whenever they can get away with it. Ergo, if you're a coach and don't cheat you're out of a job. The cleanups are basically PR damage control. If you think any NFL team is clean, take off those rose-colored glasses before you choke on crow.
 
2012-05-08 10:54:48 AM  

admvernclark: Just wait until the truth comes out. The NFL went on a witch hunt and messed with the wrong organization. It is an absolute shame Goodell thinks a better position on upcoming former player lawsuits is worth disgracing great men who do nothing but play hard football.


Goodell is doing what he has to do to protect the league. Had the Organization done the right thing and made 100% sure the coaches were out of it, this thing never would be even a fraction of what it is today. The player suspensions would probably be half of what they ended up being, and 0 coaching suspensions. That 'wrong organization' thing is hilarious though. What, exactly, do you think the Saints are going to do to the league? Sue it? Join the CFL? Hope you guys enjoy your last Super Bowl in a long time, if they do. Its safe to say this is nothing but Hargrove looking for a sliver of mercy but it won't change anything in the end.
 
2012-05-08 10:55:04 AM  

admvernclark: Just wait until the truth comes out. The NFL went on a witch hunt and messed with the wrong organization. It is an absolute shame Goodell thinks a better position on upcoming former player lawsuits is worth disgracing great men who do nothing but play hard football.


They didn't necessarily mess with the "wrong" orginization. Their problem is they targeted one orginization, and not the other 31 of them... which Godell and the league (as we'll soon find out with the power of subpoena) knew were doing the same thing. For the past 50 years.

They tried to put a band-aid on a gaping wound.
 
2012-05-08 10:55:46 AM  

IAmRight: just_intonation: Too bad Bud doesn't have a damn thing to do with football... but that five-game suspension for Hamels for admitting he intentionally hit Bryce Harper? Weak. He won't even be affected, you jerk.

Shouldn't even be suspended. You crowd the plate, you get a baseball thrown at you. Can't just let batters control the whole plate with no worries in the back of their minds about where the ball's going.


Except like a moron, Hamels didn't say, "I went inside because he was crowding the plate." He said he intentionally hit him because Harper doesn't "respect the game" or some nonsense. I agree Harper is brash, and that schtick he pulled last year blowing kisses at a pitcher he homered off of would rightly get him a fastball to the ear-hole of of almost any major league pitcher, but he's done nothing but play his rear off since he got the call, and I say this as someone that hates the freaking Nats. What Hamels did was pretty stupid, and had he just said, "The guy was crowding the plate and I went inside," I doubt anything more would have come of it.
 
2012-05-08 10:57:18 AM  
This thread

admvernclark: Just wait until the truth comes out. The NFL went on a witch hunt and messed with the wrong organization. It is an absolute shame Goodell thinks a better position on upcoming former player lawsuits is worth disgracing great men who do nothing but play hard football.


What truth is that? They ran the bounty program and they are getting punished for it.

lol@ great men who do nothing but play hard football. FFS they're athletes not classical polymaths.
 
2012-05-08 10:59:59 AM  

dragonchild: It's all fine and good that they're making an example of the Saints, but I'm wary of the limited context. The last few scandals, it seems as if the media keeps painting Team X (this time the Saints) as the ONLY team that cheats that way. I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out half the teams in the league had similar or worse things going on. I'm not a fan of "so vote Republican" but big-money pro sports are an exception -- the leagues are thoroughly sold out. Cheating leads to winning and winning leads to $$$, so they enable cheating whenever they can get away with it. Ergo, if you're a coach and don't cheat you're out of a job. The cleanups are basically PR damage control. If you think any NFL team is clean, take off those rose-colored glasses before you choke on crow.


Its a liability issue since the coaching staff was directly involved. That's the MAIN issue. If someone ended up in a wheel chair for life and this comes out, the Saints are liable and so is the league. If the coaches weren't directly involved, we probably barely would have heard about this. Maybe some player suspensions for a while, but nothing major at all.

Secondary, but almost as big, are the concussion lawsuits. The league HAS to come down hard to protect their case with the former players.
 
2012-05-08 11:03:39 AM  

animesucks: i feel like greg williams is the modern day jack nicholson from "a few good men"


Slight different level of stakes, though.
 
2012-05-08 11:05:07 AM  

admvernclark: Just wait until the truth comes out. The NFL went on a witch hunt and messed with the wrong organization. It is an absolute shame Goodell thinks a better position on upcoming former player lawsuits is worth disgracing great men who do nothing but play hard football.


The NFLPA has been shown to be a rather impotent organization.
 
2012-05-08 11:11:42 AM  

The Muthaship: Tad_Waxpole: So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?

At least the ones dumb enough to admit it.

Ban the first couple, and you won't have the problem anymore.


It's not a problem. It's part of the game.
 
2012-05-08 11:14:15 AM  

Tad_Waxpole: It's not a problem. It's part of the game.


That IS the problem.

You watch hockey for the fights? Auto racing for the intentional crashes?

It's pathetic.
 
2012-05-08 11:14:52 AM  
Here is Hargrove's statement to the NFL. I don't know what else the NFL had on Hargrove, or whether the NFL believed him, but they gave him 8 games, gave Vitt 6 (which, it seems to me, if the league was convinced Hargrove lied at Vitt's behest, then why did Hargrove get a harsher penalty than Vitt?)
 
2012-05-08 11:19:51 AM  

Nabb1: Except like a moron, Hamels didn't say, "I went inside because he was crowding the plate." He said he intentionally hit him because Harper doesn't "respect the game" or some nonsense. I agree Harper is brash, and that schtick he pulled last year blowing kisses at a pitcher he homered off of would rightly get him a fastball to the ear-hole of of almost any major league pitcher, but he's done nothing but play his rear off since he got the call, and I say this as someone that hates the freaking Nats. What Hamels did was pretty stupid, and had he just said, "The guy was crowding the plate and I went inside," I doubt anything more would have come of it.


Did the other guy get suspended for hitting Hamels? He didn't, right, because he said he wasn't trying to?

This is another reason baseball is a joke - We don't punish what you do for player safety, we punish you based on your exposure of our unwritten rules, then claim it's for player safety. Hamels took his HBP, so he took his punishment for what he did on the field.

Here's the quote I can find:

"I was trying to hit him," the two-time All-Star lefty said Sunday night. "I'm not going to deny it. I'm not trying to injure the guy. They're probably not going to like me for it, but I'm not going to say I wasn't trying to do it. I think they understood the message, and they threw it right back. That's the way, and I respect it."

Not great reasoning - it was a "welcome to the league" pitch, according to what the article's author said Hamels' reasoning was.

This, however, is laughable:

"Obviously that's not what we're about," Amaro said. "We're not about trying to injure people. Things that happen in the game happen in the game. Those are parts of the game. But as far as how the Phillies want to conduct themselves, we try to take the high road on things. By no means are we condoning this. We fully support what the commissioner's office has decided to do."

Your pitcher hit Hamels the first time he came up after the incident. That's the high road - getting your revenge then lying about it. F*ck off.

I'm f*cking sick of people being punished for honesty. We should be striving for honesty.

And this is why the Saints should be punished - they're actively lying and covering up, every step of the way. You'll note that the Giants and 49ers weren't punished for saying they were trying to hurt guys in th NFC Championship Game.
 
2012-05-08 11:25:17 AM  
Here is the thing folks. I LOVE football. My weekends in the fall are spent watching my beloved Packers and (yes, I'll admit it) Illini on the football field. The problem is that no matter how much I enjoy football, because of all the TBI stuff I've been hearing about (from former players, coaches, doctors, etc..), I would never let my son play the sport. Until the NFL cracks down SEVERELY on people who are out there trying to injure each other and, at the same time, finds a way to make an impact on the amount of brain damage being done to their athletes, football will begin a slow and eventual demise as a sport. Sure it is going to take a long time, but it will happen. I don't want it to happen, but until they can get things under control, you are going to see fewer and fewer youth playing. Without youth playing, there won't be a league.
 
2012-05-08 11:31:18 AM  
Whar is the evidence?! WHAR?!
 
2012-05-08 11:32:41 AM  

MugzyBrown: So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?

When you bean a batter are you trying to knock them out of the game?


If a pitcher doesn't realize he is risking doing just that, he is a very stupid man.
 
2012-05-08 11:36:43 AM  

The Muthaship: Tad_Waxpole: It's not a problem. It's part of the game.

That IS the problem.

You watch hockey for the fights? Auto racing for the intentional crashes?

It's pathetic.


Throwing at a batter supposedly has all these unwritten rules. The NFL scandals going on - again, unwritten or trying to skirt the rules to the point where it's all gray. Fights in hockey - these rules look written to me - Link
 
2012-05-08 11:39:15 AM  

animesucks: i feel like greg williams is the modern day jack nicholson from "a few good men"


I thought it extremely Odd when Danny Snyder passed on him as head coach and went with Jim farking Zorn instead. Did Danny know something even then or did he just make a typically bone-headed move that just happened to work out for him?
 
2012-05-08 11:42:33 AM  

b04155: Fights in hockey - these rules look written to me - Link


Those look like rules against it to me, but you are right that it is a time honored institution in the sport. Which is sickening. If you do what those guys do inside the plexi-glass, outside the plexi-glass, your ass is going to jail.
 
2012-05-08 11:45:40 AM  

spqr2001: Here is the thing folks. I LOVE football. My weekends in the fall are spent watching my beloved Packers and (yes, I'll admit it) Illini on the football field. The problem is that no matter how much I enjoy football, because of all the TBI stuff I've been hearing about (from former players, coaches, doctors, etc..), I would never let my son play the sport. Until the NFL cracks down SEVERELY on people who are out there trying to injure each other and, at the same time, finds a way to make an impact on the amount of brain damage being done to their athletes, football will begin a slow and eventual demise as a sport. Sure it is going to take a long time, but it will happen. I don't want it to happen, but until they can get things under control, you are going to see fewer and fewer youth playing. Without youth playing, there won't be a league.


The problem is football was designed to be a violent sport. There's no way to make it safe and entertaining at the same time. Any attempts to do so will vary between laughable and damaging to the popularity of the sport.
 
2012-05-08 11:48:03 AM  

downstairs: spqr2001: Here is the thing folks. I LOVE football. My weekends in the fall are spent watching my beloved Packers and (yes, I'll admit it) Illini on the football field. The problem is that no matter how much I enjoy football, because of all the TBI stuff I've been hearing about (from former players, coaches, doctors, etc..), I would never let my son play the sport. Until the NFL cracks down SEVERELY on people who are out there trying to injure each other and, at the same time, finds a way to make an impact on the amount of brain damage being done to their athletes, football will begin a slow and eventual demise as a sport. Sure it is going to take a long time, but it will happen. I don't want it to happen, but until they can get things under control, you are going to see fewer and fewer youth playing. Without youth playing, there won't be a league.

The problem is football was designed to be a violent sport. There's no way to make it safe and entertaining at the same time. Any attempts to do so will vary between laughable and damaging to the popularity of the sport.


While true, you see my concern with the future of the sport? If parents aren't letting kids play because they are seeing all the TBI stuff later in life that is being attributed to the sport of football, where is the future of the sport?
 
2012-05-08 11:52:21 AM  

The Muthaship: If you do what those guys do inside the plexi-glass, outside the plexi-glass, your ass is going to jail.


Everyone who says anything similar to this should be shot.

Hey, if you raced cares at 200 mph outside of a race track, your ass is going to jail. If you tackle someone outside of a sporting event, you're going to jail. If you throw a 90 mph baseball within a couple feet of a person, you can go to jail. If you intentionally hit someone who is skating, you can go to jail. If you jump over someone and teabag them, even if you're trying to put a ball in a hoop, you're going to jail. If you try to stop someone from getting by you and occasionally hit their chest or arms a few times, you can go to jail.

FFS, if I hit a nice 5-iron off a bridge into traffic, I'm going to jail. If I hit a tennis serve at someone on the street, I'm going to jail.
 
2012-05-08 11:52:57 AM  
Also, flag football is pretty damn fun and doesn't require the head trauma.
 
2012-05-08 11:55:26 AM  

IAmRight: Hey, if you raced cares at 200 mph outside of a race track, your ass is going to jail. If you tackle someone outside of a sporting event, you're going to jail. If you throw a 90 mph baseball within a couple feet of a person, you can go to jail. If you intentionally hit someone who is skating, you can go to jail. If you jump over someone and teabag them, even if you're trying to put a ball in a hoop, you're going to jail. If you try to stop someone from getting by you and occasionally hit their chest or arms a few times, you can go to jail.

FFS, if I hit a nice 5-iron off a bridge into traffic, I'm going to jail. If I hit a tennis serve at someone on the street, I'm going to jail.


I assume you see the inherent fallacy in each of those. If not, turn the gun on yourself.
 
2012-05-08 12:00:02 PM  

someonelse: MugzyBrown: So ban every pitcher who's ever intentionally plunked a batter?

When you bean a batter are you trying to knock them out of the game?

If a pitcher doesn't realize he is risking doing just that, he is a very stupid man.


Everytime you tackle somebody in football you risk injuring them. Everytime you come in hard to 2nd base you risk injuring them.
When you try to pitch inside you risk injuring them
When you bean somebody you risk injuring them

The bounty scandal is about TRYING to injure them. Intending to injure.

Very different.
 
2012-05-08 12:03:29 PM  

The Muthaship: I assume you see the inherent fallacy in each of those. If not, turn the gun on yourself.


Every single sport, if you perform legal or illegal actions within the game which would not, and should not, be penalized outside of the sport, would get you jailed if you performed the same actions outside of the field of play. So saying sh*t like "the stuff they get away with between the lines gets you jailed if you do it outside the lines" is the stupidest, worst thought process ever.
 
2012-05-08 12:04:32 PM  

The Muthaship: Tad_Waxpole: It's not a problem. It's part of the game.

That IS the problem.

You watch hockey for the fights? Auto racing for the intentional crashes?

It's pathetic.


I suppose you watch sports for the handshakes and hugging at the end of the game?
 
2012-05-08 12:07:14 PM  

IAmRight: just_intonation: Too bad Bud doesn't have a damn thing to do with football... but that five-game suspension for Hamels for admitting he intentionally hit Bryce Harper? Weak. He won't even be affected, you jerk.

Shouldn't even be suspended. You crowd the plate, you get a baseball thrown at you. Can't just let batters control the whole plate with no worries in the back of their minds about where the ball's going.


Being brushed back intentionally is one thing. Being hit in the back intentionally is another, and admitting you did it intentionally is something else entirely.

You want to brush him back, you pitch him high and inside, and you don't say a word about it to the press.
 
2012-05-08 12:07:32 PM  
I suppose you watch sports for the handshakes and hugging at the end of the game?

I watch sports for the drama, the competition, the unpredictability, the amazing acts of athleticism, etc
 
2012-05-08 12:10:44 PM  

IAmRight: So saying sh*t like "the stuff they get away with between the lines gets you jailed if you do it outside the lines" is the stupidest, worst thought process ever.


What part of hockey contemplates removing your gloves (and usually helmets) and squaring off with the other person in a "let's see how hard and how often I can punch you in the face" contest? perhaps I can even disable your ability to defend yourself by pulling your jersey over your head! It does nothing to advance the pretty simple and obvious objectives of the game (score goals, prevent other team from doing so).

Accidental HBP's in baseball are not analogous. Nothing really is. It's an absolute joke that basically is only revered and practiced in North American hockey.

You can go drive your car fast on a track, just like race car drivers if you want. Tackling is part of football, just like checking in hockey. Jumping higher than your opponent is valuable in basketball, though if you dip your sack in their mouth (I'm guessing even in the NBA) you may face legal consequences.

In short, UAreWrong
 
2012-05-08 12:12:47 PM  

NutznGum: I suppose you watch sports for the handshakes and hugging at the end of the game?


I watch it (much less than I used to) to see the sport played. Not the behavior of the lowest common denominator.
 
2012-05-08 12:14:58 PM  

IAmRight: HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."

Of course, you really have to go out of your way to try to injure someone in baseball.


Tell that to Ty Cobb

/spikes up
 
2012-05-08 12:18:22 PM  

spqr2001: While true, you see my concern with the future of the sport? If parents aren't letting kids play because they are seeing all the TBI stuff later in life that is being attributed to the sport of football, where is the future of the sport?


Oh, 100%. We're in agreement. I do believe in 20-30 years football will be at the point where boxing is now.
 
2012-05-08 12:21:59 PM  

downstairs: spqr2001: While true, you see my concern with the future of the sport? If parents aren't letting kids play because they are seeing all the TBI stuff later in life that is being attributed to the sport of football, where is the future of the sport?

Oh, 100%. We're in agreement. I do believe in 20-30 years football will be at the point where boxing is now.


My girlfriend said the exact same thing. I don't really see that at all, especially with a lot of the new helmets coming out which severely reduce head trauma.

/ VT is designing them I think
 
2012-05-08 12:31:54 PM  

just_intonation: You want to brush him back, you pitch him high and inside, and you don't say a word about it to the press


Or you hit him intentionally and then claim it was an accident. Like the Nationals did immediately following the incident. And aren't going to be punished at all for because in MLB, the only thing that's illegal is being honest. Remember, they were happy to have steroids being used by everyone until someone had to go and tell and ruin everything.

The Muthaship: What part of hockey contemplates removing your gloves (and usually helmets) and squaring off with the other person in a "let's see how hard and how often I can punch you in the face" contest?


It's part of the game - there are several reasons one might fight, from defending star players who are getting run at by other players, to helping protect goalies from borderline illegal play that is frequently ignored by officials, to trying to pull the crowd into a game, etc.

Just because you think it doesn't belong in the game doesn't mean it's so.

The point of my argument that you don't seem to get is the whole "they get away with things inside the lines that would get you jailed if you did them in public." Every sport would get you jailed if you did it in public. So stop acting as though it's a valid argument for getting rid of the things you don't like, because if we press charges for things like, say, hockey fights because you'd get charges pressed if you did it in public, why should it stop there? You'd get charges pressed if you checked someone into a wall. You'd get charged if you shot a puck at anyone.

If you really don't understand why comparing sports to "real life" is a stupid argument, well, I don't know why you're in a sports thread.
 
2012-05-08 12:32:01 PM  

HulkHands: Peter Gammons asked Bud Selig what the punishment would be for a player that intentionally tried to injure someone who had a history of concussions.

"Banned for life."


So Bud Selig would ban Devin Thomas and Jacquian Williams for life? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.
 
2012-05-08 12:32:58 PM  

redmid17: especially with a lot of the new helmets coming out which severely reduce head trauma.


Helmets can't stop the head trama. The brain is sloshing around against the skull.
 
2012-05-08 12:34:14 PM  

redmid17: downstairs: spqr2001: While true, you see my concern with the future of the sport? If parents aren't letting kids play because they are seeing all the TBI stuff later in life that is being attributed to the sport of football, where is the future of the sport?

Oh, 100%. We're in agreement. I do believe in 20-30 years football will be at the point where boxing is now.

My girlfriend said the exact same thing. I don't really see that at all, especially with a lot of the new helmets coming out which severely reduce head trauma.

/ VT is designing them I think


There's WAY more to the medical problems with football than just head trauma. I've known quite a few NFL players (no big-time stars, more like third-stringers). Half of them can barely walk. And getting out of bed in the morning is more painful than anything you've ever experienced.

Look, I'm a huge football fan too. Just stating what I've seen both on TV interviews and in real life.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report