darken65
Warped Member
It still can't be regulated even if there's a bounty. The bounty itself can be punished, but the intent to injure cannot.
Explain why the Saints were punished by the NFL with your understanding of this thought.
It still can't be regulated even if there's a bounty. The bounty itself can be punished, but the intent to injure cannot.
It still can't be regulated even if there's a bounty. The bounty itself can be punished, but the intent to injure cannot.
I pay Rocco to whack you. He fails and gets pinched, I go to prison for the hit and Rocco is set free, even though his intent was to paste your azz. Makes perfect sense
It still can't be regulated even if there's a bounty. The bounty itself can be punished, but the intent to injure cannot.
If you think hurting the opponents player doesn't offer a competitive advantage I have to disagree with you.
I don't disagree with that part at all. I disagree with the notion that paying a player after he injures another creates a competitive advantage.
I completely agree it's wrong and horrible, but it doesn't give one team an advantage over another team like deflating footballs does or taking PEDs.
So then if the player was paid before he actually injured the other teams player, you'd then believe a competitive advantage was gained? That defeats the entire purpose of having a bounty. Payment on delivery.
If he is paid for the bounty before the game but does not deliver then obviously no edge is gained. If he does hurt the player then an advantage is gained.
Players hit each other with the intent of hurting someone every single play. What you're saying is that paying a guy for it gives a team an advantage; it doesn't. The referees will call hits either legal or illegal. And an illegal hit isn't cheating either! Just like being off sides isn't cheating.
Cheating means you've done something to get a competitive advantage the other team doesn't have. Putting money on something doesn't give one team an advantage. It's illegal and should be punished, but the integrity of the game isn't effected.
This is like coaches betting money against each other on who's going to win the game. It's against the rules, but it's not cheating. Deflating footballs is cheating.
What I'm saying is that payment itself, regardless of when it happens, doesn't make one team more capable of hurting the other team than the other.
Lol at people who think bounties are cheating.
Patriots fans and apologists are trying too hard.
Lol @ people who think it isn't cheating. Though I admit, it may be a stretch to claim those people are capable of thinking rationally.
I don't disagree with that part at all. I disagree with the notion that paying a player after he injures another creates a competitive advantage.
I completely agree it's wrong and horrible, but it doesn't give one team an advantage over another team like deflating footballs does or taking PEDs.
This article is 3 years old.
I guess in the next thread we will be discussing Lyle Alzado's steroid allegations?
Lol at people who think bounties are cheating.
Patriots fans and apologists are trying too hard.
Explain why the Saints were punished by the NFL with your understanding of this thought.
Such a high moral character guy that Chris Carter | SportsHoopla Sports ForumsCris Carter Admits Being Involved in Bounty Programs | Robert Littal Presents BlackSportsOnline
Now we know why he so vehemently wants to call the Patriots Cheaters.....
Pro Bowler********
All Pro**