Saints HC Sean Payton suspended for ONE YEAR

• Fred Flintstone

  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.
  
  
• Manhattan Buckeye

  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.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "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.
• Laley23

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• Skyhook79

  

  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.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  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.
• Laley23

  

  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.
• Laley23

  

  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).
• DeyDurkie5

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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).
• lhslep134

  

  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?
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  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.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  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.
• Laley23

  

  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.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  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
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• Iliketurtles

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• like_that

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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).
• sleeper

  

  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.
• lhslep134

  

  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.
• like_that

  

  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.