i am confused about what a bounty is

saintsfan26 · 08-01-2012, 08:57 PM

This is crazy. For the last 4 or 5 months the word "bounty" has been drilled into my head repeatedly, over and over again, but I still have no clue what the NFL's definition of a "bounty" is. At first it appeared that when the NFL initially came out with their punishments, we were led to believe that a "bounty" is when you target a specific opponent and intentionally try to injure him. But then I actually looked up the Webster definition of bounty, and I found this:

Quote:

1 : something that is given generously.
2 : liberality in giving :

. And then I was like woah they got us in a game of "gotcha". A bounty can be anything. Those ******** got us.

But wait a minute.. the NFL has clearly made it known that "pay for performance" and "bounty" are 2 different things. The NFL has only associated the word bounty as it relates to injuries, NOT as it relates to interceptions, etc.. So something isn't adding up here. Webster says a bounty is just a reward. Therefore, all pay for performance is a bounty. But the NFL doesn't believe it is. Confused yet? Me too. Bare with me.

So then I looked up the definition of "bounty hunter" and I found this:

Quote:

1 : one who tracks down and captures outlaws for whom a reward is offered
2 : one who hunts predatory animals for the reward offered

Ok now this seems to be more of what we were being punished for. If I put this into football terms it would look like this:

Quote:

1 : one who tracks down and injures opponents for whom a reward is offered
2 : one who hunts opponents for the reward offered

Notice the key words in those 2 definitions being "tracks down" and "hunts". Those are words that are used with INTENTION of injuring somebody. If you track down or hunt somebody and you receive a reward for accomplishing your task, then you are a bounty hunter.

But if you play football within the rules of the game, and you do your job as a defender and hit your opponent with a hard, clean, legal hit that just so happens to knock him out of the game or for a few plays, and you get a bonus for it.. then is it not just pay for performance? We were not "tracking down" or "hunting" certain players. We were giving bonuses for good plays after the fact. This is why the word "bounty" confuses me. Webster clearly states that a bounty is used with intent. Since the NFL has only associated the word bounty with injuries, and not with fumble recoveries etc.. then that means that the word bounty in the NFL's eyes means "intent to injure".

But then the NFL makes a statement that says "intent" is not important here. Well I'll be damned if it aint! bounty hunting is an intentional practice per Websters dictionary!

What the hell are you doing, Roger?

I am going by the dagg'on Webster dictionary for Pete sake! It doesn't get much more factual than that! For the love of God man somebody put a bounty on the Dictator! The guy is trying to re-write the dictionary now!

Saint Tex · 08-02-2012, 12:30 AM

Your problem is that you are applying rules and logic. The definition of bounty is very fluid. It depends entirely on the evidence. When someone disproves your evidence of a bounty, the definition shifts to fit the evidence you still have.

Helps if you don't disclose the evidence, because when you disclose it, people are able to disprove it.

You clearly are not qualified to be the Commissioner of the NFL.

thegoldenapple · 08-02-2012, 12:36 AM

The obvious answer is: a bounty is whatever the Saints do. Anything else is a-okay.

MudBugger · 08-02-2012, 04:00 AM

Based on the western days, there were bounties that includes 'dead or alive'!!!! Does Webster include that??

SeLuSaint · 08-02-2012, 04:13 AM

Bounty- (noun) Goodell's method of trying to dismantle a team that has a good shot at playing in a home Superbowl.

OhioSaintsFan · 08-02-2012, 04:19 AM

Bounty = A quality paper towel.

NewOrleansHotBoy · 08-02-2012, 06:06 AM

Don't ask me, ask Dog!

saintsfan26 · 08-02-2012, 06:19 AM

My point is, you can't be a bounty hunter without intent. If you do it unintentionally then you are not a bounty hunter. How do you "track down" or "hunt" someone without intentionally trying to "track down" or "hunt" them? How can the NFL say intent doesn't matter when intent is what bounty hunting is all about? If the Saints were not intentionally trying to hurt people, then they were not bounty hunting. If they were not bounty hunting, then they were getting paid for performance. if anybody in the media had any cojones whatsoever they would have called the NFL out on this. But instead they don't, and that is why I am still here complaining about it. The NFL's game of semantics could have easily backfired on them if somebody would just stand up and asks these kinds of questions. But no, they are too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. It disgusts me every day and it stresses me out!

keefresh2 · 08-02-2012, 07:44 AM

I predict next year the league will suspend Brees for the season for deliberately attempting to break long-standing records.

That would make about as much sense as this ********.

Gore · 08-02-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan26

This is crazy. For the last 4 or 5 months the word "bounty" has been drilled into my head repeatedly, over and over again, but I still have no clue what the NFL's definition of a "bounty" is.

This is from the NFL's first announcement back in March:

"The players regularly contributed cash into a pool and received improper cash payments of two kinds from the pool based on their play in the previous week's game. Payments were made for plays such as interceptions and fumble recoveries, but the program also included "bounty" payments for "cart-offs" (meaning that the opposing player was carried off the field) and "knockouts" (meaning that the opposing player was not able to return to the game)."

So if it's a bonus für an INT, forced fumble or a tackle on STs it's a p4p bonus. If it's a bonus for a play that injured an opponent so he had to leave the game it's a bounty payment.

saintsfan26 · 08-02-2012, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gore

This is from the NFL's first announcement back in March:

"The players regularly contributed cash into a pool and received improper cash payments of two kinds from the pool based on their play in the previous week's game. Payments were made for plays such as interceptions and fumble recoveries, but the program also included "bounty" payments for "cart-offs" (meaning that the opposing player was carried off the field) and "knockouts" (meaning that the opposing player was not able to return to the game)."

So if it's a bonus für an INT, forced fumble or a tackle on STs it's a p4p bonus. If it's a bonus for a play that injured an opponent so he had to leave the game it's a bounty payment.

You missed my point completely.

NYCsaint · 08-02-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintsfan26

My point is, you can't be a bounty hunter without intent. If you do it unintentionally then you are not a bounty hunter. How do you "track down" or "hunt" someone without intentionally trying to "track down" or "hunt" them? How can the NFL say intent doesn't matter when intent is what bounty hunting is all about? If the Saints were not intentionally trying to hurt people, then they were not bounty hunting. If they were not bounty hunting, then they were getting paid for performance. if anybody in the media had any cojones whatsoever they would have called the NFL out on this. But instead they don't, and that is why I am still here complaining about it. The NFL's game of semantics could have easily backfired on them if somebody would just stand up and asks these kinds of questions. But no, they are too afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. It disgusts me every day and it stresses me out!

i think the umbrella for the nfl is that they were tracking down big plays (bounty on the ball), and big hits that would leave a guy more prone to injury (non-descript bounty on everyone) and of course the favre allegations (bounty on a targeted player).

what of that is believed is a whole different question - but the term bounty isnt near as confusing as you want to make it out to be.

NYCsaint · 08-02-2012, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gore

This is from the NFL's first announcement back in March:

"The players regularly contributed cash into a pool and received improper cash payments of two kinds from the pool based on their play in the previous week's game. Payments were made for plays such as interceptions and fumble recoveries, but the program also included "bounty" payments for "cart-offs" (meaning that the opposing player was carried off the field) and "knockouts" (meaning that the opposing player was not able to return to the game)."

So if it's a bonus für an INT, forced fumble or a tackle on STs it's a p4p bonus. If it's a bonus for a play that injured an opponent so he had to leave the game it's a bounty payment.

PFP still falls under the umbrella of bounty in the rule book. they are two halves of the same section with that header. essentially any payment for a targeted action they count as a bounty. it doesnt have to be a bounty on a human being. terminology in the rules not matching our image of a bounty hunter tracking down people certainly didnt do anything good for anybody in this case.

Professor · 08-02-2012, 02:37 PM

RE: The thread title...

So is Roger Goodell.

saintsfan26 · 08-02-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYCsaint

i think the umbrella for the nfl is that they were tracking down big plays (bounty on the ball), and big hits that would leave a guy more prone to injury (non-descript bounty on everyone) and of course the favre allegations (bounty on a targeted player).

what of that is believed is a whole different question - but the term bounty isnt near as confusing as you want to make it out to be.

Ok so you are one of the people who believe that everything is a bounty. Fumble recoveries, interceptions etc are all bounties. then here is my question to you:

Why do they even have something called "pay for performance" when all it is is a bounty? They don't need to call it pay for performance/bounty anymore. They can just call it bounty and save a lot of ink!

Edit: I will answer it for you. Its an easy question. Here is the answer:

It is because they have made it clear that there IS a difference between pay for performance and bounty. Gore posted it above. Read the NFL's quote.

Edit again: and if you have been following SR since the beginning of bountygate then you would know, that Gore and myself have not agreed on anything throughout this whole process. However, I have taken Gore's and the NFL's words and am now using them against them.

To summarize my point again, it is like this:

The NFL from the beginning has linked the word bounty ONLY to the allegations that relate to INJURIES.

Bounties as defined by the Webster dictionary are a reward that is received for an intentional act.

The NFL says intent is not important.

You can't have a bounty without intent.

The Saints did not intentionally try to injure anybody and it has been proven by watching the tapes and by the fact that we injured the 2nd fewest opponents in the entire NFL over the 3 year span.

The NFL did not punish the Giants because the video tapes show that they did not intentionally try to hurt kyyle williams.

Without intent, you can't call it a bounty.

Therefore the Saints were only being paid for performance because there was no intent to injure.