Paying a player's fine = bounty? (1 Viewer)

[bienv]

So we now have two non-NFL players (Ray Lewis and Tedy Bruschi) who publically offered to pay part of a fine on an NFL player (Ahmet Brooks for the Brees hit) should said player in fact be fined. Is this different from a coach or owner offering a player bonus pay for performing certain actions on the field? I also think this gives players incentive to make dangerous hits, given the possibility that somebody may alleviate the financial consequence of it and prop you on television. If bounties are wrong, then so is this and the league needs to do something about it.

At the very least, shame on Lewis and Bruschi for offering to do it, and shame on ESPN for using a dangerous hit on a player to not only create drama but also impugn the player who could have been severely injured by it.

 

[Pop Rouge]

You're a little late to the party on this subject.

 

[Jackavelli]

No

 

[superchuck500]

So we now have two non-NFL players (Ray Lewis and Tedy Bruschi) who publically offered to pay part of a fine on an NFL player (Ahmet Brooks for the Brees hit) should said player in fact be fined. Is this different from a coach or owner offering a player bonus pay for performing certain actions on the field? I also think this gives players incentive to make dangerous hits, given the possibility that somebody may alleviate the financial consequence of it and prop you on television. If bounties are wrong, then so is this and the league needs to do something about it.

At the very least, shame on Lewis and Bruschi for offering to do it, and shame on ESPN for using a dangerous hit on a player to not only create drama but also impugn the player who could have been severely injured by it.

As a purely academic matter, there's a big difference between offering to pay any hit-related fine before the hit is actually made - versus after. If the offer is unknown to the player at the time of the hit, it hasn't been incentivized. But in reality, I'm sure the league would frown upon any such offers. So no, it's not a bounty or anything like it (if the offers aren't made until after the hit).

The comments by Lewis and Bruschi, IMO, are just hot air on TV . . . I don't think they actually intend to give Brooks any money if he were fined (and the league certainly wouldn't accept payment from some other person besides the offending player). Unless this becomes actual (the offeror does give money to the player) or a common occurrence, I don't think the league will do or say anything about it.

Is it bad form on the part of Lewis and Bruschi - guys who have no part in officiating, rulemaking, or discipline - to make those statements? I think it is.

 

[Swampy Saint]

You're a little late to the party on this subject.

This is true, but I don't read every single post either.

To the OP's point......In a round about way, I agree.

But when I take off my homer glasses (hard to do, cuz they're super glued on), calling it a bounty reeks of retaliation by anyone from the WhoDat Nation.
Even if it is credible to you and I.

I am having a hard time getting over being jobbed by the NFL and the media as well.

I think that I'm just doing a better job of accepting that this is the world we live in today.

 

[Swimmer]

As a purely academic matter, there's a big difference between offering to pay any hit-related fine before the hit is actually made - versus after. If the offer is unknown to the player at the time of the hit, it hasn't been incentivized. But in reality, I'm sure the league would frown upon any such offers. So no, it's not a bounty or anything like it (if the offers aren't made until after the hit).

The comments by Lewis and Bruschi, IMO, are just hot air on TV . . . I don't think they actually intend to give Brooks any money if he were fined (and the league certainly wouldn't accept payment from some other person besides the offending player). Unless this becomes actual (the offeror does give money to the player) or a common occurrence, I don't think the league will do or say anything about it.

Is it bad form on the part of Lewis and Bruschi - guys who have no part in officiating, rulemaking, or discipline - to make those statements? I think it is.

Nice Clarification once again Counselor!

The part about "hot air" is spot-on. The objective of media "analysts" (I use this term very loosely) and beat writers is to polarize their audience. They want half to love them and half to hate them so that all are engaged and come back for more. The more emotion they can stir in the audience, positive or negative, the better their ratings and the higher they get paid.

 

[Elija Nevett]

As a purely academic matter, there's a big difference between offering to pay any hit-related fine before the hit is actually made - versus after. If the offer is unknown to the player at the time of the hit, it hasn't been incentivized. But in reality, I'm sure the league would frown upon any such offers. So no, it's not a bounty or anything like it (if the offers aren't made until after the hit).

The comments by Lewis and Bruschi, IMO, are just hot air on TV . . . I don't think they actually intend to give Brooks any money if he were fined (and the league certainly wouldn't accept payment from some other person besides the offending player). Unless this becomes actual (the offeror does give money to the player) or a common occurrence, I don't think the league will do or say anything about it.

Is it bad form on the part of Lewis and Bruschi - guys who have no part in officiating, rulemaking, or discipline - to make those statements? I think it is.

Superchuck. Since neither are employees of the NFL, the NFL has no recourse anyway? Correct?

 

[pete]

I don't know if this has been said, but if I'm issuing a fine and I see someone volunteering to pay half of it, I simply double the penalty so the original offender is still paying the right amount.

 

[superchuck500]

Superchuck. Since neither are employees of the NFL, the NFL has no recourse anyway? Correct?

Taking aside the relationship between the league and the networks that carry league content (in other words, there may be no legal relationship with the TV personality but there's still a relevant relationship that could be manipulated), you're right that there may be no legal relationship that would allow the league recourse against those who offer to pay the fine.

But the league certainly has recourse against the activity itself - by prohibiting the player from accepting any such offer.

 

[saintsfanfl]

I don't know if this has been said, but if I'm issuing a fine and I see someone volunteering to pay half of it, I simply double the penalty so the original offender is still paying the right amount.

I could be wrong, but I believe the league has a schedule for fines based on offense and number of times said player has been punished before. If so, I'm sure it's also part of the CBA and the union would fight them doubling a fine.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't know if this has been said, but if I'm issuing a fine and I see someone volunteering to pay half of it, I simply double the penalty so the original offender is still paying the right amount.

I could be wrong, but I believe the league has a schedule for fines based on offense and number of times said player has been punished before. If so, I'm sure it's also part of the CBA and the union would fight them doubling a fine.

Yeah, I think you're right that it would be problematic to double the fine on that basis. Plus, I just don't think that's how you handle it. Just because someone is "offering" something on TV doesn't mean they're going to actually do it - and you don't penalize the player for some crap on TV.

A better way, IMO, would be to pay attention for anyone saying that they actually did give money to the player. At the moment, I can't think of any violation of the CBA that it would implicate but there may be some language in there about fining "the player" that could give the league something to stand on - but I don't think it would be disciplined in the first instance. But I imagine the league would be able to take action (maybe even PA-endorsed) to have it known going forward that accepting money from another party to pay a league fine is prohibited.

 

[StBSaint]

As a purely academic matter, there's a big difference between offering to pay any hit-related fine before the hit is actually made - versus after. If the offer is unknown to the player at the time of the hit, it hasn't been incentivized. But in reality, I'm sure the league would frown upon any such offers. So no, it's not a bounty or anything like it (if the offers aren't made until after the hit).

The comments by Lewis and Bruschi, IMO, are just hot air on TV . . . I don't think they actually intend to give Brooks any money if he were fined (and the league certainly wouldn't accept payment from some other person besides the offending player). Unless this becomes actual (the offeror does give money to the player) or a common occurrence, I don't think the league will do or say anything about it.

Is it bad form on the part of Lewis and Bruschi - guys who have no part in officiating, rulemaking, or discipline - to make those statements? I think it is.

Great explanation. My question goes with what was said by Bruschi (spelling) after he offered to pay 1/3 of the fine. Please correct me if I am wrong but his words were (paraphrasing) that he will help pay the fine and for Brooks to keep hitting QB's like that. That would indicate a bounty would it not? As in condoning the future act of illegally hitting a QB.

 

[mikaloyd]

Im not 100% on board with fining him in the first place. I 100% believe it was an illegal and rough hit that needed a flag. But Im not as sure it was so intentionally bad or reckless as to deserve a fine. It was a football hit that was too high, but I dont think he was (in college terms) targetting.

I think the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion and put under every microscope and every angle too much already.

 

[saintsfanfl]

Yeah, I think you're right that it would be problematic to double the fine on that basis. Plus, I just don't think that's how you handle it. Just because someone is "offering" something on TV doesn't mean they're going to actually do it - and you don't penalize the player for some crap on TV.

A better way, IMO, would be to pay attention for anyone saying that they actually did give money to the player. At the moment, I can't think of any violation of the CBA that it would implicate but there may be some language in there about fining "the player" that could give the league something to stand on - but I don't think it would be disciplined in the first instance. But I imagine the league would be able to take action (maybe even PA-endorsed) to have it known going forward that accepting money from another party to pay a league fine is prohibited.

They do have a schedule. Here's the most recent one which was implemented as part of the new CBA in 2011 if interested. Although we've seen instances where they do go higher and I can't say how they base those. Like Suh for example.

http://blogs.nfl.com/2011/09/15/nfl-releases-details-on-fines-discipline/

 

[Merl]

They can't pay the fine or any portion of it directly to the NFL since fines are deducted from the players game checks until it is paid off. all they can do is pay the player back of they really intended to follow through with their statements. (I highly doubt they will)