No, I didn't miss the point, I never said it was OK to intentionally say try to break someone's leg. I said: They are paid to intentionally physically stop other players. Injuries are part of the game. They are always trying to intentionally hurt each other in some way to slow each outher down. Every team has a game plan to target and stop certain individuals.

Hitting another player hard often knocks the wind out of them causing them to step out of play. It happens. No one is advocating breaking arms and legs - really, when did I say that? If a "bounty" is paid say if you sack the QB more than 3 times per game, I hardly see the harm in it. Everyone wants to sack the QB. I don't believe anyone is being paid to be little football hitmen out there. And I think players like Rodney were unfairly painted as "dirty" for playing the game just like everyone else - only maybe a little better.

Pro players don't step out of play if they get the wind knocked out of them. It would have to be a whole lot more than just a hard hit to get put out of the game, and definitely more than that to have to be carried off the field. Getting paid for a sack, for something that actively advances the teams interests in the match, is one thing. It's already being done today, depending on the bonus layout of the player's contract. When that changes from being paid for a sack where the goal is primarily to get a down behind the line of scrimmage, to being paid for actively trying to hurt someone is where I see the problem. When you're offered money solely if the opponent is carried off the field in a stretcher, why wouldn't you do something dirty to get the payout? I think introducing rewards solely for the seriousness of the opponent's injury is tantamount to encouraging the 'breaking arms and legs' you mentioned.

Right - and I don't think this is happening... I don't believe players are being paid to send guys off the field in a stretcher - yes that would be wrong. Bounties like I said for sacking the QB or other normal game play as extra incentive I see no issue. I have seen guys step out for a few plays who got the wind knocked out of them (some helped out) - of course it happens in pro ball.

Hadn't seen that article - just what was posted here. If this is true: "The NFL said as many as 27 players were paid up to $1,500 for vicious hits that would knock opposing players out of the game or force them to be carried off the football field." Meaning that they were paid not just to "hit" the intended player, but with the goal and intent of severly injuring them, then it's a sad day for the Saints.

I do see a difference though between being paid a bounty to target and hit someone, than to purposefully, intentionally, try to cause serious injury... it's where you draw the line... like say player B - every time you see player Z with the ball, I want you to hit him hard and stop that play! I think that is OK..... but saying "When player Z has the ball use that opportunity to wrap him up and twist his leg if you possibly can, maybe it'll break" = wrong.

Say in the event of a hit with the intention of seriously injuring, that caused a death, would anyone support criminal action... manslaughter?

Say a teammate came forward and said, "he was/ we were told to hit the person and injure them if possible". Would you justify the charges if it were able to be proved?

Players are already punished for hits that are deemed illegal or too violent both on the field and in the wallet (ask James Harrison and Ndumakong Suh). The fines that they are docked with far outstrip ANY bounties even contemplated - including the $10,000 one offered by Vilma. So let's not pretend that they are being paid bounties that would counteract the already in place rules and deterrents. Does anyone really think that winning $1,000 is going to motivate someone to risk at minumum a $10,000 fine or at worst a suspension that will cost the player hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Huge hits are celebrated by every sports outlet on earth. Have any of you ever watched ESPN?

The amounts talked about here are so miniscule. It would be like us pooling our money and offering $20 for the meanest post. Would that $20 be much if the post that won it got the winner booted from the forums?

Now, I know, we're talking about people getting hurt, but people get hurt playing football. It's a violent game. With or without bounties. Some of the most successful defensive players of all time have acknowledged that their midset when they hit someone is to destroy them. With or without bounties.

Did Jack Tatum need bounties? Jack Lambert? Lawrence Taylor? Ray Nitzchke?

If the amounts of money being discussed was substantial enough to insulate a player from any penalties that might otherwise result from an illegal hit, THEN I would agree that there was a problem. As it is I see this as nothing but hand-wringing.

One problem I see is that Professional sports teams are seen as role models (which I don't agree with, but that's just how it is).

Seen as role models by whom?

Professional sports teams were never my role models. I enjoyed watching them, but they were never my role models nor will they be the role models of my children.

Yes, I am quibbling a bit over the semantics of the words here, but that's me.

Bounty systems are in place all over the country even as we speak, however, the mere attention this has drawn and the condemnation on all sides is enough to push it out from happening with pretty much any team. Parents will be at school meetings asking if it is going on at their schools (probably not the parents of athletes, but no matter). Professional organizations will look to police themselves in the wake of what is assuredly going to be draconian penalties issued by the NFL commisioner.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with it and find it no different than any other form of merit based bonus program set up among peers.

I believe that the attention and aftermath will ensure that no one dares to get involved in any sort of organized version of this anytime soon at any level.