View Full Version : The Ravens put a bounty on Hines Ward and Rashard Mendenhall
SteelerEmpire
03-23-2012, 01:16 PM
Wow. Heres a flashback, but I guess it was ok since the Steelers were the "one's being targeted." But this just goes to show the level of discrimination our good ol' commissioner has. Makes you wonder how Mendenhall "mysteriously" got his shoulder broke; the Ravens defense was just playing "good football" :upyours:
---------
...The linebacker, however, wasn't the only Raven boasting about the season-ending hit on Mendenhall...
LINK: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Ravens-put-a-bounty-on-Hines-Ward-and-Rashar?urn=nfl,116684
fansince'76
03-23-2012, 01:22 PM
Apparently the NFL "looked into it (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3659317)." :rolleyes:
...During the "2 Live Stews" syndicated radio show on Oct. 17 (2008), when he was asked, "Did you all put a bounty out on that young man [Mendenhall]," Suggs replied, "Definitely. The bounty was out on him and the bounty was out on [Ward] -- we just didn't get him between the whistles." ...
...Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, said the league is looking into the comments.
"That 'bounty' notion is completely against the rules," Anderson told ESPN.com. "To the extent that someone is engaged in that activity, we will look into it and address it. Yes, we've seen the comments and we're trying to determine the completeness of the circumstances."...
And then of course there was Bart Scott's threat to kill Ward which they didn't do jack shit about either. Go figure. :coffee:
tube517
03-23-2012, 01:24 PM
Looking into it means tape erasing and documents shredding.
SteelerEmpire
03-23-2012, 01:33 PM
Apparently the NFL "looked into it (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3659317)." :rolleyes:
And then of course there was Bart Scott's threat to kill Ward which they didn't do jack shit about either. Go figure. :coffee:
Oh yea. Forgot about that one...
Edman
03-23-2012, 02:29 PM
Meh.
They put bounties on our players.
We put bounties on their seasons.
steel striker
03-23-2012, 02:59 PM
Funny how the worthless wonder never even mentioned the Ravens on this matter. Not to menton no flag on two helmet to helmet hits on Hines one by the rats and, one by the cheats. Also no flag's on the head shot on Heath Miller in 2010 on the rats as well. I know i'm rambling on here.
polamalubeast
03-23-2012, 03:03 PM
Funny how the worthless wonder never even mentioned the Ravens on this matter. Not to menton no flag on two helmet to helmet hits on Hines one by the rats and, one by the cheats. Also no flag's on the head shot on Heath Miller in 2010 on the rats as well. I know i'm rambling on here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHFCNfT8k0k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMLEdc_4itI&feature=player_embedded#!
suitanim
03-23-2012, 03:21 PM
Goodel also "looked into" the radio frequencies thing. And said as much.
And what became of that?
And why would anyone be surprised at anything the Ratfilth do? Why do you think I call those lice-infected pigfuckers the ratfilth in the first place? They are the trailer trash meth-whore hookers of the NFL....
The NFL figured that those players being forced to play for the Ravens was punishment enough.
st33lersguy
03-23-2012, 04:00 PM
John Harbaugh should be suspended for a year, the DC at the time should be banned, and the thugs crackheads and violent criminals that make up the entire starting defense should be suspended atleast 8 games
polamalubeast
03-23-2012, 04:06 PM
John Harbaugh should be suspended for a year, the DC at the time should be banned, and the thugs crackheads and violent criminals that make up the entire starting defense should be suspended atleast 8 games
Rex Ryan!
Chidi29
03-23-2012, 04:09 PM
Suggs did not say it was a bounty.
He never claimed there was never any money put on the hit.
Was there? Probably. But without proof, you have nothing but speculation and accusations.
SteelGhost
03-23-2012, 04:11 PM
I can't stand the Ratbirds, specially T. Sucks, Bart and Lewis :upyours:
SteelerEmpire
03-23-2012, 04:14 PM
Funny how the worthless wonder never even mentioned the Ravens on this matter. Not to menton no flag on two helmet to helmet hits on Hines one by the rats and, one by the cheats. Also no flag's on the head shot on Heath Miller in 2010 on the rats as well. I know i'm rambling on here.
I agree. Hines (and R. Clark) only toned down their hitting because the Steelers were on Goodell's center stage and being targeted unfairly. Because of that we missed a lot of highlights hits from these guys. But when that Raven, I forget his name, put that hit on Hines in that last game we played them (Hines was a defenseless), nothing was done.
ShutDown24
03-23-2012, 04:19 PM
Suggs did not say it was a bounty.
He never claimed there was never any money put on the hit.
Was there? Probably. But without proof, you have nothing but speculation and accusations.
The money doesn't matter. Suggs said they tried to knock out Ward and he did say they had a "bounty" on Mendenhall. Whether it was for $$0 or $1,000,000 it doesn't matter. The money isn't the issue. It's putting opponents to sleep that is.
Chidi29
03-23-2012, 04:21 PM
The money doesn't matter. Suggs said they tried to knock out Ward and he did say they had a "bounty" on Mendenhall. Whether it was for $$0 or $1,000,000 it doesn't matter. The money isn't the issue. It's putting opponents to sleep that is.
That is not illegal. Immoral, unethical? Sure, you'll get no argument from me.
But what the Saints got into trouble for, using the words of the CBA, were "non contract bonuses". If there's no money, there's no bonus. There's nothing illegal, provided the hits are carried out in legal fashion.
ShutDown24
03-23-2012, 04:34 PM
That is not illegal. Immoral, unethical? Sure, you'll get no argument from me.
But what the Saints got into trouble for, using the words of the CBA, were "non contract bonuses". If there's no money, there's no bonus. There's nothing illegal, provided the hits are carried out in legal fashion.
The league has taken action before on things with much less substance than this,
"Definitely. The bounty was out on [Mendenhall] and the bounty was out on [Ward]," -Terrell Suggs
I'm not suggesting that the league do anything about it now. But if this were to have happened more recently, those comments are enough to drop the hammer on. Admission is just as useful to prosecution as the tangible evidence they found with regards to the Saints, probably more so actually.
Chidi29
03-23-2012, 04:38 PM
The league has taken action before on things with much less substance than this,
"Definitely. The bounty was out on [Mendenhall] and the bounty was out on [Ward]," -Terrell Suggs
I'm not suggesting that the league do anything about it now. But if this were to have happened more recently, those comments are enough to drop the hammer on. Admission is just as useful to prosecution as the tangible evidence they found with regards to the Saints, probably more so actually.
Where did you find those comments at?
Goodell found proof of money being transferred between Saints and other coaches around the league. There is proof of money that makes a bounty.
tube517
03-23-2012, 04:45 PM
Where did you find those comments at?
Goodell found proof of money being transferred between Saints and other coaches around the league. There is proof of money that makes a bounty.
During the "2 Live Stews" syndicated radio show on Oct. 17, when he was asked, "Did you all put a bounty out on that young man [Mendenhall]," Suggs replied, "Definitely. The bounty was out on him and the bounty was out on [Ward] -- we just didn't get him between the whistles
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3659317
ShutDown24
03-23-2012, 04:45 PM
Where did you find those comments at?
Goodell found proof of money being transferred between Saints and other coaches around the league. There is proof of money that makes a bounty.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3659317
Chidi29
03-23-2012, 04:49 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3659317
Thanks.
Again, I still think there needs to be proof of money. It's easy to sit here today and automatically think bounty = money plus everything the Saints were accused of doing. But back at that time when bounties weren't as newsworthy, you could make a case there was an attempt to injure Ward and Mendenhall but without monetary reward.
ShutDown24
03-23-2012, 04:58 PM
Thanks.
Again, I still think there needs to be proof of money. It's easy to sit here today and automatically think bounty = money plus everything the Saints were accused of doing. But back at that time when bounties weren't as newsworthy, you could make a case there was an attempt to injure Ward and Mendenhall but without monetary reward.
I agree, but both counts are punishable. The main reason behind the Saints punishment is the intent to injure players. There have been "pay for performance" programs for years in the league which have not involved bounties. I agree that the money adds to the offence, but I am not under the impression that is the thing the league wants to stop most. The attempted "knocking out" of opponents is a far worse atroscity than circumventing the salary cap as far as I'm concerned. I maintain my point that the league could have punished the Ravens in 2008 from Suggs' admission if they had wanted -- it was proof enough. Hell, they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games and he didn't even do anything.
I agree, but both counts are punishable. The main reason behind the Saints punishment is the intent to injure players. There have been "pay for performance" programs for years in the league which have not involved bounties. I agree that the money adds to the offence, but I am not under the impression that is the thing the league wants to stop most. The attempted "knocking out" of opponents is a far worse atroscity than circumventing the salary cap as far as I'm concerned. I maintain my point that the league could have punished the Ravens in 2008 from Suggs' admission if they had wanted -- it was proof enough. Hell, they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games and he didn't even do anything.
Excellent point.
The Ravens should have been punished.
86WARD
03-23-2012, 08:22 PM
Where da suspensions and fines?!?
BigNastyDefense
03-23-2012, 08:28 PM
I agree, but both counts are punishable. The main reason behind the Saints punishment is the intent to injure players. There have been "pay for performance" programs for years in the league which have not involved bounties. I agree that the money adds to the offence, but I am not under the impression that is the thing the league wants to stop most. The attempted "knocking out" of opponents is a far worse atroscity than circumventing the salary cap as far as I'm concerned. I maintain my point that the league could have punished the Ravens in 2008 from Suggs' admission if they had wanted -- it was proof enough. Hell, they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games and he didn't even do anything.
:tt03::rockon::thumbsup:
steelerdude15
03-24-2012, 01:33 AM
If this happened today, I think the Ravens would be in trouble for it. Now however, knowing it happened in the past, its irrelevant at this point.
Chidi29
03-24-2012, 02:43 AM
I agree, but both counts are punishable. The main reason behind the Saints punishment is the intent to injure players. There have been "pay for performance" programs for years in the league which have not involved bounties. I agree that the money adds to the offence, but I am not under the impression that is the thing the league wants to stop most. The attempted "knocking out" of opponents is a far worse atroscity than circumventing the salary cap as far as I'm concerned. I maintain my point that the league could have punished the Ravens in 2008 from Suggs' admission if they had wanted -- it was proof enough. Hell, they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games and he didn't even do anything.
But that is why they got into trouble. They had a bounty program which violated CBA rules because of the money involved. It was a non-contract bonus.
If there's no proof of money, it's hard to prove anything illegal happening.
ShutDown24
03-24-2012, 06:52 AM
But that is why they got into trouble. They had a bounty program which violated CBA rules because of the money involved. It was a non-contract bonus.
If there's no proof of money, it's hard to prove anything illegal happening.
When a player admits it? How is hard to prove when the word "bounty" came straight from Suggs mouth? If the league wanted to have done something about it, they could have. Looking back it probably seemed less relevant at the time, but if Suggs had that same quote today, it doesn't matter if they found money or not - there would be punishment. I understand your point, and it's valid - the money is what enabled the league to do such damage against the Saints. But I don't see how an admission by a player is any less effective evidence than the trail of money.
suitanim
03-24-2012, 08:47 AM
Goodell found his goat. Now he'll try his best to quietly make this whole thing go away. There will be no more fines or punishments. Nothing to see here...move along now....
Chidi29
03-24-2012, 01:18 PM
When a player admits it? How is hard to prove when the word "bounty" came straight from Suggs mouth? If the league wanted to have done something about it, they could have. Looking back it probably seemed less relevant at the time, but if Suggs had that same quote today, it doesn't matter if they found money or not - there would be punishment. I understand your point, and it's valid - the money is what enabled the league to do such damage against the Saints. But I don't see how an admission by a player is any less effective evidence than the trail of money.
The league did look into it. Apparently didn't find anything.
And again, we can't automatically think of bounty as for money because that's how we know it right now in light of the Saints' scandal. Who knows if it just meant they were targeting to injure those players but no money was involved. At least, that's the claim Suggs could make.
86WARD
03-24-2012, 05:40 PM
And that makes it better? No money involved?
IUSteel
03-24-2012, 08:21 PM
Said it before, but Mike Golic of Mike & Mike has said this went on in every team he played with. Monetary or other benefits provided for good hits. I know it was some time ago he played, but does anyone really doubt this goes on in most locker rooms? Even if it's just between players or coaches, they're applauded for big hits, and they should be.
Like many others here, I played football from youth through high school. What was the rule on defense? Make it so they don't want the ball. Hit them so hard they don't want to make the catch or want to try for extra yardage or can't concentrate on completing a throw.
I'm not saying it's innocent and nothing should be done about it, but this is a clear example of the media latching onto things and twisting into a whirlwind and Goodell feeling like he has to respond or he's gonna be criticized. These are serious, debilitating penalties to a team that gained no unfair advantage except motivation.
I had a problem with someone saying there was a bounty to go out and hurt Mendenhall, because I'm a Steelers fan. I have no problem with players saying they want to go and take someone out of the game if the hits are clean. Hell, I want those guys on my team.
Chidi29
03-24-2012, 08:26 PM
And that makes it better? No money involved?
It doesn't make it better but it does make it legal.
Craic
03-24-2012, 11:09 PM
I agree, but both counts are punishable. The main reason behind the Saints punishment is the intent to injure players. There have been "pay for performance" programs for years in the league which have not involved bounties. I agree that the money adds to the offence, but I am not under the impression that is the thing the league wants to stop most. The attempted "knocking out" of opponents is a far worse atroscity than circumventing the salary cap as far as I'm concerned. I maintain my point that the league could have punished the Ravens in 2008 from Suggs' admission if they had wanted -- it was proof enough. Hell, they suspended Ben Roethlisberger for four games and he didn't even do anything.
I love how no Steeler ever commits a crime (unless we don't like him) but everyone else is as guilty as sin.
Shoes
03-24-2012, 11:17 PM
I love how no Steeler ever commits a crime (unless we don't like him) but everyone else is as guilty as sin.
:chuckle:
O'Malley
03-25-2012, 08:57 AM
Said it before, but Mike Golic of Mike & Mike has said this went on in every team he played with. Monetary or other benefits provided for good hits. I know it was some time ago he played, but does anyone really doubt this goes on in most locker rooms? Even if it's just between players or coaches, they're applauded for big hits, and they should be.
Like many others here, I played football from youth through high school. What was the rule on defense? Make it so they don't want the ball. Hit them so hard they don't want to make the catch or want to try for extra yardage or can't concentrate on completing a throw.
I'm not saying it's innocent and nothing should be done about it, but this is a clear example of the media latching onto things and twisting into a whirlwind and Goodell feeling like he has to respond or he's gonna be criticized. These are serious, debilitating penalties to a team that gained no unfair advantage except motivation.
I had a problem with someone saying there was a bounty to go out and hurt Mendenhall, because I'm a Steelers fan. I have no problem with players saying they want to go and take someone out of the game if the hits are clean. Hell, I want those guys on my team.
X2
steel9guy
03-25-2012, 03:55 PM
I hate the ravens with everything and would NEVER root for them against anyone. However I don't have a problem with their bounties on Ward or Mendenhall. Big deal, every team has some kind of bounty. You're supposed to hit hard. However it's pretty bad to want to get paid for that when you should be hitting hard to begin with.
fansince'76
03-25-2012, 05:09 PM
It doesn't make it better but it does make it legal.
How so?
...Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, said the league is looking into the comments.
"That 'bounty' notion is completely against the rules," Anderson told ESPN.com.
Chidi29
03-25-2012, 05:26 PM
How so?
Because the bounty involves money. It is a violation of the CBA which outlaws "non contract bonuses".
If there aren't bonuses, what do you point to as being illegal? If the hits aren't illegal and there isn't any illegal transferring of money, it isn't illegal.
It isn't ethical but that is a different, unpunishable topic.
fansince'76
03-25-2012, 05:35 PM
Because the bounty involves money. It is a violation of the CBA which outlaws "non contract bonuses".
If there aren't bonuses, what do you point to as being illegal? If the hits aren't illegal and there isn't any illegal transferring of money, it isn't illegal.
It isn't ethical but that is a different, unpunishable topic.
So, intentionally gunning for opposing players with an intent to injure said players and bragging about it in the media afterwards is kosher as long as there's no money involved? Yeah, OK.
I'll keep that in mind the next time Harrison is sitting due to another bullshit suspension.
Chidi29
03-25-2012, 05:42 PM
So, intentionally gunning for opposing players with an intent to injure said players and bragging about it in the media afterwards is kosher as long as there's no money involved? Yeah, OK.
I'll keep that in mind the next time Harrison is sitting due to another bullshit suspension.
"If the hits aren't illegal..."
Harrison's hits have been deemed illegal.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.