No more locker room bets for Giants
The NFL announced yesterday that the Packers defensive players were let off with a warning about their locker-room arrangement involving certain on-field incentives. Now it's the Giants who have been told to knock it off for a similar arrangement.
ESPN reported last week that Packers players offered to pay the team's defensive linemen $500 each if they were able to hold Minnesota running back Adrian Peterson to under 100 yards rushing two weeks ago. They offered another $500 for holding Carolina to under 60 yards rushing as a team the next week.
The Giants' defensive linemen started a pool early in the season where players would throw money into a kitty and rank themselves for on-field performance, based on the coach's grades. There were weekly winners, and then they'd planned to reward the player with the highest grades at the end of the season with more money. Osi Umenyiora was in the lead by a huge margin.
But we've been told by three people familiar with the situation that the league has prohibited the players from engaging in such activity because it violates the league's "bounty rules." Two Giants officials told Newsday the league had already notified the team, and that the players have been informed of the ruling and no longer have the pool.
While the Giants did not target specific teams or players with their reward system, it still constituted a violation of the league's system. League rules prohibit teams and players "from offering or accepting bonuses to a player for his or his team's performance against a particular team, a particular opposing player or players, or a particular group of an opposing team."
E-mail
Facebook
Digg
Delicious
Comments (12)
excuse me, but its called a merit bonus. I see nothing wrong with it. It's what I would expect based on my year end billables at my law firm - it is done throughout industry across the board.
That is the stupid's thing i have ever heard of
I see no harm in it, gives the players an extra incentive to perform at their best
There are alot more probelms in the league than taking out min-pools for playing at ur best
How about fixing the retirement fund for retired players that gave their life to the game, and now some are physically disable
NFL officials use your time wisely
let the small fish go and go after the big ones!
I see no harm in what they are doing. It is not like they are betting against their own team. I think it is a great incentive as long as it does not effect the the team. If it became a problem that a player would not carry out his asignment in a attempt to do something that would bring a bigger reward then it is up to the coaches to stop it. Maybe that is why the Giants defense has looked bad in the last two games, no incentive.
What the NFL should be looking at is the lousy calls by their officals which does effect the outcome of the game, not internal competion.
And what if the owner "matches" the pool?
Or the owner puts in 5 million dollars towards the pool?
All of the sudden we no longer have a salary cap.
That is not at issue Rick, your owner example clearly a massive violation. The NFL sees a slippery slope, performance incentives slides into bounty awards, and the league will not approve on anything resembling gambling. If they drop the cash component they can work around it. RB's, QB's have been rewarding their Oline since the beginning of time. Plenty of wiggle room there.
Does that include betting on the next time the Gm calls his franchise QB "skittish"? Or the next time BG uses the phrase RHRN? :-)
Reese is a straight shooter, "skittish" was dead on, as was "awful." Love it, no sugar coating with 50 starts under his belt.
Marty Schottenhiemer when he was coaching KC was rumored to have offered to pay added money to any player who broke a Broncos' player jaw. A truly nasty incentive, but a major example of how serious he took winning and tried to motivate his team, which I've come to respect, if not admire.
Lance, it was common at that point in time. Buddy Ryan seemed like he was handing out cash on the field. Not special or admirable, just the way it was.
eonhw ektjvcwpu vwxdoeu pzkmi katliehqr iqxprsaju ikjuvpwye
vegybd hozcxjfwv rlka jmcxr mralzgs ludfj kdqswyp http://www.lzjh.smdex.com
inzawcmsp lsvjwpk ybdik iflzjwc vhufms qwtz ytqgdj udgkpey blogvfh