Jump to content

Talk:New Orleans Saints bounty scandal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Spygate" correction

[edit]

There is no credible evidence that the Patriots videotaped practices. The Boston Herald apologized for making the accusation. (Moreover, if such a tape actually exists, why hasn't it come to light yet?) Samer (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The videotapes were destroyed after Roger Goodell looked them over. Zappa (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the owners

[edit]

All of you who wrote this article: good work, very good work. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, this is terribly written. For instance, was "The pool was in alleged to have been in operation from....." really meant to be written ". The pool was alleged to have been in operation from...". Also, "The NFL began investigating the Saints in 1892.... ". Is this meant to be a year as in the year 1892? If so, then please be aware that the NFL was about 70 years from even being in existence in 1892. Further, what in the world does “but the search for Dora …” mean. This is what I found in just the first two paragraphs. With this poor of writing I find it hard to read any further. Please rewrite this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.176.42 (talk • contribs)

 Done. Vandalism removed. Also, sign your comments. By the way, your date is wrong. The NFL was founded about 20 years after 1892, not 70. ZappaOMati 00:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were laws broken?...

[edit]

Aside from being punished by the NFL, are any of these people involved subject to prosecution? Because these games were in many states, could the FBI be involved in investigations? Also, what about lawsuits by players who were injured? Thank you. -Rich Peterson198.189.194.129 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 3, 2012, the involved people weren't prosecuted, and I highly doubt that the FBI would be involved. The Eagles didn't get prosecuted after the Bounty Bowl incidents. Zappa (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of this situation is very questionable. Perhaps their actions were legal by the standards of the FBI, but what about the spirit of fair game play in football? Perhaps consulting the NFL rulebook in further research might shed some light as to whether this scandal was in keeping with the NFL rules. The NFL rulebook can be found here: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook Commissioner Roger Goodell did decide to let the players rejoin their team and continue playing. This suggests minimal disciplinary action- however in the future Goodell could still choose to rule differently and suspend the players. Goodell's decision to lift the temporary suspension Friday 14th, 2012 could suggest that this behavior is in fact passable in the NFL. Thoughts? --Choueke (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodell may have let the guys off the hook the first time, but another infraction could lead to more severe sanctions, maybe? ZappaOMati 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image for this article

[edit]

Seems like this article is prominent enough that we should find an image. The image used in Sean Payton is public domain. Should we use this - or anyone have a better idea? 74.110.27.89 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked over the Spygate scandal, I also looked over the photos of Belichick and Goodell, and the pictures are public domain, so we could use the Sean Payton photo, but maybe we should use a more clearer picture if we could find one. Zappa (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I just added in pictures of Gregg Williams and Roger Goodell. Zappa (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs serious work.

[edit]

I am amazed at how badly organized this article is. The intro was a million miles long, I fixed that by moving those paragraphs around, it's still not right though. I added an Event Infobox, which isn't a great one, but I couldn't figure out which was best. For now this is better than nothing at all. Here's what I think needs doing and I'm going to be very busy the next few days, but if anyone wants to take a stab at it in my absence, go right ahead.

  • The flow of the article needs fixing. I think it should go from Background to Investigation to Findings to Outcome to Aftermath to Media response, which is mostly how it goes. However the paragraphs in those sections lose their focus and ends up talking about something else or it doesn't flow in an understandable order.
  • Remove the section on Other allegations against Williams and perhaps add the important pieces to part of the Investigation or Aftermath.
  • Maybe a section on hearings and litigation could be added and put all of that there.
  • Strip the "On XXXX day of XXXX Month of XXXX Year XXX happened". It reads like a timeline and becomes confusing. Dates like that should be moved into the source citation notes, unless the date is overly relevant.
  • Remember that a paragraph consists of at least two sentences. So the paragraph that says "On March 4, The Post reported that the NFL is investigating the allegations against Williams with the Redskins.[38]" should be integrated into another paragraph and the date again, removed. The sentence and citation speaks for itself.
  • The photos are good but they need to go on both sides and we need to add photos of key alleged participants, like Vilma.
  • Wikilinks are out of order and repeated.

I think that's about it. Feel free to add or whatever. I'll try to work on it though. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated text

[edit]
However on July 26, 2012, Vilma and seven witnesses from the Saints testified in front of a federal judge in New Orleans that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell got his facts wrong in the bounty scandal."Everybody was sworn in under oath in front of a judge with the risk of perjury and jail time if we were lying, and categorically denied there was a bounty," Vilma said in a text message to ESPN's Ed Werder.

This line is repeated three times in the body of the article. Can someone work on this article's prose? hbdragon88 (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern NFL history"??

[edit]

The article currently states, "Head coach Sean Payton was suspended for the entire 2012 season—the first time in modern NFL history that a head coach has been suspended for any reason." - But the NFL has only been in existence since 1920, so clearly there is no such thing as a "pre-modern" period in NFL history. Can anyone clarify that his book changing the phrase "modern NFL history" to something more self-explanatory? -Wwallacee (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Modern" typically refers to the post-AFL/NFL merger era, though others like to extend it a few years earlier and say the modern era started with Super Bowl I. Since it could be either, we could use some explaining anyway, especially for non-football fans. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 18:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on New Orleans Saints bounty scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Orleans_Saints_bounty_scandal&oldid=1204265190"