Breaking Down NFL Player Fines

[Dutch]

I know, I'm still bristling about the Lavonte David shove, so please just forgive me on that point...but to add insult to injury (David's shove cost the Bucs the game ultimately), the NFL tacked on a fine of $7500 for it.

Clay Matthews was fined for his late hit/tackle of Kap as well. $15,000...

Clay's salary this year calls for $6.7M in salary, bonus, and incentives or ~$420,000 per game.
Lavonte's salary this year is $650,000 or ~$40,000 per game.

Clay's fine equates to .04% of his weekly check.
Lavonte's fine equates to 17% of his weekly check.

So the message here is RHIP, I guess? I thought the whole purpose of this was to protect QB's? How is this protecting QB's???

So, not to just be a biyatch and complain, I figured I'd offer a solution. Why not fine players a % of their weekly income and then send that money to this new "ex-NFL medical care" fund that the NFLPA just sued for?

Make it an even 10% for unsportsmanlike conduct and deviate as necessary from there. In this case, assuming they are both fined the same 10%. The NFLPA gains $48,000 in fines from Matthews and $4,000 in fines from David. Instead of the $23,000 in fines mostly from David (relatively speaking).

[miked]

Maybe it's not a percentage, but rather an amount. I mean, should somebody be fined less for the same hit because they make less (these were not similar, Clay's was worse which is why he was fined more). The moral of the story, don't shove the QB when he's several steps out of bounds, especially when your team is clinging to a lead with 10 seconds left. Though to his credit, he did say after the game that he felt Geno Smith was still in bounds when he made his hit, so maybe they should apply some of his fine toward LASIK.

[Lathum]

disagree, what a guy make should be irrelevant to the foul, if it is a fineable offense the dollar amount shouldn't change just because someones salary is higher. Don't like the fine, don't commit stupid penalties.

Now if you want to argue there should be a set amount, say 15K for unnecessary roughness, and that amount doesn't change, then ok.

It is like saying since I make 200K a year and you make 50K that if I get a speeding ticket I should have to pay 4X as much for the same infraction, makes no sense.

[albionmoonlight]

I agree with making it a percentage of compensation (salary + pro-rated bonus). The pay disparity between the top guys and the bottom guys is huge. And, the NFL world is so artificial anyway, that I don't mind them imposing a fine structure that would be unfair in real life.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by miked

Maybe it's not a percentage, but rather an amount. I mean, should somebody be fined less for the same hit because they make less (these were not similar, Clay's was worse which is why he was fined more). The moral of the story, don't shove the QB when he's several steps out of bounds, especially when your team is clinging to a lead with 10 seconds left. Though to his credit, he did say after the game that he felt Geno Smith was still in bounds when he made his hit, so maybe they should apply some of his fine toward LASIK.

Grrr....the QB was not "several steps out of bounds", he wasn't (technically) out of bounds when he was shoved. (Who needs LASIK now? )

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

disagree, what a guy make should be irrelevant to the foul, if it is a fineable offense the dollar amount shouldn't change just because someones salary is higher. Don't like the fine, don't commit stupid penalties.

On the flip-side, "Don't mind the fine, then commit stupid penalties." which is where Matthews is at with this. I'm not sure I would rather see my QB suffer a career ending injury at the hands of a "rich" vs a "poor" defender...

[rowech]

So you don't like that the fact that such an amount, relative to their income, doesn't appear to be the same so let's make sure to increase the fines for the richer players?

Just to clarify -- you feel this way when it comes to paying for health care, correct? College tuition? Legal fines?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rowech

So you don't like that the fact that such an amount, relative to their income, doesn't appear to be the same so let's make sure to increase the fines for the richer players?

Just to clarify -- you feel this way when it comes to paying for health care, correct? College tuition? Legal fines?

Healthcare? Yes, a flat tax if we cannot have our own private doctors (which is probably a thing of the past soon...but that's another discussion).

College Tuition? No. If a child cannot get a scholarship but you still feel they should go to school, then earn it for your kids by being productive...I'm okay with that.

Legal Fines? In order to deter? Yes, a flat %.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by rowech

Just to clarify -- you feel this way when it comes to paying for health care, correct? College tuition? Legal fines?

Of course not. Apples and oranges. Players's salaries, and the league's fine mechanism, are all a function of the CBA, of which the players are voluntary members. Inside of that artificial and closed universe, I think that fines should be imposed as a percentage of salary (defined in a specific way), and not a flat amount. Nothing more, nothing less.

Also, FWIW, legal punishments in the real world can still take individual circumstances into account. I have seen judges waive a fine in an instance where it was clear that the defendant was the sole source of income for a barely-making-it-by family. And I have also seen things like periods of probation ended early because an individual was about to be deployed by the military.

On the flip side, I have seen higher fines imposed in instances where it was clear that the defendant would have otherwise gotten a windfall based on the technical structure of the guilty plea.

[Dutch]

...and now Bucs $40M safety Goldshon is banned for one game.

Bucs' Dashon Goldson banned 1 game for hit vs. Saints - NFL.com

So much for pumping money into our defense. This is ridiculous. I guess the choice was between NFL football and player safety. Player safety wins, the NFL is changing it's ways and they are going to make an example out of the Bucs Defense to prove their point. Hard-hitting football is no longer acceptable.

[Dutch]

Bucs also had a sack reversed and a 15 yard personal foul for this hit during the Bucs-Saints game.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mike D

...and now Bucs $40M safety Goldshon is banned for one game.

Bucs' Dashon Goldson banned 1 game for hit vs. Saints - NFL.com

So much for pumping money into our defense. This is ridiculous. I guess the choice was between NFL football and player safety. Player safety wins, the NFL is changing it's ways and they are going to make an example out of the Bucs Defense to prove their point. Hard-hitting football is no longer acceptable.

As a Niner fan, you're getting way ahead of yourself here. Goldson has a long history of questionable hits, and that's exactly why he was suspended here.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Logan

As a Niner fan, you're getting way ahead of yourself here. Goldson has a long history of questionable hits, and that's exactly why he was suspended here.

Yeah, 13 as a 49'er...and I'm paying the price for that? How about we suspend some guy on YOUR team and let your season ticket holders pay for it.

Heaven forbid he gets suspended during your run for the Super Bowl...now that he's on the upstart Bucs, the NFL and Roger Goddell wants to get "serious" about it? What about the rest of the helmet-2-helmet collisions?

First of all, I am completely against this new "safety first" because I'm seeing first hand how it's messing up the sport. And secondly, if the NFL insists on going down this road, I expect some fairness in implementation. You know, standards. I'm not seeing it and as a season ticket holder, I think it's at least somewhat unfair what the NFL is doing to the Bucs so far through 2 weeks.

EDIT: I should have probably said "upstart Bucs defense"...

[Logan]

I think you need some rest bud.

[bhlloy]

I do agree with one thing - it's ludicrous that Meriweather who has a rep just as bad as Goldson does can avoid a suspension for concussing two players in one game (one was himself but it was still a dirty hit) just because he's only played 12 games in two seasons and managed to avoid a suspension over that time. If Goldson gets judged on his last 32 games, same should apply and Meriwether should be gone for at least one game.

Other than that, yeah. You should probably get some rest

[Dutch]

I am biased, so there's that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Mike D

First of all, I am completely against this new "safety first" because I'm seeing first hand how it's messing up the sport.

This makes me shake my head. Do you want to see someone die or get crippled on the field because that is where things are headed. Guys are bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 20 years ago. The rules need to be adjusted accordingly.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Lathum

This makes me shake my head. Do you want to see someone die or get crippled on the field because that is where things are headed. Guys are bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 20 years ago. The rules need to be adjusted accordingly.

I don't want to see anybody die or crippled either. I want to see cheap shots, dirty shots, spearing, and late hits penalized and severe cases dealt with just like anybody else.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Bucs also had a sack reversed and a 15 yard personal foul for this hit during the Bucs-Saints game.

OK, so exactly what are you upset about here?

The Bucs player drops his head and drills Brees in the head. What do you think the call is going to be here? This is the only call the ref could have made there. The Bucs player had the time and the ability to grab Brees around the waist and throw him down. He chose to lower his head right into the face mask.

The same call would have been made had a Saint been stupid enough to do it to Freeman. Instead of complaining about the rule, you might want to get pissed at the player for doing something stupid or the coach for not stressing this in the preseason. If he was in college, that would have been an immediate ejection by the way.

[Dutch]

Honestly? All I see is good hard tackling football there. It's not a dirty play.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mike D

...and now Bucs $40M safety Goldshon is banned for one game.

Bucs' Dashon Goldson banned 1 game for hit vs. Saints - NFL.com

I think it was a great call to suspend him for this weekend's game, and I'm not biased at all.

[Dutch]

Boooo!

[Logan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

OK, so exactly what are you upset about here?

The Bucs player drops his head and drills Brees in the head. What do you think the call is going to be here? This is the only call the ref could have made there. The Bucs player had the time and the ability to grab Brees around the waist and throw him down. He chose to lower his head right into the face mask.

The same call would have been made had a Saint been stupid enough to do it to Freeman. Instead of complaining about the rule, you might want to get pissed at the player for doing something stupid or the coach for not stressing this in the preseason. If he was in college, that would have been an immediate ejection by the way.

Watching it live, I thought he hit him in the shoulder first. Perreira described it as a "close call" that he "wasn't crazy about" but thought the officials did what the league wants with those hits.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Lathum

disagree, what a guy make should be irrelevant to the foul, if it is a fineable offense the dollar amount shouldn't change just because someones salary is higher.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

Fines being unrelated to a player's salary essentially means richer players have more license to commit fouls than poorer players. Obviously it's not absolute as fouls have other ramifications, but you get my point.

So Clay Matthews can skew his game to ride the line of infractions more readily than a poorer player. The bottom-line is that it's not a level playing field, as a result.

It is like saying since I make 200K a year and you make 50K that if I get a speeding ticket I should have to pay 4X as much for the same infraction, makes no sense.

There are actually plenty of countries (Scandanavia & Switzerland, for starters, I believe) that do just this. Again, level playing field. License suspension aside, going 30mph over the speed limit and incurring a $300 fine (I'm just making these numbers up) is a real problem for a blue collar worker and pocket change for a rich guy. Is that fair? I ask that as a rhetorical question, but it is the core of the argument.

[Ben E Lou]

If fines are meant as a deterrent to risky behavior rather than simply a punitive measure, then there's a solid argument to be made there. The speeding example is a solid one as it's a public safety issue, similar to dangerous hits being a player safety issue: if there's a static $300 fine for going x mph or more, people to whom $300 means very little are more likely to ignore the rule, risk the fine, and put others at risk. Speaking as a guy who 10 years ago worked for a non-profit ministry that paid a very low wage and has moved into the business world with a fairly significant increase in income, I'll say definitively that if I'm running late for something, I'm far more likely to speed, risk going through a yellow/red light, etc. than I was 10 years ago, and the sole reason is that 10 years ago the fines for those behaviors meant a lot more to me than they do now. Similarly, it's just logical that a static fine is just less of a deterrent to a player making $10M than a player making $400K.

[flere-imsaho]

Really well said by Ben.

Punishment vs. deterrence is a good point.

I'm open to the idea that fines (in the NFL) are meant to be merely punishment, and therefore static fines are fine. If so, the method of deterrence probably needs to be looked at.

That's maybe the core of the NFL's current "struggle" on this issue. They're mixing two things that could either be punishment or deterrence without really being clear on either. (The other "thing" besides fines are in-game penalties and after-game suspensions.)

I don't think we mess with in-game penalties (besides the yearly review and rule changes, which honestly is a separate topic). So, suspensions. The problem with suspensions is that a) they affect other players and b) they affect the "product" the NFL is putting on TV. With only a 16-game season, the loss of a player, especially a popular / exciting one, is a problem for what the NFL's trying to sell. For instance, if your Sunday Night matchup goes from a likely close game to a blowout because a key player is suspended, that's a pretty critical problem for the NFL.

Which is how we get back to fines. And, IMO, %-based fines.

[gstelmack]

High-school football player Damon Janes dies after helmet-to-helmet*collision | SI Wire

[Logan]

Goldson won his appeal and will play Sunday.

Maybe ease up on the conspiracy theories.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Really well said by Ben.

Punishment vs. deterrence is a good point.

I'm open to the idea that fines (in the NFL) are meant to be merely punishment, and therefore static fines are fine. If so, the method of deterrence probably needs to be looked at.

That's maybe the core of the NFL's current "struggle" on this issue. They're mixing two things that could either be punishment or deterrence without really being clear on either. (The other "thing" besides fines are in-game penalties and after-game suspensions.)

I don't think we mess with in-game penalties (besides the yearly review and rule changes, which honestly is a separate topic). So, suspensions. The problem with suspensions is that a) they affect other players and b) they affect the "product" the NFL is putting on TV. With only a 16-game season, the loss of a player, especially a popular / exciting one, is a problem for what the NFL's trying to sell. For instance, if your Sunday Night matchup goes from a likely close game to a blowout because a key player is suspended, that's a pretty critical problem for the NFL.

Which is how we get back to fines. And, IMO, %-based fines.

It is the same problem if you don't have a real deterrent and a key player gets injured. If you really care about player safety, you introduce a suspension for illegal hits (or an accumulation of illegal hits) since a fine is not a deterrent. If you care more about not suspending star players, then you might as well stop claiming to care about player safety.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, I don't disagree, Brian, I was just trying to think-talk my way through the NFL's thought process.

[larrymcg421]

I am not against the safety first idea. I am all for protecting players and especially the QB. It makes sense both for player safety concerns and the product the NFL wants on the field. I just think the Lavonte David situation doesn't fit into that. We can argue all we want about how stupid the play was and whether it deserved a penalty, like we did in the Week 1 thread. However, I just don't see any logical reason why that hit should be a fine. It is not a malicious play at all. He doesn't go after the QB's knees or head. He doesn't slam the guy to the ground. He just shoves him. I can see the argument that it was a dumb play because he was obviously going out of bounds at that point, but it bewilders me that anyone sees it as the type of dirty play that deserves a fine.

I'm also amused at the earlier claim that the QB was "several steps" out of bounds when David shoved him. Really?

[Dutch]

At least part of my concern is being corrected...more heavy fines are being dropped on the league. I This really only confirms though that the NFL is all in on this and the game is changing. Now to see how far they go this round.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yeah, I don't disagree, Brian, I was just trying to think-talk my way through the NFL's thought process.

I'd guess you are right about that being their thought process. The NFL cares much more about their product than player safety.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'd guess you are right about that being their thought process. The NFL cares much more about their product than player safety.

I haven't said this in a few months, so time to again:

when the PLAYERS start being concerned about safety while they are still in the league, I'll start worrying about this part. As long as they refuse to wear safer helmets, object to wearing all the pads available, and get pissed off at the fines / suspensions they are given, I'm not sure I'm all that concerned about the NFL's approach.

[Dutch]

If we really want to go down this rabbit hole to show how much we care about the player....lets ban head strikes in MMA and Boxing.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Mike D

On the flip-side, "Don't mind the fine, then commit stupid penalties." which is where Matthews is at with this. I'm not sure I would rather see my QB suffer a career ending injury at the hands of a "rich" vs a "poor" defender...

You think Matthews would have reacted differently on the field or after the fact if the fine was 100K instead of 15K? I doubt it. He already said the penalty was stupid on his part and could have cost them the game. It would have been 4th and 2 and there's a pretty decent chance SF kicks a FG and shifts 4 points. That was the "penalty". Same goes for the 15 yarder against the hit against Geno.

Whether the fine for a late hit is 1K, 10K or 100K, the 15 yards and new set of downs on the field is always going to be the most punitive to most players. The fines are simply a way to catalog when players have a history and don't stop - at which point more drastic measures may need to be taken (see Goldshon, Suh, Harrison). The dollar value is irrelevant as the only things impacting behavior are personal fouls on the field or suspensions (and losses of game checks). Fines just help justify future punishments for people who continually make risky hits.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If fines are meant as a deterrent to risky behavior rather than simply a punitive measure, then there's a solid argument to be made there. The speeding example is a solid one as it's a public safety issue, similar to dangerous hits being a player safety issue: if there's a static $300 fine for going x mph or more, people to whom $300 means very little are more likely to ignore the rule, risk the fine, and put others at risk. Speaking as a guy who 10 years ago worked for a non-profit ministry that paid a very low wage and has moved into the business world with a fairly significant increase in income, I'll say definitively that if I'm running late for something, I'm far more likely to speed, risk going through a yellow/red light, etc. than I was 10 years ago, and the sole reason is that 10 years ago the fines for those behaviors meant a lot more to me than they do now. Similarly, it's just logical that a static fine is just less of a deterrent to a player making $10M than a player making $400K.

But there's a flip side here too. Some factory worker making $15 an hour gets a DUI Saturday night. While the fine may hurt a bit, he's back at work on Monday in most cases.

If a broadcaster (a la Mark Grace), CEO or athlete gets hit with a DUI, he will face negative publicity, maybe get hit with a 4-game suspension (which costs a lot more than the fine) or even fired. Same goes for a restaurant or other business owner in the public eye who maybe makes $200K a year - the fine isn't what could hurt him.

At the end of the day, fines are meant to "record" the improper activity and as long as you don't collect them like sports cards, you shouldn't be punished more than any other guy for a similar offense. It's the repeat offenders that need the hammer brought down.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I haven't said this in a few months, so time to again:

when the PLAYERS start being concerned about safety while they are still in the league, I'll start worrying about this part. As long as they refuse to wear safer helmets, object to wearing all the pads available, and get pissed off at the fines / suspensions they are given, I'm not sure I'm all that concerned about the NFL's approach.

I don't think we can put this on the players as individuals. Anyone who takes the slight performance hit with the added padding may get beat out by someone who doesn't and then the statement becomes meaningless. The NFLPA should be more involved and pushing for safety for all of the players.

[Dutch]

Some Cleveland Browns want hits to head reviewable - ESPN

Agreed. The NFL needs to step up and make things equal across the board and we have to take NFL and ref bias out of it. They have been completely inept at laying down the law equally so far in their "attempt" to prove they care about player safety. I'm all for reviewable personal foul calls.

[Desnudo]

They fine speeders a % of income in Finland

[Dutch]

I agree with that in principal, but that's not what I'm driving at (or the Browns in this case). As the Browns are pointing out, had the rules been strictly enforced, they might have won a game that they lost. These are game-changing penalties now. And they (coaches) want a piece of the action so that it's not left solely to the faulty referee-only system in place now. Once the coaches get some control, then everybody can enjoy this shit-sandwich together.