This inability is the defining feature of the modern republican party.

Yes, helmets are coddling. As is all the armour.

Have you ever played/watched Rugby football (League and/or Union)? Australian football? Both sports are arguably more violent than North American football (play and player contact continues with ball on the ground, restart possession is heavily contested[line outs/scrums – mainly Union]). And yet, you don’t see armour and helmets on those players (from school 15s to international teams), and you definitely don’t see “one death per game”. In 110 years (since the schism between league and union) there have been 71 rugby related deaths…and there are many more (many, many more) Rugby matches per year than football.

One has to ask, why there was not “one death per game” in pre-gladiatoral outfits (1860 – 1910). Methinks your source is indulging in a little hyperbole.

*I have no stats for Australian football.

There was an episode of Sliders where they landed on an earth where bright people were the superstars, not athletes. Sigh. Yeah, far-fetched sci-fi indeed.

Coincidentally, DeSmogBlog‘s Jim Hoggan said something similar in the context of the Heartland vs. Gleick brouhaha.

http://desmogblog.com/spinalysis-heartland-s-echo-chamber-shifts-target
http://ijish.livejournal.com/49185.html

— frank

Have you seen the movie “rolerball” … that was not meant to be a suggestion for real life.

Daedalus2u, I agree. Also, i’m going to spend some time with your paper next week after our upcoming political caucuses, which are taking much of my time now.

If money changed hands as a consequence of the assault and battery of opposing players, then there is a real crime.

That this was done after crossing state lines and in multiple states makes it a federal case.

Although each locality where games were played could prosecute it too. They could settle for a plea agreement of just a few million dollar fine.

Individual players injured would also have a legal case against the franchise.

Putting the franchise out of business is a good idea. Only if the owners can lose their investment will they supervise the franchise correctly.

This is why a coach offering cash incentives is an affront to the game. That there have been other non-cash incentives on other teams (I will stipulate that this has happened) is irrelevant; it’s just that proving the intent of non-cash incentives is a lot harder.

Had the Saints been pursuing the legitimate strategy of trying to tackle the quarterback before he throws the ball, that would be one thing. But that strategy ought to result in an occasional sack, even when the quarterback is as good as Favre, and the Saints were 0 for 19 on sacking Favre in that game. And unless the point is to injure the quarterback, a sack is a better result for the defense than knocking down the quarterback after he throws the ball (a sack results in a loss of yardage, and it avoids the risk of a completed forward pass).

…a bounty system that provided the team’s players payments for hits that injured opponents.

and MPR reacts with

many thought the New Orleans Saints were playing dirty and out to injure people, particularly then-Vikings-QB Brett Favre.

Now, I see that the bounty system gives players an incentive to injure opponents and this has no place in any game and the Saints deserved to be punished for it (even though the stories keep circulating that lots of teams do that and the Saints just did it more systematically but that alone merits punishment).
But going from this incentive and its clear effects on the field to the claim of a “clearly designed, practiced, and successfully implemented…strategy” seems to be an overreach to me. And the difference between systematic bounties for injuries and training your defense actively in how to inflict injury while avoiding penalties should make for a difference in punishment.
If the Saints won the super bowl because they motivated their players to injure opponents, anyone involved should be heavily fined and suspended. If they won the super bowl because they implemented a complete strategy that enabled their players to injure opponents while avoiding penalties, the super bowl should be voided, none of the coaches should work again in the NFL and this should maybe be treated as a crime.
You argue for the latter but quote sources that allege the former.

If you’re going to watch/play a “sport” in which physical assaults are an integral part then expect teams to offer incentives to, and to use strategies that, achieve maximum (game/season/career long?) results from those assaults. Hell, you might as well condemn boxers and their trainers for their attempts to concuss the other boxer.

The players of North American rules football are coddled enough (armoured for protection; rests after every 20 second play; sitting on a bench for half the game &c.). Are you proposing another layer of protection for the poor quarterbacks? Perhaps a “wah-wah-wah” 5yd penalty signaled by the head zebra rubbing his eyes? No problem, that will only add another 5 minutes to an already interminably boring game – enough time for 2 or 3 more paid adverts.