View Single Post
03-21-2012, 06:16 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Miami, FL
Country: Cuba
Posts: 9,999
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to SmokeyClause
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
The bounty system rewarded outcome, not action. Big hits are great and players will get hurt from some of them. Deliberately trying to injure is something else.
I fail to see any distinction you are making as it relates to actions/outcome. Many rewards are geared toward an outcome. The outcome is the tangible realization of actions. The board wants to incentivize the C-suite to increase the share price. So they give them an outcome based incentive (such as stock options). The actions (smart decisions, etc.) aren't directly being incentivized. The outcome is. I'm sure actions are also incentivized in many ways, but often it's the outcome that we see incentivized. I don't see how incentivizing an outcome in this instance inherently makes the reward program more heinous.

I believe we have a sanitized view of hitting in sports. We think that Ray Lewis or Scott Stevens just wants to hit for the sake of hitting, as if there's no real value in the hit beyond dispossessing the ball/puck carrier. We can all pretend that Scott Stevens was just trying to dispossess the puck carrier when he levels Eric Lindros or Paul Kariya. But he's doing so knowing his actions will hurt, significantly. He's probably not setting out to knock those two out of the game, but doing so is an even more impressive hockey play that rewards his team significantly (provided its within the context of the rules). He's hitting for the purpose of inflicting pain, which is the manifestation of an injury. Said another way, he's hitting to injure. I don't see any distinction between real hitting and attempts to injure, provided the latter is not borderline or dirty.

SmokeyClause is offline