Animal Rescue group - Each time Vick is sacked will donate 5 bags of dog food to shelter

[The Straight Story]

Ad pledges dog food for each Vick tackle



Five sacks of dog food for every sack?

A heap of chow for each kapow?

Today, Main Line Animal Rescue, in an ad in the Washington Post, has put a pledge behind its distaste for Michael Vick, the convicted Bad Newz Kennels conspirator.

Each time the Eagles new gadget guy / backup quarterback is tackled during the Oct. 26 away game against the Redskins, five bags of dog food will be donated to a D.C. animal shelter.

"Because there are no second chances on an empty stomach," the ad says.

It also encourages people to volunteer at a shelter on game day, perhaps even "hugging a homeless Pit Bull."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/58097847.html?cmpid=15585797

[ShortnFiery]

1. Outstanding! That sociopath has no soul. eom

[Captain Hilts]

2. That. Is. Awesome!!!!! nt

[Bozita]

3. That's an idea that might grow some legs.

[Quasimodem]

4. Feed the red-dogs! n/t

[gateley]

5. K&ARRRRRRRRRRF! nt

[flvegan]

6. Awesome! I recommend the "hugging a pit bull" part as well.

[PearliePoo2]

7. Good......sack his ass

oh...and extra points to any tackle at the bottom of the pile who bites his ears off.

[MissDeeds]

72. +1

Dog loving players may get a few well placed jabs in, too. :)

[tularetom]

8. What a great idea - I'll do the same thing here locally

I'll donate a sack for every sack. One for every INT.

And if somebody puts the bastard on injured reserve for the remainder of the season, I'll kick in a dozen.

[MattBaggins]

12. Niether praising nor condeming this idea; but is this legal?

I understand that sacking is a legitimate tactic of football; but is not offering a reward for the harming of an individual not a crime?

It has the cover of being part of football yet would seem to be veering into a murky gray area of legality.

[tularetom]

13. Letting dogs benefit from the injuring of Michael Vick is poetic justice is it not?

After all he benefitted from injury or death of more than one dog.

And it isn't like I'm offering bags of dog food to the guy who injures Vick. It's going to the dogs.

So to speak.

[Toasterlad]

17. "Bounties" Are Illegal in the NFL, Don't Think They Are in the Real World

But that won't stop the good people who are SOOOOO concerned about the violence committed against a living creature from gleefully celebrating every time another living creature is thrown to the ground by a 300 lb man.

[MattBaggins]

25. Bounties are very much illegal in the real world

Offering a reward for the harming of another individual will bring the cops to your door.

Just wondering if this constitutes that or not.

[Ignis]

34. Only if you can prove that sacking = harm.

And if that's really the case, I'd take it up with the NFL for allowing harm to come to players in the course of a legitimate tactic.

[Toasterlad]

39. I Doubt You'd Find a Single Pro QB Who'd Say That Sacking Is Harmless.

It fucking hurts. A lot. Which is why there are TONS of rules protecting QBs from people trying to bring them down.

It's also part of the game. When it's done in that spirit, it's legal. When it's done for personal gain - such as when someone is BRIBED to do it - it's not.

[Ignis]

44. "personal gain" ... like an NFL salary, perhaps? (nt)

[Toasterlad]

51. If You Don't Understand the Difference Between a Salary and a Bounty, We Have Nothing to Discuss.

[Ignis]

54. So players make the same salary regardless of performance?

Also, please get off the high horse. :hi:

[nyc 4 Biden]

82. Then I guess contracts based on stat incentives should be banned.

Of course someone can donate based on stats from a football game. It's moronic to suggest otherwise. I know you didn't suggest this initially.

[PVnRT]

89. Right, I'm sure defensive players are going to be going after Vick

solely to get a charity to donate dog food. It's so logical! :sarcasm:

I bet you must hate incentive clauses given to some defenders if they reach a certain number of sacks. I hope you're outraged about that as well.

[Sterling]

95. I have a feeling that many NFL players have and love dogs

The dog food incentive probably wont have any effect. However I do not doubt that many NFL players have lost respect for Vick and some may even be very angry with him for what he did. That is incentive.

[Sterling]

94. Sorry your team has a dirt bag for a QB.

I would be too embarrassed to be an Eagles fan from now on. Its a tough choice between the fact that you have such a low life on your team or that your team is so desperate that the would stoop so low as to hire the guy. I hope the Eagles don't win a game all year and love the idea of him getting sacked will help feed needy animals.

[MattBaggins]

62. Which is the whole gray area surrounding it

Of course sacking someone has a risk of injuring someone.

Of course it is a legitimate part of football and such actions are covered under the contratcs and accepted by the players. That said the ones offering this are not part of the NFL and are an outside group not a part of nor protected by the rules and contracts of the NFL. It is the core of what they are offering which is a compensation for the harm of another individual that is at question.

[Ignis]

71. "a compensation for the harm of another" -- Always?

Again, if sacking has an incredibly high chance to cause grievous bodily harm to a QB with every single sack, you should work/petition/whatever to change the NFL rules.

But outside organizations have been sponsoring "X thingies donated for Y plays" type of programs for years now. Touchdowns, completed passes, incomplete passes, punts, etc., all have the possibility of harm, because football is a violent sport. An organization can sponsor any single one of these plays, because they're all legal plays.

If the organization in question was sponsoring "X thingies donated" for each time Vick was HURT during a sack, you'd have a point. But as it stands, take it up with the NFL.

[roguevalley]

93. getting sacked is part of his job. putting a bow on it is a good idea.

what about the violence of his game? Or is some violence alright ... let me see, he agrees to be acted violently against in the course of his game. I don't think the dogs had a choice and you are outraged at this. Odd. Just saying.

[Sterling]

96. He's an Eagles fan

A team that apparently has no since of decency and would allow this douche bag to wear their uniform. The poster is offended because it is his team that hired Vick. I used to like the Eagles. They have had a pretty great tradition in the league. I was really let down when they lost the super bowl. Now I am repulsed by them. The whole thing reeks of desperation. At worst it is a publicity stunt. On edit I may be responding to the wrong poster. My apologies if that is the case. I love the game. I especially love the teams that have great tradition.

Many NFL players are wonderful people. Adrian Peterson is an example of a great player who is also a great guy. Vick is not a great guy by any stretch of the imagination. He is however a commodity. At this point he is more like a circus freak, the attention the Eagles will get from picking him up is a calculated move. The old saying about bad publicity applies here. I cannot help but hope it backfires on them. Vick is a talented player but he is almost past his prime and he is not a "pocket passer" so his speed and other abilities will fade quicker than say someone like Farve. I just can't like a guy who would be involved in such cruelty toward defenseless animals. It's just sick.

[Critters2]

23. Do you seriously think NFL players are going to hit him more because of this?

He'll be tackled. It is football, after all. When he does, dog food gets donated. But it isn't a causal relationship.

[MattBaggins]

32. I don't really care if he gets sacked or not and have no interest

in sports at all. I just question the legality of it.

I agree that it is some serious gray area to argue around but whether or not he really will be sacked more is not the question. Sacking a person is indeed a part of football but is also a potentially harmful action. The individuals offering this "bounty" are offering something that has value in return for an act of aggression against an individual; and whether deserved or not, is of questionable legal standing.

Will he be sacked. Yes
Is this group proposing something that could result in more sacks and injury? Yes
It might not cause more sacks but the possibility of it makes this suspect.

[Critters2]

35. You have a very low opinion of football players, and/or a poor understanding of the game,

if you think players will hit him more because of this.

It's not an incentive to the players.

[MattBaggins]

58. Let's stay civil here

I have no opinion of football players only in the sense that I could not care less about sports.

I have a very poor understanding of the game, since as I stated sports bore me to tears.

That said I could not care less about the "actual" harm. I care only about the "potential" harm and think that laws against "bounties" should be strictly enforced. Offering a donation in lieu of an actual payment would not fly as a defense in any court of law.

[Critters2]

63. You're being ridiculous.

Mole hill....moutain.

Big Vick fan, huh?

[MattBaggins]

68. Now your being the typical sports fan neanderthal

and assuming everyone loves sports even after they tell you they do not.

Let me say this a little louder, SPORTS BORE ME TO TEARS. The only reason I even know who he is, is because of what he did, which I am no fan of.

You are being an ass if you are suggesting I am a fan of what he did to the dogs. My questioning the choice of what the group is doing with the dog food does not equate to supporting Vick so lay off that nonsense.

[Critters2]

69. Let me say this a little louder, YOU'RE BEING RIDICULOUS nt

[MattBaggins]

73. Let me say this louder

I am just playing arm chair lawyer. I don't care how many times Vick gets sacked or not. I don't care if whatever team he plays for falls of the face of the Earth.

I just wonder what the legal definitions would be in this situation.

Is dog food compensation? Stupidest form of compensation ever, but it has a monetary value so it is indeed compensation.

Is offering a donation to a charity instead of direct payment to an individual a legitimate way to skirt "bribe/bounty/payment" charges? Not in any court I could imagine.

Is this an attempt to encourage harm? This is debatable.

[Sterling]

98. "I am just playing arm chair lawyer."

You are doing a terrible job. There is no basis for any action against this kind of thing. You might be better of playing armchair QB. Jeez.

[PVnRT]

90. You keep saying "bounty." I do not think it means what you think it does.

A "bounty" is paid to someone who does the dirty work. Offering to donate five bags of dog food to a charity per sack for a reserve quarterback who will likely see very little action at all this year is not a "bounty."

There are incentive clauses for getting sacks in some players' contracts. Do you consider those "bounties" as well?

[Romulox]

43. Of course it's legal. Sacking is part of the game to which Vick consents when he takes the field.nt

[LeftyMom]

76. Of course it is, sacks are a part of football.

There are A WHOLE LOT of charity incentives like this. I go to 49er games a lot, and local businesses will post theirs on the jumbotron thing- "for every sack the 49ers make this season, Bob's Plumbing Supply of San Mateo will donate $100 to the San Mateo County Boys and Girls Club." Incentives tied to a specific player are also common.

They're not telling anybody to break his legs at the knee. They're providing an incentive to do something that defensive tackles will be trying very hard to do anyhow.

[williesgirl]

9. Sack this cruel, heartless bastard and leave him on the field like the sack of shit he is. rec'd

[Missy Vixen]

10. It would be great if this caught on in every NFL city

Vick plays in...

:woohoo:

[SammyWinstonJack]

11. K&R

:thumbsup:

[Canuckistanian]

14. K&R

Justice for doggies.

[Toasterlad]

15. Punish Violence With Violence. What a Compassionate Idea!

[LanternWaste]

19. If it's part and parcel of every NFL game, how precisely is it punishment?

If it's part and parcel of every NFL game, how precisely is it punishment?

I would perceive it as little more than rewarding the good plays of the defensive line-- six of one, half a dozen of the other, you see.

[Toasterlad]

22. Hitting Someone For Any Other Reason Than to Win the Game Is Inethical In Football

There are many, many rules against it. They are there for a reason. It is a violent sport which has resulted in grave bodily harm, and which will again. "Bounties" and "Organized Hits" are NOT part of the game.

If you people want to torture Vick, be my guest. However, I'd like to point out that you're all coming off a tad hypocritical. Don't pretend to hold the moral high ground when your response to this situation is little more than "an eye for an eye".

[Critters2]

24. There isn't anything causal about this. Players aren't going to tackle him

more because of this. I mean, seriously.

[Toasterlad]

26. Offering An Incentive For One Man To Hurt Another Man Is Morally Reprehensible.

No matter how often the man is actually hurt.

[The Straight Story]

27. It's called boxing

;)

[Toasterlad]

29. Boxing Is a Sport, Albeit a Stupid One. Football Is a Sport, Albeit a Violent One.

Knocking another man on his ass so a dog can get a bowl of puppy chow is not a sport.

[The Straight Story]

33. They are gonna knock on his ass anyway, kind of like some baseball stuff here

(not the ass knocking part) where some charity kicks in X for each homerun or base stolen.

They are gonna try to sack him anyway, and as someone else noted (flvegan) they are getting financial incentives to do so already.

[Toasterlad]

37. They Are Getting Paid To Play The Game. They Are Not Getting Paid To Hurt Vick.

As I said, it doesn't matter if they will attempt to hurt him more because of this offer. The offer itself is wrong.

[The Straight Story]

38. It didn't say hurt, it says sack/tackle - which they do in the game

If he does not want to get hurt, he should find another line of work :)

I get what you are saying and respect your ideal on it, I just don't think it is asking them to do anymore than they already do (and are paid to do).

[petronius]

78. Players will knock Vick (and every other QB) on his ass to gain ball possession and

improved field position. Puppy chow will have nothing to do with it.

Questioning whether this promotion is an incitement to commit mayhem is like questioning whether the Brewer's Sausage Race is a form of gambling...

[flvegan]

28. So the NFL teams don't actually pay their defense players?

Seems to me they get paid (pretty well, I might add) to sack QBs every game. AND, if they do it very well, they may get even MORE incentive and reward in the future.

You're right. Morally reprehensible.

[Toasterlad]

30. They're Not Getting Paid to Hurt People. They're Getting Paid to Play the Game.

Please don't pretend you don't understand the difference. It's beneath you.

[flvegan]

57. It's an offer given every time he's sacked.

Not if his neck is broken. Big difference. And has been mentioned, short of anyone that might be carrying a chip anyway, nobody is going to be after him any harder because of this offer.

I'm willing to bet that if someone offered $1000 to a anti-violence program every time Chris Henry was tackled after catching the ball, that would be fine.

[Ignis]

60. He Wouldn't Catch The Ball Unless He Was BRIBED!

...Or so the argument goes, apparently. :shrug:

[flvegan]

61. Can we call that offer a "bounty" too?

:eyes:

[Ignis]

64. Only if catching the ball hurts his hands, I guess.

It's hard to follow the tortured logic, but I guess that's the line in the sand.

Personally, I think someone making that argument should be working on removing all violence from football, if that's the greater concern. But then, I aim for logical consistency.

[Toasterlad]

65. Fine With Me? No.

I don't (normally) believe in an eye for an eye. Would I shed a tear for Chris Henry if he were hurt? Or for Michael Vick, for that matter? No, I would not. But that doesn't mean they SHOULD be intentionally hurt, anymore than they SHOULD have done what they did in the first place.

My god, people. The Earth has existed for billions of years, and two wrongs STILL don't make a right. Honestly, if you want to crucify Vick, please feel free. I'd prefer you not sully the game to do it, but hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm just asking that you not pretend you're doing the lord's work by seeing that the man gets what you believe is coming to him. If vigilante justice is your thing, then own the ugliness.

P.S. Every time a player gets sacked, there IS a chance that his neck will get broken. Would that be enough for you Vicktators, or does someone actually have to rip his head OFF?

[flvegan]

67. Who is intentionally hurting anyone?

Do you HONESTLY think that another professional player would put his career on the line to intentionally hurt another player for 5 bags of dog food?

As for your second paragraph...I think you might have found the deep end and gone off of it, as that makes no sense.

[Toasterlad]

70. Okay, We're Done.

You're pretending to not understand that the principle of bribing someone to hurt someone else is the issue, and it's annoying. If you wanted to discuss the matter, we could have discussed it. But I'm not interested in debating someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and yells LALALALALALA5BAGSOFDOGFOOD!LALALALALALASACKINGISN'TPAIN!LALALALA.

You have my permission to wish all the hate on Vick you like.

[flvegan]

74. Okay, but

I don't see how a donation of roughly $100 of dog food is somehow bribing some defensive tackle to hurt Vick. That's so absurd to even try to understand.

Oh, well.

[PVnRT]

91. You're the one sticking fingers in your ears

It has been explained to you, repeatedly, that this is not rewarding injuring a player. You're doing nothing more than being a whiney homer for your second-string quarterback.

[Sterling]

99. They play to win for sure but....

putting a teams QB on the IR is going to help a team win. Given Vick's rep at this point I don't think that any players will need dog food as an incentive to hit this guy with a little more motivation. Not all NFL guys are fans of torturing animals. I imagine many of them are dog lovers and that they will have personal incentive to make a statement to Vick during the course of the game.

[Critters2]

31. It's not offering an incentive. The players get no reward. Being hit in football

is as natural as snow in January. When such an occurrence take place, as will almost certainly happen, donations will be made. But there's no incentive to the players doing the hitting.

One could just as easily offer a donation every time it snows in Maine. It will snow in Maine, not because of the donation offer, but because that's what happens. Same principle.

[Toasterlad]

36. Last I Checked, Snow Couldn't Be Bribed to Fall.

Whether or not you believe that an NFL player will attempt to sack Vick more often because of this offer, the offer itself is still morally wrong. This is not the same as giving the 98th caller $100 for every touchdown or field goal a team makes. This is bribing players to cause harm to another player because you are angry with him.

[Pharlo]

92. The thing is, defensive players are SUPPOSED

to stop the guy with the football. If it happens to be the QB, it's his own damn fault, he should have gotten rid of the ball sooner. There are rules against late hits. Hell, there are rules guarding the QB that a lot of other offensive players wish they had.

Now, look at this objectively. The offer is for legal sacks. They are not saying 'if you can permanently take out M. Vick we will give food to animal rescue centers.' Not at all, legal sacks are just that. They are what defensive players get paid to do.

Any defensive player who blatantly fails to make an obvious legal sack is going to have a hell of a lot more problems than five bags of dog food going to an animal rescue group. In fact, if a defensive player were to use the excuse "Well, coach, I could have made that completely legal sack against Mr. Vick, but I am ethically opposed to the 'five bags of dog food bounty giveaway', do you have ANY idea what his coach would tell him?

Let me just say, it would cost him a hell of a lot more than five bags of dog food cost. And THAT is what is going to determine whether or not defensive players are going to make sacks whenever possible against Mr. Vick, NOT five bags of dog food - or its monetary equivalent.

[MattBaggins]

50. Not quite right

Offering a donation to a charity as a cover up for putting a bounty on someone wouldn't stand up in any court of law, nor should it.

Yes sacks will happen and it is hard to say whether such an offer would cause more sacks to occur but that should be irrelevant. Laws to prevent bounties should show no leniency for that very reason. You should not be able to make offers based on harming others; real or potential, just for this very reason of preventing folks from hiding in the gray areas.

[Critters2]

52. Great. Take it to court. Let us know how that works out for ya.

:eyes:

[flvegan]

59. Laughable.

I'll wait for Vick to get sacked and have the media show up for the arrest of the offending dog food donors. I won't be holding my breath.

A bounty. Jesus.

[Romulox]

46. You mean like an NFL contract? Too silly. nt

[blondeatlast]

40. Exactly. nt

[MattBaggins]

41. That may be true but you can not guarantee his safety

which is why such bounties should always be illegal.

If Glen Beck were to try and do something stupid as say "I will donate a million dollars to the United Way if Obama has an accident before the end of the year. Now I'm not suggesting anyone real go out and do anything stupid, but I'm just saying"; he would get a visit from the Secret Service and it would be a serious crime. It would be a serious crime if I did this to my neighbor. Five bags of dog food may be "Poetic Justice" but it is simply an act of offering compensation for harming another individual.

[Coventina]

86. Except that getting hit is part of Vick's job.

Okay, yes, he is supposed to try to AVOID getting hit, but it's other players' job to stop him by bringing him to the ground, otherwise known as "sacking".

THAT'S HOW THE GAME WORKS!

If you don't like it, take it up with the NFL.

[Ignis]

42. If sacking = hitting, ask the NFL to outlaw sacking.

Of course, that would make for an incredibly boring game. But at least the teams could entirely do away with their offensive lines, I guess. :shrug:

Frankly, your argument here shows either a serious misunderstanding of how football is played, an overprotective fetish for quarterbacks, or a twisted belief that every time a defensive lineman pushes across the line, he's just looking to hit players and cause as much violence as possible.

Unless, of course, this is simply a continuation of your apparent jihad against animal rights groups.

[Toasterlad]

48. I Wasn't Aware That I Had a Jihad Against Anyone But Homo-Haters.

I understand football very well. I understand that being sacked fucking HURTS. I understand that it hurts so much that there are a myriad of rules to protect QBs from getting hit, whether the player intended to hurt them or not.

Offering a bounty to someone to sack a player is NOT part of the game, it is NOT ethical, and it is wrong.

I have no problem with people hating Vick. Just get down off your high horse if you're advocating pain for pain.

[Ignis]

55. So, sacking is a special kind of pain? QB pain is magically worse?

Because getting tackled by 3 beefy linemen hurts if you're a RB, too.

[Romulox]

45. Hitting someone legally almost ALWAYS helps a team win a football game.

Punishing the opposition's players is perfectly legitimate in football and hockey.

[LanternWaste]

53. A member of the defense will sack him so dogfood will be donated????

I certainly don't see the defensive line sacking Vick for any other reason that winning the game. I certainly don't see any defensive line member confessing, "yeah... I sacked Vick so that five bags of dog food would be donated..." Sounds a little preposterous.

i hold no high ground, middle ground, low ground, or moral ground. Then again, I don't pretend to either...

[Ignis]

56. Yeah, I'm sure that'll be at the forefront of their minds.

And since we're talking about linemen here, there's not a lot of room in there!

I kid! I kid! :)

[petronius]

81. Maybe the Eagles should donate 10 sacks of dog food for every player

who passes up an opportunity to sack Vick - if defensive players are swayed by a 5 bag 'bounty', just think what they'd do for twice that... :)

[Sterling]

97. You really think that DTs DEs LBs only make sacks to win the game?

They love getting those stats. In the pros especially, they love getting a reputation as a player to be feared. If I was playing against Vick I would feel even better knowing I had put a hurting on a guy like Vick. Hard hitting is part of the game, you have to know this since you have an Eagles logo on your posts. Vick was not forced to participate in such a physically demanding and dangerous sport. I can at least give him credit for having the guts to play the sport much less get back in the game when he is such a reviled personality at this point. He is a big boy, he knows what he is doing. He knows the risks. Did you just start watching football this summer? I would be very disappointed if my favorite team sunk so low as to hire a guy with this kind of character. How do you feel about your team picking up this guy? I would really like to know.

[AngryOldDem]

21. No different than any other fund-raiser tied to sports.

Keep in mind that Vick was not supposed to play again until practically midseason. But the NFL just couldn't keep him on the sidelines that long. What a crock, but hardly surprising.

The man at the VERY least should be ineligible for the entire season.

I have no problem with this. Getting sacked is part of the job description of quarterbacks.

[Critters2]

49. Have you ever seen an actual football game? nt

[Coventina]

87. For someone as concerned about violence as you are, I'm surprised

that you can even stand to watch football!

[DebbieCDC]

16. Yesss!!!!

[MadHound]

18. This is a great idea, we should make this common throughout the NFL

Put a bug in the ear of animal rescue organizations in all NFL cities whose teams are playing the Eagles this year. Get it out over sports radio, newspapers, TV and the 'net. This is a great idea for raising funds and food for local animal shelters.

[AngryOldDem]

20. Tee-rific!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Mari333]

47. Oh hell yes! knr

[proud patriot]

66. big smile

:-D

[proteus_lives]

75. Wonderful Idea!

Vick has a lot of deserved pain coming his way.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

79. Yeah, that's the same thing.

:eyes:

Freepers hate on the base of a different political ideology. While I hate people like Vick who torture animals. He does deserve a lot of pain.

Why do you embrace old Vickie?

[Thothmes]

80. He has been convicted and served his sentence.

As far as I am concerned he is free to conduct his life without interference as long as he does not engage in the type of behavior that got him arrested in the first place. I do not embrace a felon. But once he has completed his sentence, I say give the man a chance. Do not buy into the freeper notion that once a criminal, always a criminal. Obviously you do.

[Johonny]

83. wow sounds like they hate animals

Last year the Redskins QB was sacked about 33 % more often than the Eagles QB. If they really wanted people to donate to animal shelters they'd donate food every time their sorry O-line gets their own QB hit and not the opponent they play twice a year. Heck it's not even the other teams QB, Vick's the back up QB. He might not even play all game! I can only conclude these people care more about publicity stunts than actual care going to animals.

[Iggo]

84. Donavan McNabb is the QB for the PHI Eagles.

Not Michael Vick.

[ladywnch]

100. Michael Vick was also plays for Philly this year.

[Iggo]

101. The backup QB (Vick) almost never sees the field.

My point is that there will be very few opportunities to sack Michael Vick, as opposed to Mr McNabb who will be on the field for almost every single offensive play.

[Vidar]

85. Great idea.

[KittyWampus]

88. Great Idea!