It's been suggested even before the current huge inflow of news of football players behaving very badly that the NFL won't last, that it's kind of the relic of an earlier time that tolerated such organized violence.
There might seem to be some truth in this claim when you consider how strict the rules are becoming on defenders-giving a built in advantage for NFL offenses vs. NFL defenses-the furor over things like the name of the Washington Redskins-it is just a matter of time before the Redskins are no more?-the President of United States himself recently saying that though he's a NFL fan, if he had a son today he wouldn't let him play football.
Now we have the current furor over all these players being accused of some appalling offseason behavior. I'm certainly not going to defend the behavior of Ray Rice or Adrian Petterson or Jonathan Dwyer.
I do think that there is something to the saw that this is how Petterson was raised. I'm certainly not saying what he has done to we now know two of his children is in anyway an appropriate word for what he calls 'disciplining my child' but it is true that he was raised to believe this was appropriate so you can say this is what he was taught and he didn't necessarily realize that the rules of the larger society have now changed. So while his conduct is not defensible it's not impossible to at least understand which perhaps should be at least considered in judging him.
I guess what I wonder about though is the way this story keeps growing and growing. It seems to me that those crying out about this terrible behaviour want to hang this on the NFL. My rather tongue in cheek title just refers to the fact that many of the people criticising the league don't care anything about football and perhaps think it should go defunct anyway. Maybe many wives will be glad if their husbands are now free to go shopping with them for a new china set on Sundays.
These players deserve the criticism and need to be punished to the full extent of the law. What I wonder about is why the NFL is taking such a big hit. You have the President of the National Organization of Woman demanding that the NFL basically end the social evil of domestic violence. What is the real criticism of the League here? You can argue that Rice's original punishment was much to lenient. I would tend to agree though I should point out that the previous NFL rules in place at the time didn't call for anything more than this.
If the initial punishment didn't fit the crime he has now been suspended indefinitely form the NFL-he will not play football this season and maybe never will again.
The new policy I think is very appropriate-6 weeks for the first offense, a lifetime ban for the second. However, this hasn't satisfied the voracious critics-now it's become a witch hunt on what did Goddell know and when did he know it?
What I think is going on is that the haters of the NFL are already trying to table it. The NFL is not about football anymore it exists to solve the problems of society.
P.S. What I'm saying I guess is that while the vile behavior of these men must be punished-after a fair trial-I'm rather ambivalent about the NFL itself being targeted. Did the NFL create domestic violence? To hear NOW tell it, you'd think so.
I also think that if Goddell's original punishment was insufficient it was not wholly impossible to understand as many philanthropic groups defended Rive and even his own now wife who was the victim defended him. I hear some voracious critics of the League complain that most battered women defend their abuser so that's not excuse. This again suggests that the League is not about football but they're supposed to be sociologists. I just don't think this is fair criticism.
And yes, I'd like to hear about football on the morning of football Sunday on ESPN not about Ray Rice and Goddell. I bet now a days the football widows enjoy watching ESPN more than their husbands.
In any case, it's truly living up to it's name: NFL means the No Fun League and it's only going to get worse.
There might seem to be some truth in this claim when you consider how strict the rules are becoming on defenders-giving a built in advantage for NFL offenses vs. NFL defenses-the furor over things like the name of the Washington Redskins-it is just a matter of time before the Redskins are no more?-the President of United States himself recently saying that though he's a NFL fan, if he had a son today he wouldn't let him play football.
Now we have the current furor over all these players being accused of some appalling offseason behavior. I'm certainly not going to defend the behavior of Ray Rice or Adrian Petterson or Jonathan Dwyer.
I do think that there is something to the saw that this is how Petterson was raised. I'm certainly not saying what he has done to we now know two of his children is in anyway an appropriate word for what he calls 'disciplining my child' but it is true that he was raised to believe this was appropriate so you can say this is what he was taught and he didn't necessarily realize that the rules of the larger society have now changed. So while his conduct is not defensible it's not impossible to at least understand which perhaps should be at least considered in judging him.
I guess what I wonder about though is the way this story keeps growing and growing. It seems to me that those crying out about this terrible behaviour want to hang this on the NFL. My rather tongue in cheek title just refers to the fact that many of the people criticising the league don't care anything about football and perhaps think it should go defunct anyway. Maybe many wives will be glad if their husbands are now free to go shopping with them for a new china set on Sundays.
These players deserve the criticism and need to be punished to the full extent of the law. What I wonder about is why the NFL is taking such a big hit. You have the President of the National Organization of Woman demanding that the NFL basically end the social evil of domestic violence. What is the real criticism of the League here? You can argue that Rice's original punishment was much to lenient. I would tend to agree though I should point out that the previous NFL rules in place at the time didn't call for anything more than this.
If the initial punishment didn't fit the crime he has now been suspended indefinitely form the NFL-he will not play football this season and maybe never will again.
The new policy I think is very appropriate-6 weeks for the first offense, a lifetime ban for the second. However, this hasn't satisfied the voracious critics-now it's become a witch hunt on what did Goddell know and when did he know it?
What I think is going on is that the haters of the NFL are already trying to table it. The NFL is not about football anymore it exists to solve the problems of society.
P.S. What I'm saying I guess is that while the vile behavior of these men must be punished-after a fair trial-I'm rather ambivalent about the NFL itself being targeted. Did the NFL create domestic violence? To hear NOW tell it, you'd think so.
I also think that if Goddell's original punishment was insufficient it was not wholly impossible to understand as many philanthropic groups defended Rive and even his own now wife who was the victim defended him. I hear some voracious critics of the League complain that most battered women defend their abuser so that's not excuse. This again suggests that the League is not about football but they're supposed to be sociologists. I just don't think this is fair criticism.
And yes, I'd like to hear about football on the morning of football Sunday on ESPN not about Ray Rice and Goddell. I bet now a days the football widows enjoy watching ESPN more than their husbands.
In any case, it's truly living up to it's name: NFL means the No Fun League and it's only going to get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment