First, because I am really not heartless, I am as happy as everyone else that Damar was immediately seen to, the game was paused (obviously), that he was rushed to a hospital and he has recovered so much.
What I don't agree with was that they didn't finish the game, or at the very least, continue the next day right where they left off. Football is a brutal game. I rarely watch anymore, but even before I stopped watching (because I hate the NFL, not because I stopped loving the game), I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the injuries. But, that is up to the players, not me.
Stopping a game and not replaying it in the NFL is fairly new. Has it ever happened before? I don't know. But if it did, it is rare. When Dennis Byrd was paralyzed, they finished the game. When Chuck Hughes had a heart attack on the field in 1971, they also finished.
Just because they used to do that, doesn't make it right (or wrong), of course. The questions for me are, does not finishing the game harm the stricken athlete and does it hurt anyone else?
My answers are it doesn't hurt the player at all - he's being taken care of. It does hurt the little people, the ones who are selling the jerseys, hats, food, etc. Yes, it's an economic reason, but not one for the NFL (they already get paid by the networks, which is the big money). For the average guy or gal whose livelihood is connected to that game. You may not care because you have enough money. I'm sure some of them cared because they don't. If the NFL pays them, I'll feel better about that. I wouldn't count on it. With that reason, I add a second. It hurts the integrity and competitiveness of the sport. Teams play 17 games now. But two, the Bengals and the Bills will play one less game. Because it is such a physical game, wear and tear in football is all too real. The Bills and Bengals players will have played, essentially, one game less (it was early in the first quarter when he got hurt). One less game for someone else to get hurt.
You may think my reasons are not good enough, but tell me how it would have hurt Damar for it to go on in comparison. .I bet if he wasn't afraid of the outcry, so would Damar. The NFL is delighted at the exchange between him and his doctor when he came to. Apparently, right away he wanted to know if his team won. He asked because he presumed they would have continue playing. Why wouldn't he? He cared who won, because it was that's a big part of the reason he sacrifices his body so much (though what happened to him seems like a rare accident). I realize I can't prove it, but I really don't need to do so. I think the circumstantial evidence is strong.
Once they decided not to continue that day or the next, there was no way they could fit the game in later before the Playoffs without making some players play twice within three days. So, they have aMaybe.
If I knew they couldn't fit the game in later, so did the NFL. As always, my belief is that they love to show their virtue, something Goodell and the league excel at, even if they are screwing people at the same time. As long as they have the media on their side, they do it. And, boy, do they have the media on their side. I would not be surprised that if some sportscasters without a lot of clout offered my opinion, they'd be fired.
What precedent does this set for the future? It will happen again, hopefully not so often, and I guess they have to always do it when a player is seriously hurt. What counts? Concussion? I seriously doubt it. Knocked unconscious? Maybe, maybe not if they can't bring him to on the field. Severely fractured arm or leg, possibly when bone is showing? I don't know. And if they don't and someone thinks they should have, doesn't that put the league in a bad light. Shouldn't the players revolt?
It probably won't happen so much it will make a difference. But, this was a bad precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.