'Offensive Play': Why I've Watched My Last Superbowl

I have been a Washington Redskins fan for over thirty years ...

You might as well give up the sport. Go Pats!

I'm torn over whether to agree or not. I grew up in a football/sports family, but once I got to college I never really stayed with it. Unless my kids get into sports, in some ways it's sort of a waste of time for me.

On the other hand, regardless of the payout, large or small, these folks are voluntarily beating themselves up. I'm sure some definitions are in play here, but I'm not sure that qualifies as "violence" when it is voluntary. Violence inherently has the intention to do harm to another.

For once, this is a place I"m not that strongly opinionated :-) !

Yes, I was torn to, and I wrote about how torn I am in www.life-and-faith.org I have even be tempted to check scores and teams. What pushes me is that I too though it was voluntary, but I am not sure if the players knew how damaging it is before the lastest research. I thought the pads and helmets helped, but they don't.

You should try watching Rugby (Union or League) some time. Just as physical, but no padding apart from the odd knee bandage or scrum cap..

You are right. That should be the major part of the discussion.

Question: if the pads and helmets aren't providing sufficient protection, would it be feasible to reengineer them to make them more protective? Just exactly what are the current standards that the helmets and such have to meet?

I've always been a fan of the college game, but not so much of the NFL. Part of it is that the NFL feels too much like a meat grinder.

I'll admit it's a matter of degree: in college the players are a bit younger and more resilient. They are a step slower and a hair smaller so the collisions are less violent. And the season is shorter so they have more of a chance to heal.

I had a lot of fun playing football back in the day. There are few things that are as much fun as hauling in a long pass or breaking a tackle. I'd hate to see the game go away.

I guess what I'm saying is I don't agree but I can see where you're coming from. I'd enjoy the pro game more if the NFL did more to protect its players, especially in terms of combatting performance enhancing drugs (which ramp up the size and the speed and the strength of NFL players and with that the force of the collisions) and maybe shortening the regular season.

As it is, I can't watch football (the NFL in particular, though I know that college ball isn't exactly clean) without wondering how much is genuine athleticism and how much is steroids. Take those out and football would still be a violent game, but at least it would be a game played by men as God created them.

LV

Yes, I was torn to, and I wrote about how torn I am in www.life-and-faith.org I have even be tempted to check scores and teams. What pushes me is that I too though it was voluntary, but I am not sure if the players knew how damaging it is before the lastest research. I thought the pads and helmets helped, but they don't.

Sorry, I'm unrepentant. NFL players are pretty low on the list of people-groups I feel a moral obligation to ease the suffering of. Is football really so different from Dogfighting? ...is it really so different from bumfighting? The answer is a resounding, absolute YES.

It's not an insignificant difference that "players are both aware of the dangers and are paid handsomely for playing in the NFL." They have choices that other victims of violence do not. I really don't think that words like "inhuman" and "exploitation" belong here.

The NFL is constantly reducing the number of legal hits- no helmet to helmet contact, no horse-collaring, no hitting below the knees, etc. and increasing the penalties and fines for doing so. I'm not all that familiar with dogfighting, but I doubt that the dogs are able to assess the measures being taken to protect their well being (if there are any). I don't personally know many NFL players, but I doubt they feel the same desperation that prompts homeless people to submit to bumfighting, or that the video producers are revamping a better pension plan.Frankly, I find those comparisons offensive. As is the implication that the only reason we watch football is to find catharsis and entertainment in violence. Personally, I cringe whenever I see a player take a hard hit, it's amazing they aren't hurt more often! I have to admit, I enjoyed watching the Steelers run back two interceptions for touchdowns to beat Brett Farve on Sunday. (Less so the Vikings runback in between.) The 80-yard passing play, the 50 yard field-goal into the wind, the strategy on 4th & one- when you bother to understand the game, there's a lot to find entertaining besides two lines of guys butting heads.

AND there are a lot of Christians in the NFL. Personally I don't think men like Tony Dungy and Rod Woodson should beg forgiveness for their career choices.

I agree there are different levels of violence. I used the word violence
because it was frequently used in other comments as a description of tackle
and block. I was in no way taking a pacifist stance and labeling football
as a "violent sport" or comparing it to dog fighting or UFC for that
matter. What I was questioning, in entertainment is there a line drawn on
what is acceptable and what that line is based on? The level? I agree when
we say violent we're not talking about on field deaths but the watching the
effect of two people slamming into each other. I'm sure I'll get slammed
for this, but would the early Christians find it entertaining?

In a healthy discussion, I don't think you can just push it aside by saying
the players signed up and get payed for it. Whether we want to admit it or
not we enjoy seeing the opposing team get taken down. If it were flag
football we there wouldn't be much tension or explosive excitement.

I just find it amusing how we often rush to rationalize or justify our
participation as a bystander by pointing out how we aren't really engaged in
it or that no one is being killed.

What do we hear about same sex marriage and abortion? Don't like it? Don't do it, don't participate in it.

For sure--isn't it ironic?

I am choosing not to support or watch all football, (much to my surprise as it has been harder than I thought) until there is equipment or rules change to make head trauma and head injury not part of the game. In most practice, kids are subjected to what amounts to several car accidents in terms of head trauma. 50 or so kids die every year from the sport, and countless others suffer concussions.Also, boxing use to be as big baseball and was Americas top sports sixty years ago, but now it is seen as too violent, and most parents no longer allow their sons to play, which caused the sports decline. Most of the new research into the damage (not danger, as danger implies possibility of damage and the new research makes the strong case that damage is inherent in the sport) of football is coming to light. When Gladwell's article came out, many of the posts in the blogosphere where not pro or con toward football, but saying that they would not let their sons play the sport after reading the essay. The NFL understands this threat and is busy trying to disprove the science. That is the question: If the game cannot be played without suffering brain damage, do I let my son play? And if I say no to my son, how can I support brain damage for others' sons.

If some sports are so dangerous . . Why not play more music?

Have you see the Venezuelans teach us how to play the Mambo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWs9G-c_pcs

I think they just cleaned Bernstein's clock on this performance.

This young man also throws a pretty mean south paw on his local team when he's not playing fiddle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IxaNyVjDKU

I have never seen any musicians get head injuries from playing music to roughly. In fact music is fantastic for the brain.
And its a lot of fun too.

Maybe we just finally got disgusted at watching baseball players scratching in forbidden spots or spitting.
Lol.

Mr. Tinajero's title was "Why I've Watched My Last Superbowl." Does that mean that he'll continue to view the regular season games and the playoffs and simply confine his nonwatching to the Super Bowl? (Maybe just tune in to catch the half-time show?) Or if his boycott extends to other games, would he extend it to include college and high school games.
I take it he meant the whole NFL, not sure about college and high school games. I'd say they're easier to justify as the game becomes less about money. High school football, for example, is pretty pure as a sport and a traditional part of growing up - although it could be argued that coaches drive the players too hard. College football still doesn't have salaries, but I think colleges lavish their players with too many benefits. I want the game to be about the game, not about livelihood. I would much rather see the pros in more productive livelihoods (probably not including politics), and getting beat up for a living sounds too much like slavery.

" find it odd that the discussion doesn't include the question of whether we as Christians should be condoning a violent sport."

Well, many Christians have condoned abortion for decades. But, then, it's a personal choice.

Yep, that was me.

LV

Sorry, I'm unrepentant. NFL players are pretty low on the list of people-groups I feel a moral obligation to ease the suffering of. Is football really so different from Dogfighting? ...is it really so different from bumfighting? The answer is a resounding, absolute YES.

It's not an insignificant difference that "players are both aware of the dangers and are paid handsomely for playing in the NFL." They have choices that other victims of violence do not. I really don't think that words like "inhuman" and "exploitation" belong here.

The NFL is constantly reducing the number of legal hits- no helmet to helmet contact, no horse-collaring, no hitting below the knees, etc. and increasing the penalties and fines for doing so. I'm not all that familiar with dogfighting, but I doubt that the dogs are able to assess the measures being taken to protect their well being (if there are any). I don't personally know many NFL players, but I doubt they feel the same desperation that prompts homeless people to submit to bumfighting, or that the video producers are revamping a better pension plan.Frankly, I find those comparisons offensive. As is the implication that the only reason we watch football is to find catharsis and entertainment in violence. Personally, I cringe whenever I see a player take a hard hit, it's amazing they aren't hurt more often! I have to admit, I enjoyed watching the Steelers run back two interceptions for touchdowns to beat Brett Farve on Sunday. (Less so the Vikings runback in between.) The 80-yard passing play, the 50 yard field-goal into the wind, the strategy on 4th & one- when you bother to understand the game, there's a lot to find entertaining besides two lines of guys butting heads.

AND there are a lot of Christians in the NFL. Personally I don't think men like Tony Dungy and Rod Woodson should beg forgiveness for their career choices.

...There is no government intervention at play here. This is a function of the free market. But that's not at all what the article's about.

The first two definitions of "violence" on dictionary.com are: 1. swift and intense force; and 2. rough or injurious force, action or treatment. What I believe you meant to say is that you object to violence that has the intention to do needless harm, which you don't believe to be the case with violence that takes place in sports activities. I don't believe you can sustain the argument that football players do not intend to harm their opponents. If they were playing flag football, perhaps such an argument could fly; but these players are out to stop the other team from moving the ball down the field and to succeed themselves in scoring points; and they are using their bodies to stop other bodies from succeeding and to gain their own ultimate goals. Each side intend harm to the other, to the degree that they need to inflict harm to win. They may not intend to end someone else's career or someone's life, but they cannot avoid risking doing just that, if they truly want to win the game.

Jesdisciple. Xfree has been spouting his libertarian economic ideas on taxing, etc. and thought that I would help him out with his libertairiansm since he's struggling with this one.

BTW: have you read any of Wallis' books? Any books by the authors that post articles on this site? Would be a good start. I know you weren't too keen on Frank Schaeffer (and I'm not sure either) but he's a good read and has some helpful info into the conservative right that helps explain some things.

That's not just light-hearted jousting is it? Sounds like some of the conservative humor that I shouldn't get a kick out of.

No, I've read very few hard-copy books for several years. Once I discovered the Internet I wondered why I needed them, although I do see how the extra effort would filter out low-quality works.

After (or before )reading Wallis, I suggest just about anything from Ron Sider. One of his best works is the Scandal of Evangelical Politics. After reading the book, you won't know where he stands politically, but you will know that he is committed to combining word and deed ministry.

I know how football is played, and that it can induce harm. I played in grade school, and didn't like it, cuz I don't like pain.

I'm not in disagreement necessarily with your statements. On the one hand, I don't really care what consenting adults do. On the other hand, I don't watch football anyway, so I suppose I'm "off the hook" in supporting it.