Web site blinks a blind eye
towards buffoonery
by Tom Rathkamp
 ports-writing
in the final quarter of the 20th century, and the millennium,
has parlayed from reporting the scores, the X’s and O’s, and batting
averages to the behavior, character, and socio-economic history of the
athletes. What are they thinking? Where do they come from? How many
extra-marital affairs have they partaken in? How many anonymous children
are running around without fathers?
We pretend like we don’t take
pleasure in making moral judgments on aberrant behavior, but we end up
doing it anyhow because fans prefer that we take strong stances, whether
right or wrong, fair or unjust. Objectivity is not easily achieved. Yours
truly still likes to stick to those events that at least partially relate
to the game and the sport. One such event happened on the field: the
Orlando Brown referee-shoving incident. The usual descriptions, accounts,
and whys & wherefores were offered by the various media venues. But
one bit of coverage, in particular, caught this writer’s eye.
For CNNSI, the joint Web Site of
CNN and Sports Illustrated, an attempt at objectivity made itself look
utterly foolish when they asked their readers the following question in
their React section:
Did Orlando Brown have a right
to go after the referee?
Let me get this straight. Jeff
Triplette, NFL referee, accidentally pokes Brown in the eye while throwing
a penalty flag. Brown walks off the field in obvious pain, then storms
back on the field and shoves Triplette to the ground.
Did Orlando Brown have a right to
go after the referee? If we have to ask that question, what even gives us
the right to comment on such events? Some of the responses were as
ridiculous and preposterous as the question itself. One reader claimed
that, if he had been hit in the eye, he would demand restitution.
Restitution? Would poking the referee in the eye back make it even?
Another reader questioned the material in which the penalty flag was made
(sounds like those who blamed the Columbine tragedy solely on guns)?
Somebody else suggested that the history of eye diseases in his family
provoked Brown’s idiotic act.
Now there were several civilized
responses that cried out "against" Brown’s actions? I tip my
hat to all of them. But when we get to a point where we have to
"ask" if something is wrong when logic and common sense already
tells us that it is, should we be shocked when the type of behavior
exhibited by Brown is becoming more rampant and commonplace?
In a separate question posed by
the site, they asked readers the following about the John Rocker verbal
tirade:
What do you think about
John Rocker’s comments?
Perhaps they could have worded
the Orlando Brown one-way shoving match question the same as this one.
Maybe they simply see "words" as more dangerous and detrimental
than physical actions.
Ironically, when I searched the
remainder of this web site for other stories on Orlando Brown, I came
across a piece that was nearly as silly as the aforementioned question.
The story was written by long-time SI writer Leigh Montville, who gives us
the "football is naturally violent" excuse for Brown’s
buffoonery. Excuse me Mr. Montville, but football has always been
physical. Players have not always shoved referees to the turf.
Opinions on Brown’s punishment
will span the spectrum from a slap on the wrist to a one-year suspension
without pay (I lean towards the tougher of the two). But to presume that
some of us might believe that Orlando Brown had the "right" to
do what he did is laughable at best. I’m not ready to send Brown to San
Quentin or kick him out of the league. But I also won’t spew bleeding
heart, excuse-laden diatribes about why Brown’s so-called
"mistake" wasn’t all that bad. Perhaps Montville and the CNNSI
staff think we’re just as "intelligence taxed" as the players
they cover.
Not this fan!
Read Last Week's Column
|
