Assault with a weapon on the football field? At least it wasn’t a peaceful protest, right?
Timing has a way of putting things into perspective in unique ways.
Such was the case last week when the Myles Garrett-Mason Rudolph fiasco took place.
I didn’t even see it live despite watching the game from the start. At that point it was over, a big win for the Browns. To the shower I went to listen to my favorite gravelly voiced radio personality Scott Ferrall.
But then it happened. Ferrall starts talking about a brawl that erupted in the waning minutes. That turned into a speed shower as I had to see what the heck was going on.
When I saw it, I was stunned. We basically just saw an assault with a helmet — in this case used as a weapon — on the football field.
Throughout the rest of the evening, watching analysis and talking heads’ takes on the incident, my thoughts went all over the place.
“You’ve got to ban him for life” was one thought. Another was more in line with everyone else: “He’s got to be done for the season.” Then, when NFL Network former players pointed out the fact Rudolph had tried to take off Garrett’s helmet first before running after him, I thought “Well, heck. I dunno.”
All the while another headline from a day or two before crept into my mind: The NFL was to host a workout for scorned former quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Wait, did this mean perhaps he was finally going to get another shot after starring as the NFL’s No. 1 public enemy for peaceful protests during the national anthem a few years ago?
That’s when perspective made logic seem difficult.
Kaepernick, who essentially was banned from the league (or colluded against, if you will), was after three years perhaps getting another shot. Yet, all the while, everyone seemed to conclude that a guy who could have been charged criminally was deserving of a rest-of-the-year ban.
Seems kind of weird, huh?
It’s nothing new in the NFL; hence the reason many of you think I’m this big Kaepernick fan. Conversely, I believe in logic and fairness, and the NFL never seems to be able to put things into proper perspective.
Beat his wife? We’ll let him back. Snapped dogs’ necks? You did your time. Assault someone with a weapon on the field? Sit out the rest of the season and by this time next year it will be a non-issue.
Peacefully protest during the national anthem? Out! You’re gone and don’t ever come back.
But I get the business side of things. For some reason, many people are more likely to boycott the league over disagreeing with a man’s peaceful stance than others who physically injure other human beings or animals out of rage and anger.
That being said, do I think Garrett should be banned for life? I leaned in that direction for a bit before deciding the NFL made the right decision by indefinitely suspending him. The rest of the season is good, but by making indefinite it could go longer if deemed proper.
But giving Markice Pouncey a three-game suspension for fighting for his player seems a bit crazy. Meanwhile, Rudolph, who very well might have escalated the incident (twice), skirted a suspension.
By no means did I want to use this incident as another reason to say Kaepernick deserves a chance — which might be too late after being out three years despite the obvious need for quality QBs in the league — but the timing of the headlines was so coincidental.
It’s clear the NFL is hypocritical — aside from the new pass interference challenges that it consistently gets wrong — in most cases. But the fans — many of whom have similarly inconsistent an illogical stances — keep on throwing money at the beast year after year.
I’m not one to boycott a whole league over a controversy here or there, but I am willing to look at each situation logically before forming an opinion.
If more would start to do that, I think we’d be in a better place.
