ESPN commentator and former player Mark Schelereth was asked what he thought about James Harrison being fined $75 K for two dangerous hits in Week 6.
I agree that the NFL shouldn’t profit off of DVDs glorifying big hits if they are trying to clean up the contact over the middle, and I agree with Schlereth’s issue with the NFL’s health care/disability policy, but one thing I loathe in debate is when one side freaks out over incremental change by taking the opposing viewpoint to the extreme.
Example #1: “You take all the contact away, guess what you are? You’re soccer. That’s why Americans love the NFL.”
Is anyone advocating taking “all the contact away”? Of course not. This kind of rhetoric doesn’t help the discussion. At all. He also speaks for all fans, when he has no business doing so. I don’t watch the NFL for the big hits. I watch for great playcalling, great runs, great throws and great catches. I don’t like to see a defenseless wide receiver get laid out (and possibly injured) when he tries to catch a pass over the middle. Go ahead and tackle the guy without leading with your helmet or your shoulder. Better yet, make a play on the freaking ball.
Example #2: “You know what NFL players should to on Sunday night or Monday night? Play two-hand touch. Go out on the field and nobody hit anybody, and let’s see how popular your game is, if nobody is hitting anybody.”
Again, who is saying that “nobody should hit anybody”? By taking the opposing viewpoint to the extreme, Schlereth hopes to make it sound absurd and gain support, but it only serves to lower the level of discourse.
Another statement bothers me:
“I’m all for fining guys who are malicious, with malicious intent.”
James Harrison readily admitted that he’s out to hurt people, so Schlereth should reconsider his defense of the Steeler linebacker.
