Chuck Wilson's Point of View

I’ve never quite understood why some professional athletes seem to go out of their way at times to antagonize fans, when being reasonable wouldn’t take much effort.

A Case in Point

Boston Red Sox pitcher Josh Beckett entered this season already with a target on his back. Red Sox nation had watched in horror last season, as the team fell apart in the final month, losing 20-of-27 games to miss the playoffs.  The Boston Globe later wrote a story titled “Inside the Collapse”. Here are the first two paragraphs of that article. 

With their team in peril and their manager losing his authority, three Red Sox pitchers last month were uniquely positioned to prevent the greatest September collapse in major league history. All the Sox needed was Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, and John Lackey to apply the skills and commitment that previously made them World Series champions.

Instead, Boston’s three elite starters went soft, their pitching as anemic as their work ethic. The indifference of Beckett, Lester, and Lackey in a time of crisis can be seen in what team sources say became their habit of drinking beer, eating fast-food fried chicken, and playing video games in the clubhouse during games while their teammates tried to salvage a once-promising season.

The reaction to the article was predictable.  

Red Sox fans ripped the pitchers named and held them largely responsible for the team’s failure. 

The clubhouse behavior may not have been any factor in the team’s poor play, but it didn’t matter. 

It was all about perception.  Fans saw under-performing players behaving in a way that made it appear they didn’t care about winning.  

Now, fast-forward to May, 2012.  

The Red Sox are off to a poor start.  Josh Beckett is 2-3 with a 4.45 ERA.  On April 29th, he throws 126-pitches in a 4-1 loss to the White Sox.  On May 2nd, Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine announces that Beckett will miss his next start with a stiff lat muscle (the large back muscle that reaches up to the shoulder. When stiff, it can cause shoulder and back pain.)

It is later reported that the day after that announcement, Beckett played golf with a Red Sox teammate.

So, when Josh Beckett took the mound Thursday night against Cleveland, he heard boos that only grew louder as he gave-up two home runs and three doubles in 2.1 innings before exiting the game trailing 7-1.    

Naturally, after the game, Beckett was asked about the golf story. Here is how Gordon Edes reported the media Q&A with Beckett on ESPNBoston.com.

Question (paraphrased):  Did the golf business have any impact on how you pitched?

Answer:  None. None.

Question:  Anything to say about the golf business?

Answer:  No. I spend my off days the way I want to spend them.

Question:  Any regrets?

Answer:  My off day is my off day.

Question:  Given that you were skipped a start with what was described as a tight lat muscle, do people have the right to question why you were golfing?

Answer:  Not on my off day.

Question:  Do you understand the perception that leaves when the team is playing as poorly as it is?

Answer:  We get 18 off days a year. I think we deserve a little time to ourselves.

*********

The questions asked were legitimate, even if Josh Beckett didn’t think so.  

It was perfectly understandable that fans would want to know why Beckett would risk tweaking the back muscle playing golf, when he was missing a scheduled start ostensibly to avoid injury to it.

If Beckett felt the criticism of his decision was unwarranted, he was given the chance to explain it.  

Instead, he chose a path most would view as negative.

Josh Beckett has never been a media-friendly guy.  That’s certainly his right.

But how does appearing defiant help him?

What is the upside of coming across as dismissive and uncaring?  

**********

Too many professional athletes don’t get it.  They think fans resent their high salaries and fan criticism largely is the result of envy. 

They’re wrong.

Most fans don’t resent the big money paid to athletes.  What they do resent is seeing athletes act as if they don’t appreciate it.  Fans get frustrated watching athletes who don’t hustle or seem to care, or those who appear more interested in personal stats than team success. 

Fans believes that, given the chance, they would care and would play hard every day.

**********

Here is what I would say to the athletes who are jaded and have decided they don’t care about the fans. 

Those of us who haven’t played a professional sport can’t fully understand the sacrifices that you make to stay on the field and play your sport. We don’t know, firsthand, the pressures of playing through nagging injuries that often go unreported to the media for competitive reasons.

Sometimes you are unjustly criticized by fans (and the media) who don’t know all the facts.  And the knowledge that such criticism is part of being a pro athlete doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to accept. 

Personally, I don’t believe in booing players for poor play, only for poor effort. But, most fans obviously don’t agree with me.  

When you go into a slump, you will get booed. 

That said, as a professional athlete, you have a huge, built-in advantage.

Fans want to like you!

Fans want you to be successful. They want to identify with the players they cheer for.  This isn’t heavy-lifting.  It doesn’t require a lot of effort.

Just don’t make it hard for them!

Be civil.  Don’t be arrogant.  Don’t act like a jerk.  Play hard and respect the game.

It’s all about “Effort and Attitude” - the two things in life over which we have complete control.

When athletes show by their actions and their words that they care —- when they are accountable for mistakes they’ve made in a game —- they earn the respect of fans.

I’m not, for a minute, suggesting that it is easy to face the media just minutes after a tough loss.  

Sometimes the questions asked are unfair and sometimes they clearly are over the line.

But, part of being a professional is how you conduct yourself in such situations.  Responding with grace and humility is a win-win.

As someone involved with young people and character education, I can tell you that kids are watching. You’re words and actions mean a lot to them.

So, help yourself and all those who look up to you.

Do your best to take the high road by showing respect for the game and its fans.

The NFL didn’t win popularity contests with this call.  Certainly not with the players, who are expressing disbelief with the year-long banishment of Jonathan Vilma. Many fans also view the punishment as too severe.

But were the penalties for the players the league found to be leaders in the New Orleans Saints “bounty program” over the top?

No.

Fairness and Accountability

The NFL investigation found that the Saints’ defensive team operated a pay-for-performance/bounty program, primarily funded by players, during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 seasons. The league found that between 22 and 27 players were rewarded with bonuses for hard hits and injuring opposing players. 

The league responded with what most observers viewed as harsh sanctions. 

Saints head coach Sean Payton received a one-year suspension. Assistant coach Joe Vitt was given a 6-game suspension and GM Mickey Loomis an 8-game penalty.  Gregg Williams, the team’s defensive coordinator during the 3-year span, was handed an indefinite suspension that will last at least a season.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cited a number of reasons for the punishments including:  the leadership roles of the men involved, the failure of those involved to end the bounty program, and the denials made to investigators that the program even existed.

Commissioner Goodell said at the time:  “We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game. We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities. No one is above the game or the rules that govern it. Respect for the game and the people who participate in it will not be compromised.”

That brings us to the players found to be involved.  

Jonathan Vilma was suspended for the 2012 season. The league stated:  “The investigation concluded that while a captain of the defensive unit Vilma assisted Coach Williams in establishing and funding the program. Multiple independent sources also confirmed that Vilma offered a specific bounty — $10,000 in cash – to any player who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 Divisional playoff game and later pledged the same amount to anyone who knocked Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game the following week.” 

Former Saints defensive linemen Anthony Hargrove, now with the Packers, was given an 8-game suspension, Saints defensive end Will Smith was suspended for 4-games and former Saints LB-Scott Fujita, now with the Browns, was assessed a 3-game suspension.

Commissioner Goodell stated:  “In assessing player discipline, I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.”

Given the penalties assessed to the coaches and staff involved, are the penalties for the players out of line?  

You can argue that other players should have been punished for accepting money and being part of the bounty program, but targeting those most responsible seems to be a fair and proportional response by the league.

This is about accountability.  

Commissioner Goodell put it this way:  “It is the obligation of everyone, including the players on the field, to ensure that rules designed to promote player safety, fair play, and the integrity of the game are adhered to and effectively and consistently enforced. Respect for the men that play the game starts with the way players conduct themselves with each other on the field.”

The deliberate attempt to injure an opponent has no place in any sport.  Such conduct impacts not only player safety, but also compromises the integrity of the sport.  Respect for an opponent is fundamental to every sport.  

The teams, coaches and players all are responsible for what went on.  And the argument that this has been going on for years is a weak one, especially today with the emphasis on player safety.

Players have to take responsibility for the integrity of the sport they play.  

The Legal Ramifications

We also have to recognize the legal aspects here.

The NFL is being sued by former players who allege that the league knew that concussions were a problem years ago but did not act to better protect players from head injuries. So, while the NFL rules changes aimed at reducing the number of head injuries has been instituted in the interest of player safety, it also figures to have been in response to the charges that the league has been slow to react in the past.

But also remember this.  

The Saints bounty program could result in criminal prosecutions for those involved. The NFL Players Association reportedly warned players that it could happen. 

No sport wants to see the courts get involved in conduct that occurs during a game.  The NFL’s strong actions may have the dual effect of stopping future bounty programs, while convincing prosecutors that the issue does not require legal intervention.

The Right Call

If you truly want to end a behavior, you raise the risk and lower the reward.  The NFL has done that by sending a strong message that player bounties will not be tolerated.

The league also has reminded everyone that if you are caught lying to the league, you will face severe punishments.

Few NFL players publicly will applaud the league’s punishments and most fans probably view them as too severe, but Commissioner Goodell got this one right.

Going Forward

It’s understandable that the NFLPA wants to stand-up for its players in matters involving league punishment, but it will be interesting to see how far the union takes this case.  Will it end with the player appeals to the Commissioner?

Player unions are put into a difficult position in matters involving fair competition and player safety. It is the balancing act between advocating for the individual vs. the group.

The MLBPA long fought efforts by Major League Baseball to institute random drug-testing. The union argued that it was a invasion of privacy and required players to prove their innocence, in the absence of any reasonable suspicion.  

A valid point.

But, it’s also in the player’s best interest to be competing on an even playing field and random drug-testing can help ensure that no player is gaining an unfair competitive advantage over another. Many players in baseball had favored random testing for that reason. Of course, eventually, the landscape changed and strong public sentiment in favor of testing led to the union agreeing to a drug-testing agreement.

In the case of the bounty program, the NFLPA should do all it can to discourage bounties that reward players for intentionally injuring other players.  That’s just common sense. 

There is a line between hitting him as hard as you can, and intentionally trying to injure a player and put him out of the game. 

Many, if not most players, are likely to argue that there isn’t that much of a distinction.  

So, here’s the question.

How does the union discourage “intent to injure” when the culture of football has long run counter to efforts to control the violence on the field?  

And if the NFLPA argues against the punishments assessed the players in the Saints “bounty” case, how does that impact the union’s “player safety” argument against the NFL’s proposed 18-game schedule?

Why is there a problem seeing the line that separates violence built into football and violence that is not? 

**********

The question arose again this week after the release of an audio tape of former New Orleans Saints Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams, who is on an indefinite suspension for his role in the Saints three-year-long “player bounty” program.

On Wednesday, documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon released an audio recording that he says is a speech Williams gave to Saints defensive players in the team hotel the night before the Saints lost to the 49ers in a playoff game in January. Pamphilon was following the Saints last season while working on a documentary featuring former Saints special teams player Steve Gleason, who is currently battling ALS. 

In the recording posted on THEUSof.com website, Williams is heard delivering a fiery speech to his defensive players that included direct references to targeting the injuries of specific 49er players.

It was those comments that drew criticism and may impact the return of Gregg Williams as a coach in the NFL.

********** 

Whether it’s physical or mental, intimidation is part of the football culture. So, most of the Williams’ audio is pretty typical of the way football coaches talk to players. Defensive coaches, especially, use this kind of rhetoric to fire-up their players. 

Coaches always are talking about imposing your will on the other team. That message is delivered at almost every level of football. I certainly heard it when I played. So, while the “Kill the head and the body will die” comments by Williams on the tape were over-the-top, it’s pretty typical football language utilized by coaches to rev-up players.

It isn’t taken literally.   

Where Gregg Williams does run into trouble is when he talks specifically about targeting particular players and their injuries.  When you urge your players to go after the knee of an opponent returning from an ACL injury, you’ve crossed the line.

In no way can you defend that kind of talk.

There is a line between finding out a opponents willingness to compete by hitting him as hard as you can, and targeting a players injury with the object to further injure that player and put him out of the game. 

Many players are likely to argue that the distinction is meaningless and that the words don’t really matter. That it’s a violent sport and you’re always delivering the hardest hit that you can. 

But, to me, the difference in motive does matter.  

We all understand that we’re talking about a professional sport. It’s a business and there is a lot at stake.  

But, that doesn’t change the fact that without clean competition and an even playing field, you lose the essence of competition. 

Respect for your opponent is a fundamental of every sport. 

The NY Jets are widely being criticized for the trade bringing in Tim Tebow as the # 2 quarterback.  

And I get it. 

“Tebowmania” will be uncontrollable unless the Jets offensive is productive and the team wins.  Mark Sanchez will have to perform well or the fans will be calling for Tebow.  And it’s true that the calls will come earlier with Tim Tebow as the back-up rather than Drew Stanton. 

There’s no doubt it brings more pressure on Sanchez and it could get ugly.  

But here’s the thing.

The Jets knew all this and still made the trade.

What that tells you is that the coaches and front office believe that Tebow’s value will transcend his immediate, on-field role. This isn’t just about giving defense’s a different look with Tebow in a spread, run/pass, change-of-pace offense or in a specialty, red zone package. 

It’s more than that. 

The Jets believe Tim Tebow brings intangibles that will impact the team. That his presence will have a positive influence in the locker room and that he will help bring out the best in starter Mark Sanchez.

Whatever shortcomings you think he has as a quarterback, Tim Tebow has undeniable strengths:  strong leadership skills, a contagious will to win, and a terrific work ethic. 

No one will work any harder.  No one will be a better teammate. He will help improve team unity.

And if Mark Sanchez does have any “effort” issues, as alleged by some unnamed teammates, it figures to change with Tim Tebow there. 

Tebow’s work ethic will spur Mark Sanchez to improve.  It’s all about attention to detail:  on the practice field, in the weight room, in film work and meetings, and what it means to be a leader who brings out the best in others.  Something Tebow does so well.  

The Jets obviously wanted to bring in a quarterback to push Sanchez.  While they reached the AFC Championship game in each of his first two seasons, the team’s run game and defense were key factors.  And last season, Sanchez didn’t play well. 

ESPN’s QBR looks at every facet of quarterback play, from passing and rushing to fumbling and taking sacks. It then allocates credit or blame to the quarterbacks according to how each and every play they make contributes to their team’s success.  

A grade of 50 is average.

The QBR for Mark Sanchez shows he ranked 27th in his rookie season with a score of 30.9. He improved to 18th in year two with a 47.4 mark, but regressed last season ranking 30th with a 33.6 QBR.

In fairness, the Jets had problems with their offensive line last season and got away from their “ground-and-pound” approach they utilized his first two seasons when they ranked 1st or 2nd in percentage of designed runs.

But, the Jets have to find out if Sanchez will make that next step and become a consistent performer who can take them to a Super Bowl. 

And don’t be fooled by the recent contract extension. According to ESPN’s Adam Schefter, Sanchez is guaranteed $20 Million over the next two seasons, but the last 3-years of his deal are not guaranteed and Sanchez won’t be around for the backend of the contract if he doesn’t improve.

By then, who knows how Tim Tebow will have progressed?  

The bottom line is this:   The Jets have sent a message to Mark Sanchez.  

Most top-level athletics respond well to being challenged. 

Will Sanchez?

It’s a simple question. 

Why severely punish the New Orleans Saints for allowing its defensive players to pay teammates bonuses for hits that injured opposing players?   

The answer is just as simple.

It’s against the rules and against the best interests of the sport and those who play it. Football is brutal enough without turning your back on bounties for hits that result in players being carted off the field.  

A deliberate attempt to injure another player is simply wrong. There is no place in the sport for it.

And don’t buy the push-back from players that this practice has a long history in football and isn’t a big deal. 

A practice may be common but still be wrong.  A lot of people cheat, but that doesn’t make it acceptable. 

The reality is that the players often are the last ones you can listen to on the subject of player safety. It’s simply not part of their thinking.  You can’t play football if you’re concerned about getting hurt. 

The physical demands of the sport are drilled into players from an early age.  This is a macho sport where toughness is honored and playing through pain is expected.

Those of us who speak out against cheating and breaking rules, or in this case, arguing that these player bounties should draw stiff penalties, are dismissed as not understanding the nature of the sport.

‘You haven’t played the game’, we’re told. ‘You don’t get it’.

No, I never played in the NFL or in major college ball, but it’s not like I haven’t played at all. I was a quarterback in high school and played freshman ball in college. I wasn’t very tough and I wasn’t very good.  I don’t pretend to have been.  But, I do know what it’s like to play the game.  I was in nutcracker drills. I know what it’s like to get hit. 

So the culture of the sport is no mystery. 

And the fact that this is professional football rather than amateur ball, isn’t a factor. 

At any level of sport, amateur or pro, if you are a coach, a team or a league, and you become aware of a deliberate attempt to injury an opponent, you have a duty to stop it and punish those responsible.

And if you’re the NFL, accused in lawsuits of ignoring evidence of the long-term health consequences of repeated head trauma in your league, you have to take strong action.

You can’t very well crack down on helmet hits by individuals in an effort to improve player safety and then sit by and allow organized player pools in which teammates get paid to deliberately injure opposing players. 

There is a reason the league bans player bounties and it’s for the very reason that this story is a big deal.

Bounty programs that begin with bonuses for helping your team win — things like interceptions, sacks and fumbles can quickly morph into more destructive conduct. That’s what the league has found.  

Think about it.  

Do you really want defensive players to put a bounty on the game’s top players, so that their #1 goal on any given play is to injure that player?

And please don’t make the “what about all the other teams that have done the same thing and haven’t been punished” argument.

We heard enough of that in response to those caught using performance enhancing drugs.

You punish the people you catch breaking rules. When you have evidence that students cheated on an exam, you don’t excuse the behavior just because you may not be able to identify everyone who cheated.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has to mete out stiff penalties in this case. 

The Saints must be held accountable for the team’s failure to stop the practice and the coaches involved should be heavily penalized. Former Saints Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams, now with the St. Louis Rams, was smart to apologize, but that should not absolve him from a suspension.  The players knew they were breaking the rules. They too, should be held accountable.

The sanctions may be a combination of fines, suspensions and the loss of draft picks, but it must be made clear that this was a serious offense and that this behavior will not be tolerated. 

The deliberate attempt to injure is destructive conduct. The failure to root it out compromises a sport. 

It’s not just player safety that’s at stake.

Clean competition and an even playing field are vital to a sport.

Integrity is at stake. 

No sport can exist without it. 

Catching up on recent news…

The Tim Thomas story extended to the NHL All-Star Game Sunday with team owner Jeremy Jacobs coming to the defense of his netminder.

You no doubt have heard the story.

Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas decided not to attend a White House ceremony honoring the Bruins for winning the Stanley Cup.  He said he chose not to go because he views the federal government as being “out of control”.

He’s been criticized for his decision and says the the controversy is the media’s fault. He said:  “This is all media-driven and it has been from the start. Everything that I said and did was as an individual. It was not as a representative of the Boston Bruins”. 

Tim Thomas is wrong. 

He wasn’t invited to the White House as an individual. And he wasn’t being asked to attend a political fundraiser.  He was being invited to share with his teammates the chance to go to the White House and be honored by the President of the United States.  it is an honor extended by all U.S. Presidents to members of championship teams in many sports. 

To make a political statement by not going was disrespectful to the Office of the President and brought unwanted, negative attention to his teammates.  

Tim Thomas was invited as a member of a team.  So, he has to understand that by choosing not to go with his teammates, it would not be that Tim Thomas, an individual, chose not to go to the White House, but that Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas didn’t attend with his teammates.  

Do you think Tim’s teammates have enjoyed answering questions about his self-proclaimed “individual” decision?

*****

Back in 2003, I wrote an ESPN Radio commentary about Manhattanville College senior Toni Smith. She sparked debate across the country with her decision to turn away from the U.S. flag as she stood with her basketball team for the singing of the National Anthem. 

While many were outraged viewing the display as disrespectful, others argued that Toni Smith was right to follow her conscience and express in this way, her disapproval with the U.S government’s policies. 

ESPN Page 2 Columnist Ralph Wiley wrote that the venue for expressing her views didn’t matter and described Smith’s protest as “her quiet, private expression to herself”. 

I disagreed. 

In my view, it was not “a quiet, private expression”. She didn’t stay in the locker room until after the Anthem was sung. She made her views quite public.

That’s O.K.

But, when Toni Smith choose to turn her back on the symbol of our country, she was not doing so as an individual, but along the sidelines with her teammates. She was in uniform, representing her team and her school.

********** 

On another topic…I hope you caught the marvelous story in the San Francisco Chronicle last Friday.  

There are a plenty of grown-ups who could learn a lot from this 7-year-old.

Here is what happened.

7-year-old Owen Shure of Los Angeles was watching the NFC Championship with his Dad. They are both San Francisco 49er fans and were watching as 49ers return man Kyle Williams made two critical errors - a muffed punt in the 4th quarter that led to the NY Giants go-ahead touchdown and then an even more damaging error - a fumble of a punt return at his own-24 in overtime that led to the Giants game-winning FG.

The mistakes by Kyle Williams led to a flurry of activity on social media with many expressing their disgust with Williams. Some went so far as to issue death threats.

Meanwhile, as The Chronicle reported, when Williams’ last fumble all but sealed the loss, Owen Shure responded like any heartbroken 7-year-old: He began crying uncontrollably.

His Dad told the Chronicle:  “He was inconsolable. I was trying to get him to stop crying and I said, ‘If you feel like this, imagine how Kyle Williams feels.’ He thought about it for a second. And he processed it in a way that a 7-year-old does. And then he said, ‘Should we write him a note to tell him it’s OK?’ I said, ‘That would be a great thing to do, Owen.’ “

So Owen got his pencil and wrote the letter. 

The Chronicle reported that Williams’ agent, Ken Sarnoff, said his client read the letter and was touched. He said Williams is sending Owen an authentic jersey, an autographed picture and a letter of his own, thanking the youngster for thinking of him.

So there you have it…..knee-jerk cruelty from (some) adults and thoughtful compassion from a kid. 

Way to go, Owen!

The New York Times is reporting that Joe Paterno’s 46-year run as Penn State’s football coach will soon be over. 

If so, it is hard to think of a sadder exit for a coaching icon. 

No coach in college athletics has meant more to his sport than Joe Paterno. When you think of a coach doing things the right way, you think of Joe Paterno.  Others cut corners when it came to the rules.  

Joe Pa didn’t.  

He stood for the highest ideals on and off the field.

This scandal involving his former, long-time defensive coordinator doesn’t take away the wins and achievements on the field.  It has a more devastating effect on Joe Paterno.  

It impacts how we feel about the coach.  

We still don’t know just what coach Paterno was told in 2002 by a then-grad assistant, identified as Mike McQueary, a current Penn State coach. We know that, according to the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Paterno did relay the information he was given to Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley.  

The question is: Why didn’t Paterno follow-up on what we now know were serious allegations of child abuse?

We don’t know. 

**********

I have long believed that there are two things in life over which we have complete control —- effort and attitude.  I have a website devoted to that concept. And on that website is this quote from Joe Paterno:

“Many people, particularly in sports, think of success and excellence as though they are the same.  They are not.  Success is perishable and often outside our control.  In contrast, excellence is something that’s lasting, dependable and largely within a person’s control.”

That’s the Joe Paterno that has earned a special place among sports educators.   

And that is the legacy in jeopardy now.

Comments made by host Bryant Gumbel in his editorial on HBO’s “Real Sports” has sparked reaction from the basketball world and beyond. 

Commenting on the NBA labor dispute, Gumbel took strong exception to the actions of NBA Commissioner David Stern.

**********

“Finally tonight, if the NBA lockout is going to be resolved any time soon, it seems likely to be done in spite of David Stern, not because of him. I say that because the NBA’s infamously egocentric commissioner seems more hell-bent lately on demeaning the players than resolving his game’s labor impasse.

How else to explain Stern’s rants in recent days? To any and everyone who’d listen, he has alternately knocked union leader Billy Hunter, said the players were getting inaccurate information, and started sounding chicken-little claims about what games might be lost if the players didn’t soon see things his way.

Stern’s version of what’s been going on behind closed doors has, of course, been disputed.

But his efforts were typical of a commissioner, who has always seemed eager to be viewed as some kind of modern plantation overseer treating NBA men as if they were his boys. It’s part of Stern’s M.O. Like his past self-serving edicts on dress code or the questioning of officials, his moves are intended to do little more than show how he’s the one keeping the hired hands in their place.

Some will, of course, cringe at that characterization, but Stern’s disdain for the players is as palpable and pathetic as his motives are transparent. Yes, the NBA’s business model is broken, but to fix it, maybe the league’s commissioner should concern himself most with a solution, and stop being part of the problem.”

Bryant Gumbel on HBO’s “Real Sports”  10/18/11

*********

Bryant Gumbel is a bright guy.  He chose his words carefully. The words he used have power. He knew they were incendiary. He knew they would stir our emotions.  

That’s why he used them.  

Has Commissioner Stern been condescending at times? 

Has he been dismissive? 

You can make that argument. 

But to use the language that Bryant Gumbel used, you have to believe that David Stern’s motivations go beyond reaching a new collective bargaining agreement favorable to the owners.  That his rhetoric far exceeds the norm when it comes to labor disputes. 

You have to believe that Commissioner Stern is saying and doing things he would not do if the NBA were predominantly a “white” league.   

If Bryant Gumbel truly believes that to be the case, I accept that he has a right to that opinion.  After all, race is viewed through the lens of personal experience.  

If, however, he has used the inflammatory language simply to make a point and draw attention to his position, then shame on Bryant Gumbel.   

Free speech is one thing.  Irresponsible speech is another.

Too often in our culture today, we are seeing language being used to inflame and divide us. 

The NFL does a lot of things well but “instant replay” isn’t one of them.

Yet, a better way has been available for years, if only the league and its officials would embrace it.

It’s easy.

Make the booth replay official a full-fledged member of the game’s officiating crew and help call the ENTIRE game from start to finish.   

The replay system is designed to correct calls in which TV technology can be helpful.  

So, use it!

Have the official in the booth stay in constant communication with the on-field Referee and use TV to help with calls currently reviewable under replay rules.  The replay official would have the authority to change a reviewable play from the booth.

No more having the Referee leave the field to go under the hood to review a call.

No more “coaches challenges”.   (The idea of asking coaches to help officiate the game has never made sense.)

Just call it from the booth and get on with the game.

This change will make it faster and more efficient than the current system. It will help with “length-of-game” concerns —- and most importantly it will lead to more accurate calls.

The league is concerned that the official-in-the-booth would be “Big Brother in the Sky”, too far removed from the field —- that it would diminish the authority of the on-field officials.

Mike Pereira was the NFL’s Vice President of Officiating for 6-years before joining Fox Sports coverage of the NFL.  He is against having booth officials make calls.  He said over the weekend that he favors keeping the calls on the field with the referee in charge.

I have argued against this thinking for years and I now have another ally.

Jim Tunney. 

Tunney was one of the leagues’s best referees from 1967 to 1991.  He was there when replay was first used.  

He was a guest with me on ESPN Radio Sunday and said he believes making the call from the booth is a good idea because that official is working with video all the time.

He understands Pereira’s concerns but says the change would benefit officials and the game because it would help arrive at the right call and reduce the time it takes to make it.

**********

In every sport, the officials number one goal is to get the call right.  

It doesn’t make sense that a fan watching the game on TV with slow-motion replay has more ability to see a play than the officials on the field, seeing that same play, once, at full speed, from field level.

I think we all agree now that no official in any sport should have to endure the ridicule of a missed call that could have been corrected by TV replay. 

It is simply unfair. 

Why do we expect umpires or officials in any sport to get every call right when they aren’t able to see what we see?

Because they are professionals and that’s their job?  

It is unrealistic.  It’s not going to happen regardless of the preparation, training or the proper positioning to make the call. 

We all understand that the speed of every sport has increased over the years.  It’s harder than ever to make the right calls and the mistakes that are made are more evident as replay improves.

Give them the additional input that can help them avoid mistakes that can impact the outcome of games.

**********

Every sport should embrace video technology as an aid to its officials.  And every sport should incorporate a booth official who is part of the officiating crew for the entire game. 

TV replays would be used to help on certain categories of calls, depending on the sport. 

Video replay should also be used to help reduce acts of unsportsmanlike conduct, such as faking injuries.

If soccer players knew that their actions were subject to video review, and they could be fined or suspended for faking injuries, it would stop.  The risk-reward dynamic would change and so would their behavior.

As video technology has advanced, we now have the tools to help officials make better calls and improve the sports we watch.

Why not use them to their fullest advantage?

We have to say goodbye to another one of the special broadcasters—- men behind the mic who put the game first, rather than their ego.

Last year, we lost Ernie Harwell, as fine a broadcaster and person as you could find. 

Add Ernie Johnson Sr. to the list.

He was genuine and kind, a gentleman who connected with Atlanta Braves fans.  He enjoyed being part of a broadcast team and his love of baseball and for people was evident.

His son, Ernie Jr. is an announcer and host who brings the best out of those on-air voices he works with. He shows that you don’t have to be loud or draw attention to yourself with a “look at me” approach to be noticed.

R.I.P. Ernie Johnson Sr.

You will be missed.

When you only hear the results of a court case and haven’t heard all the arguments made, it is dicey to weigh in with opinion from afar.

That said, I found the ruling by a San Diego judge to be a poor one, sending the wrong message about what should be allowable conduct by fans at a football stadium.

Here is the account from the Associated Press:

A San Diego judge has sided with a Kansas City Chiefs fan who was arrested after he resisted security guards attempting to eject him from a Chiefs-Chargers game at Qualcomm Stadium for using an obscene finger gesture and language. Jason Ensign, who was wearing a Chiefs jersey at the 2009 game, fought back when security guards tried to remove him — reportedly slugging and biting them. He was charged with misdemeanor battery.

But Superior Court Judge Gale Kaneshiro said security guards overstepped their authority and Ensign, a nurse, was within his rights to resist.

The upraised middle finger, she wrote in an opinion released this week, violates the National Football League “Fan Code of Conduct” but is not a crime. The arrest and charges will be struck from the record, she ruled. “Ensign was not a physical threat to either the private security guards or the fans at the game at the time of the initial use of unlawful force by the private security guards,” Kaneshiro ruled.

*******

The judge apparently is basing her ruling on the premise that the actions taken by the fan did not pose a “physical threat” to those around him. 

But, the reason security guards step in when fans violate the “Fan Code of Conduct” is to PREVENT an escalation of tempers often fueled by alcohol and partisanship. Their job is to diffuse those situations BEFORE they result in violence.

If, in removing a fan from a game, security personnel are met with physical resistance, the offending fan should be held criminally accountable.

Security guards deal with these kinds of situations all the time at games. The judge’s ruling seems to indicate that dealing with fan problems at a game will have to reach the level of a crime before security personnel can have legal protection from a fan resorting to violence while being ejected.

I don’t know about you but I don’t want a brawl to break out before security guards can deal with an unruly fan. And while I have seen security personnel overstep their bounds at times, they deserve protection from assault by fans being removed for violating the “Fan Code of Conduct”.

When a fan attends a game, the ticket requires reasonable conduct. If you don’t want to abide by the rules, don’t attend the game.

First Amendment rights shouldn’t outweigh fan safety. 

Major League Baseball has made some changes to postseason scheduling.

First, you may not have noticed but the regular season will end on Wednesday, September 28th rather than the traditional Sunday. The post-season will then begin on Friday, the 30th.

And MLB has listened to complaints and tightened-up the postseason scheduling, eliminating extra days off that were added to help the TV scheduling. 

While TV scheduling is important, there were downsides to the extra travel days. They disrupted the natural flow of series baseball and made it even easier for teams to win series with just two dominant starters.  Now, only days necessary for travel will be “off” days for the teams and that figures to contribute to better baseball.  It does mean we will have more games played on the same day in the opening rounds of play.

The big issue I’ve had with MLB postseason scheduling has been the one day in which they’ve scheduled two games opposite one another.  It never made sense to me to make baseball fans choose one playoff game over another.  

Remember the argument they once made that there was only regional interest, so conflicts didn’t matter? 

I never bought that.

Then there is the matter of World Series scheduling.

Like many of you, I still shake my head when I see the World Series home-field advantage being determined by the outcome of the All-Star Game.  The Commissioner says it has worked and games are more competitive.  

Really?

Managers continue to try to get as many players into the game as possible.  How you can play 60+ players in a game and claim that “winning” is the # 1 goal is beyond me.  

I can’t image another sport resorting to such a gimmick.

**********

It’s been an interesting last two days of baseball.  

Monday, we had 11-games and not one of them matched teams with winning records. 

Tuesday, we had terrific match-ups with 12-of-14 games decided by 1-or-2 runs including the Brewers-Cardinals game that went 10-innings and the Tigers-Indians that lasted 14 and ended on a bases-loaded HBP.  

Then there was the Angels-Yankees game with slump-ridden Bobby Abreu homering twice. The second was a two-out, go-ahead shot vs Mariano Rivera.  

And, no doubt, you’ve probably seen the replay of Angels rookie closer Jordan Walden catching Curtis Granderson for the final out on the ‘ol fake-to-third, throw to first pick-off play.

Walden joined us on ESPN Radio’s SportsCenter Tonight after the game. He had twice before faked a throw to third and said when he saw the sign for the play again, he figured there wasn’t much chance of it working.  

Surprise!

So, entering tonight…we have 5-of-6 division races on MLB with 2nd-place teams within 4-games, including the Angels, just a game-and-a-half behind the Rangers in the A.L. West.

Original post:  August 21, 2010

Much has been said and written this week about the indictment of Roger Clemens on perjury charges.

Why has he been so vocal and insistent in proclaiming his innocence? 

Is this a sign that he is being truthful?

The majority of sports fans appear to believe that Clemens used performance-enhancing drugs and then lied about it when he appeared before Congress.

Many can’t understand why Clemens has been so defiant in his defense. 

Why hasn’t he just admitted that he did it and move on?

I think I know why.

First of all, I believe Roger is lying.

It’s sad.

I don’t like it.

I understand that in a court of law, you are innocent until proven guilty. But we aren’t in a court of law. We are in the court of public opinion and all logic points to guilt.

You can say whatever you want about the character of his accuser Brian McNamee, but it’s hard not to view him as more credible than Roger Clemens.

McNamee named Andy Pettitte. He said Pettitte used human growth hormone. Pettitte admitted McNamee was right.  If McNamee told the truth about Andy Pettitte, why would he lie about Roger Clemens?

Is there evidence that McNamee has it in for Roger? 

No, quite the contrary. He initially lied to protect Roger until the Feds squeezed him. McNamee was told he would be free from prosecution only if he told the truth.

Only then did he reveal his information.

So where is the motive for McNamee to lie?  

If he told the truth about Pettitte, we are to believe he is lying about Clemens?

It defies logic.

Then we have Andy Pettitte’s statement to the federal authorities and to Congress. 

Pettitte said Roger told him that he had used human growth hormone.  Pettitte idolized Clemens. Had a poster of him on his wall. The two were teammates and close friends.

So, are we to believe that Pettitte lied?

Clemens claims Pettitte “misremembered” the conversation.

Does that sound reasonable?

Would Andy Pettite really misinterpret or misunderstand such an important admission as suggested by Clemens?

Who has a motive to lie? 

Roger does.

So, let’s start from that point.

Let’s assume for a moment that Roger Clemens is lying.

The next question is, Why?

He could cut a deal right now and avoid a jail sentence. With so much to lose, why is Roger Clemens  sticking to his story?

I believe the answer lies in his make-up which mirrors that of Barry Bonds.

Both players exhibited a strong work ethic and a remarkable level of devotion to improving their abilities. Their workout regimens were almost legendary. They both wanted greatness and were willing to do the work it took to be the best.

That is no small feat.

There are countless athletes who have loads of natural ability but are unwilling to push themselves to their peak level of performance.  They aren’t willing to spend the extra hours, day after day, in the weight room, in the bullpen or in the batting cage to become great.

Rogers Clemens and Barry Bonds did. Both were workout fiends and prided themselves on out-working others.

I believe, it is for that reason, that neither one will admit to using performance-enhancing drugs. They think that such an admission would invalidate their career in the eyes of others — that their hard work would no longer be viewed as the reason for their success.

As hard as Roger and Barry have worked to achieve greatness, they can not accept others thinking they might not have been great without the help of performance-enhancing drugs.

Look at how Mark McGwire reacted to questions about how PEDs helped him.

He would only say he used them to recover from injury and stay on the field. He refused to admit even the possibility that they might have helped him achieve higher home run totals.

That’s pride and ego — both necessary ingredients to being great, but also potential negative influences in decision-making.

*****

It took Pete Rose 15-years of continuous denials before he admitted to gambling on baseball.

All Roger Clemens has to do is admit he lied and he will avoid jail time.  But he is too proud to do it.

Proving perjury is difficult.  Especially when it involves a celebrity.  Perhaps Clemens will avoid a conviction in federal court.

But he won’t win the hearts and minds of most baseball fans who have seen too much lying and too much failure by athletes to take responsibility for their actions.

Here is what I believe.

Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds were the best students in the class, but they cheated to get even higher grades. I believe they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but did it anyway and then lied about it — somehow justifying it in their own minds, convincing themselves that what they were doing really wasn’t all that bad.

No one knows how much they benefitted from cheating — we never will.

But it has forever changed the way we view them.

And the fact that a lot of other kids cheated on the exam doesn’t change that.

It’s all just very sad — for them — and for us.

Original post:  June 16, 2009

This year’s NBA postseason featured four 7-game series, 7-games decided in overtime, 23-games decided by 4-or-fewer points plus LeBron James and Kobe Bryant.  There was plenty to like on the court.

But, there was a flip side. The postseason also featured too much “intentional” fouling, illegal screening and rough play.     

It is that flip side that the NBA should consider addressing in the off-season.

Let’s break it down by category.

Intentional Fouling:  To say this has gotten out of hand would be an understatement.  Virtually every time a strong, low post player gets the ball inside, he is hammered.  The TV and radio analysts applaud this as a “good, hard foul” and a “smart play” by the defender and the offended player goes to the foul line.

Fouls at every level have become harder and more blatant on plays in which the defender is making NO ATTEMPT ON THE BALL.   Why do we accept, much less applaud this tactic when it goes against both the rule and its intent?  How is this good for the game?

When called in college and high school ball, this is an intentional foul and the offensive team is rewarded with two free throws and possession of the ball. In the NBA, it is called a flagrant foul.  NBA officials don’t make the call very often despite the fact that defenders routinely commit fouls on lay-ups and low post shots in which it is easy to see that the defender is simply fouling as hard as possible to prevent a shot.

This tactic of intentional fouling should be discouraged.

Who wants to see players being shoved with two hands from behind when they are going in for a lay-up?  Do you want to see Kobe, or LeBron or any other player being injured on such a play?

I understand that the league didn’t want to suspend Mickael Pietrus for Game 5 of the NBA Finals but his two-fisted hit from behind on Pau Gasol at the end of Game 4 was both dangerous and intentional and didn’t result in so much as a fine being assessed.  I understand that Pietrus doesn’t have any history of such illegal hits, but a “Flagrant 1” call isn’t enough on the risk/reward scale.

The league should take a tougher stand on such fouls.  Overall, if a defensive player isn’t making an attempt on the ball and the clear intent is to foul the player, it should be deemed an intentional (flagrant) foul.  Two shots and the ball out of bounds.  The harsher penalty will reduce the number of “intentional” fouls and help the flow of the game.

Illegal Screens:  It’s not a new gripe but it just amazes me that offensive players can routinely move into the path of a defender and get away with it.  Perhaps I’m just ticked that I had to rub my man off a screen “back in the day” when moving screens weren’t allowed. But officiating is about “advantage/disadvantage”.  When a player gains a competitive advantage on the court by breaking a rule, it should ALWAYS being called.

With illegal picks, it isn’t.  Most of the time, teams get away with it.  If screeners are allowed to act like pulling guards blocking in football, then the soundest of defensive principles in basketball are compromised.  It hurts the game.

How many game-winning shots are the result of a defender being illegally screened, allowing the shooter to take the shot?  Officials rarely make the call in a key spot.  The players know it and set moving screens that give the offensive player a tremendous advantage.  It’s hard enough for defenders to stay with today’s dribblers (Don’t get me started on illegal dribbles) without having to deal with a screener moving into their path to prevent them from staying with their man.

Crack down on illegal screening. It will help clean-up unnecessary rough play and reduce some of the anger players justifiably feel after being hip-checked, elbowed or shouldered on illegal screens.

Physical play:   Hall-of-Fame coach John Wooden has lamented it for years saying the game of basketball has become “too physical” and that we have lost some of the beauty and grace of the game because of it.

Of course, in today’s macho sports environment, few seem to be willing to consider that we’ve reached the unfortunate point in basketball where time spent in the weight room is more valuable than time spent on fundamentals such as passing, dribbling, low-post moves, defensive positioning and moving without the ball.

Now, brute strength is used to neutralize athletic skills.

The NBA Official Rules state:

“A player shall not hold, push, charge into, impede the progress of an opponent by extending a hand, forearm, leg or knee or by bending the body into a position that is not normal. Contact that results in the re-routing of an opponent is a foul which must be called immediately.”

That’s just a small part of the rule regarding personal fouls.  There are a number of exceptions noted. But think about the rule for a moment and then think about what we see on the basketball court today.

Low post play has become a battle of strength, little more. There is an offensive or defensive foul (often both) on every play.  It makes officiating the game a complete crap shoot.  What we saw in this year’s postseason was a “let’ em play” mentality, especially on the low block.  And it isn’t just the big guys either.  Remember Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant battling for position inside in the Nuggets-Lakers series?

Out front, it isn’t any different.  Dribblers are allowed to use their off arm to ward off and push away defenders.  Hedo Tukoglu is a terrific player but how is he allowed to push off the way he does?  And I don’t mean to single him out, he’s just more blatant about it than most.  You are allowed to keep the off arm away from your body to keep a defender from reaching in but you are now allowed to move that arm to push defenders away.  This problem has been around for awhile and some of the game’s best players (Michael Jordan and Reggie Miller come to mind) have certainly made use of push-offs to gain an advantage.  But it’s now such an accepted part of the game, that it happens on nearly every half-court possession. Again, advantage/disadvantage.  That is how the game should be officiated.  Preventing players from using their off arm to push away opponents will improve the game.

******

All of these issues are hardly new but what bothers me is the impact it is having on every level of basketball where the game is becoming more and more physical.

And it’s not just in the college or high school game, it’s found in middle school ball, too.

When you ask coaches about the overly physical play being encouraged at young ages, you often hear coaches say “We’re getting them ready for the next level”.

If you think I’m overstating it, check out some youth basketball games, girls’ games included.  If you haven’t watched a game in a while, you will be surprised just how much physical play is allowed.

That’s why I hope the NBA sees the upside to announcing an emphasis on applying the rules in place and dialing back the physical play a bit.  The trickle-down effect of such a move will help every level.

The game is good, but it can be better.