|
In his
opinion letter “Football: Legalized violence,” Chaplain Vic Hummert
 implies that football may be the catalyst for many of the atrocious acts
of violence that plague our society today. He speculates, “We are all
fools for failing to recognize football may be the most violent affair in
the life of a young male.” (1) He goes on to remove the Jena 6 incident
from a racism problem and ascribe it to football aggression. Now, just
because the majority of the Jena 6 were football players, it is a
gargantuan leap to blame football for their attack on a fellow classmate.
Although
Hummert appears to believe that football leads to violence off the field,
two of the most horrible acts of youth violence in recent times in the
U.S., the Columbine and VA Tech shootings, did not appear to be
perpetrated by football players or connected at all to football. The
chaplain's generalization is further refuted by the recent killing of
football player Taylor Bradford by what appears to be, at this point,
non-football players. (2)
And in
comparison to the few football players whose paths have led to violence,
there are many whose hard trekked trails have led to constructive
activities later in life. And for many young men, football can be a way
of sublimating aggressive behavior, developing confidence, and gaining
leadership ability. In fact, several of our American presidents played
football in their college days, including Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy,
and Gerald Ford, who was an MVP while at Michigan University. (3)
To
further illustrate the viciousness of football, Hummert uses the injury of
Daryll Stingley, the former New England Patriots receiver who collided
with former Raiders defensive back Jack Tatum. Tatum, legendary for his
knockout style of defending his turf, put a "hit" on Stingley in a 1978
preseason game. The hit fractured two vertebrae in Stingley's cervical
spine, leaving the receiver crippled for life and branding the defender as
a heartless assassin. Stingley passed away last April. To further
bolster his case against football, and indirectly indict Tatum, Hummert
uses a quote from Tatum: “I like to believe that my best hits border on
felonious assault.”
Hummert
could have used a less indicting and more sympathizing quote such as
this: "When the reality of Stingley's injury hit me with its full impact,
I was shattered. To think that my tackle broke another man's neck and
killed his future . . . well, I know it hurts Darryl, but it hurts me,
too." (4) Of course, this quote would have diluted his thesis.
In
The Final Confessions of an NFL Assassin, Tatum makes reference to the
Stingley accident: “There's no way to change yesterday. I was paid to hit,
the harder the better. And I hit, and I knocked people down and knocked
people out. But sooner or later they would always get back up. Yes, they
got up every time except one.”(5) Does Hummert or any of Tatum's critics
realize how many hundreds of hits Tatum must have put on offensive players
in a ten-year NFL career, not to mention college. And only once was there
a serious injury. Anyone who has played football, especially as a
defensive back, knows that unless the defender attacks an opponent with
100% commitment, he will be the one who will get the full force of the
collision--and then some. As Tatum explains: “When you lay back, the
offensive man builds up his momentum and is doing the hitting while the
defensive man is getting hit. Good defensive football amounts to mass
times velocity. The faster I can move toward impact, and the more
violently I can drive my body through a target, the more effective my hit
will be. This way I am doing the hitting and the offensive player is
absorbing the punishment.” (6) Now, as harsh as these principles may
seem, they are the dynamics and mechanics of sound football.
If these
principles are not adhered to, it will be the tackler who is injured in
such high-speed collisions. In fact, some statistics indicate that the
position of defensive back has been, during some periods, the most
dangerous on the field, according to Carl Prine: "In 2000 through 2003,
NFL data showed that the highest injury rates belong to cornerbacks and
safeties. Nearly seven of 10 DBs are hurt every year, according to the
NFL's weekly injury reports. For those who get hurt, half will suffer
another, unrelated injury before the season ends. They also sustain the
highest rates of the injuries most likely to be catastrophic; 102
defensive backs have suffered brain concussions or neck and spinal
injuries during the past four years." (7)
Although the current hype, perpetrated by some writers like Hummert, adds
to the vilification of Tatum, the officials on the field that fateful day
did not flag Tatum, so apparently they considered it a legal hit. And
John Madden did not think that the tackle was harsher than many others
witnessed throughout his lengthy history in the sport, and that the Tatum-Stingley
collision "wouldn't be anywhere near the top." (8)
Of
course, Madden, who was Tatum's coach at the time, might have been
unintentionally biased. However, it would be hard to believe that
Stingley's coach, Chuck Fairbanks, would be partial towards Tatum, but
the coach apparently did not share the so-called conventional wisdom that
the hit was a “cheap shot,” since he could not determine anything that was
atrociously in violation of the rules, or not in accord with the dynamics
of football at that time: "I saw replays many, many times, and many times
Jack Tatum was criticized," Fairbanks said. "But there wasn't anything at
the time that was illegal about that play. I do think probably that play
was a forerunner for some of the changes in rules that exist today that
are more protective of receivers, especially if there is head-to-head-type
contact. I think that probably pre-empted some of the things that happened
today." (9)
|
|
|
 |
|
Left to right:
Otis Sistrunk, George Atkinson and Jack Tatum. |
Monte
Poole gives a realistic summarization of the collision by noting that had
not Stingley been tragically crippled, the hit would have been right up
there with those glorified on NFL Films. "If Stingley gets up, ESPN
analyst Tom Jackson and the studio crew would cackle about how he 'got
JACKED UP!'" (10)
Anyone
familiar with sports injuries knows that there are often many factors that
can contribute to the injuries and there is not always a person to fault.
Regarding the 1978 accident, Madden offered a possible explanation:
"There was a collision, and Darryl was in the air and put his head down a
little in the collision. It was an accident that happened. There was no
one to fault." (11) While it is hard to tell what position Stingley's
head was in at the moment of contact, while viewing the replay, since it
might have been just a momentary shift, the possibility exists, as Madden
has suggested, that Stingley's head might have been in a vulnerable
position at the moment of contact—a judgment call, at the very least.
If
Stingley did lower his head, then it is possible that that position might
have contributed to the injury. As sportswriter Gerald Eskenazi notes:
"Typically, broken necks in football occur because the head is lowered,
which straightens the spine. When the collision occurs, the spine is
compressed. Because the spine is straight, the blow is not diffused. Thus,
players are taught to tackle with their head up, which curves the spine."
(12)
Finally,
Ed Driscoll further explains that the hit might not have been totally
responsible for the full extent of the injury. "Stingley's hit also
significantly changed how injured players are treated on the sidelines.
The story as I recall it is that an overzealous trainer or paramedic
ripped Stingley's helmet off as he was lying there, which may have caused
further spinal injuries. (13)
Ted
Quick explains the proper procedure for dealing with a possible head or
spine injury: “If a helmet is involved, the helmet and chin strap should
be left in place. . . . If the helmet is removed, spinal immobilization
and alignment must be maintained. . . . If it is necessary to move the
athlete, he or she should be placed in a supine position while the spine
is immobilized.“(14)
That
improper moving of an accident victim may exacerbate trauma is supported
in “Cervical Protection System”: "Immobilization should be carried out as
soon as possible after a cervical spine injury is recognized since
continuous movement may accentuate the pathologic processes that are
already underway within the spinal cord as a result of the injury. Thus,
often a soft collar with spinal traction is recommended as soon as
possible after trauma." (15)
Driscoll's report that Stingley's helmet had been removed, of course, is
hearsay, so it might be discounted. But now, if you watch the play on
YouTube, there is "indisputable evidence" that Stingley's helmet had
been removed. You will further note that a trainer, or whoever he might
be, is moving Stingley's left leg and banging his knees with what appears
to be a mallet. You will also see Stingley being carted off the field
without his helmet, and neither his head nor his body appears to be
sufficiently immobilized, and his head is propped up on what seems to be
some kind of a wooden support. (16) Now, the question is this: "To what
degree did the moving of Stingley's leg, the removing of his helmet, along
with the possible failure to properly immobilize Stingley's body and neck,
contribute to the seriousness of the injury?" This is a moot rhetorical
question, since the truth will never be known.
However,
as a point of comparison, you need only to see the photo of Dolphins QB
Trent Green being carted off the field after sustaining a head injury in
an October 2007 game against the Texans. (17). You will note the degree
to which both Green's body and his helmet-clad head have been immobilized.
 What
apparently bothers Hummert, as well as other critics of Tatum, is that
Tatum never apologized to Stingley, a point Hummert brings up in his
article. It seems Hummert is trying to show the callousness of Tatum, as
many have attempted to portray the former Raider as an insensitive
assassin. How this inability of Tatum to apologize has anything to do
with Hummert's thesis regarding football violence is not clear. Would
apologizing for an accident have helped Stingley to walk again? The
answer: No! When Michael Vick remorsefully apologized for his apparent
cruelty to animals, how many dog lovers felt all warm and fuzzy inside?
(18) The answer: More than likely, none! And was Vick sincere, since
his admission of guilt was probably part of the plea bargain? Well,
readers, you will have to answer that one.
However,
there is evidence that, despite what some might care to think, Tatum was
bothered by the collision with Stingley, and the aftermath of that tragedy
was never far from his thoughts. Tatum himself confirmed those
suspicions: “I didn't know if I ever wanted to play football again. It
was constantly on my mind and tearing at my insides. My body felt like a
hollow shell that no longer belonged to me." (19)
As
callous as some writers and fans believe Tatum to be, It's interesting to
note that, according to teammate George Atkinson, Tatum wasn't the same
player after the Stingley hit. John Madden, noted that the so-called
assassin "went into a shell" after the play. “Others have said that Tatum
-- who would go on to suffer significant health problems of his own --
never again played with the kind of all-out ferocity he had employed
before the incident. The consensus? Tatum was worlds better before, when
he went into every collision with everything he had.“(20)
|
|
Tatum
has maintained that he had called and even tried to visit Stingley but was
rejected. “'I feel sorry for what happened to him,' said Tatum, who lost
his left leg recently because of diabetes. 'I tried to apologize to him a
number of times, but people around him wouldn't let that happen.' Tatum
said he spoke with Stingley's attorney several times over the years, but
nothing ever happened. In a TV interview several years ago, Tatum
expressed sorrow again. That part was cut out, Tatum said.” (21)
The Stingley contingent always contended that Tatum's advances were never
sincere and always had publicity as the ulterior motive, as Tatum was
always involved in pushing one of his books at the time. Thus Stingley 's
advisors discouraged him from appearing publicly with Tatum.
(22)
With the death of Stingley, the issue between these two proud men will
never be resolved, and might be better laid to rest, and not used to
condemn football despite the injury to Stingley.
Finally,
as a graphic example of the horrors of football injuries, the chaplain
cites an instance from his early high school days, when he decided not to
play football. As a result of his decision, he “endured psychological
abuse from the coach, teachers and classmates for refusing to play
football.” When he finally succumbed to the pressure and played running
back, he had a collison with another player, the impact of which caused
the would-be tackler to sustain a broken leg. Hummert proudly notes that
mothers who want to talk their children out of playing football “usually
appreciate” his experience. The irony of the chaplain's story is that
perhaps some mothers use the story for another reason! While the
chaplain believes the point of his story is that young men should not play
football, the real underlying moral might be that young men should have
the courage to stand by their beliefs and convictions, something the
chaplain apparently did not, since he was pressured into playing a game he
did not wish to participate in. When praised for his hard run by a
teacher, Hummert explained to the man that he did not break the tackler's
leg on purpose. Yet Hummert egregiously implies that Tatum turned
Stingley into a paraplegic on purpose, by including the “felonious
assault” quote in his article. And, of course, Hummert never tells the
readers whether or not he himself ever apologized to the player he had
injured.
Certainly, not all mothers wish to discourage their sons from playing
football. You probably have seen the recent NFL add where Browns Willie
McGinest tells how his mom encouraged him to play football at the age of
seven, in order to keep him out of trouble.
Here is
the final irony of the chaplain's football story: Despite the number of
injuries and chances of career-ending accidents, players continue to
relish the exhilaration of the game. Stingley himself apparently still
loved the game and understood the rush that competition brings. "I'd have
played the next week if I hadn't broken my neck," he said.
Darrell Jackson, a leading Seahawks receiver, came close to ending his
career, after being hit by Cowboys Darren Woodson, but he was eager to
return to the game. When asked what advice he would give Jackson,
Stingley said--no, it wasn't "don't play again"; rather it was this simple
football truth: “Tell him to play as if nothing happened," Stingley said.
"To have no fear when he goes over the middle." (23)
And
bringing the issue closer to home, Stingley's son Derek played eight years
in the Arena Football League, a decision never discouraged by dad Darryl.
"He never once told me not to play," Derek Stingley said.(24)
In fact,
during one game, Derek suffered a concussion but was not seriously hurt.
Apparently, the fact they he could be injured, along with the accident
that happened to his dad, did nothing to inhibit or curtail his desire to
play the game of legalized violence. "I've never felt that this sport
ended my dad's career and I'm going to give up on it. No. That was a freak
accident, a one in a million chance," he said. "I keep his words in the
back of my mind: 'You go out and play, don't think about me. Just play the
game like it's supposed to be played.' That's what I try and do."(25)
Indeed,
Stingley was a courageous man on and off the field, while he played
football and in the aftermath of his injury. Tatum's tribute to Stingley,
upon learning of the latter's death, might serve as a fitting epitaph not
only for Stingley but for the never ending conflict with Tatum: "I am
deeply saddened by the death of Darryl Stingley," Tatum said in a
statement released by the Raiders. "Darryl will be forever remembered for
his strength and courage. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family."
(26)
While
Hummert is entitled to have a case against football, his attempt to
ascribe the troubling acts of violence today on campuses to football
cannot be substantiated, as many non-football players have perpetrated
acts much more serious than “felonious assault.” And some six
months after the death of Stingley, Hummert should not have to dig up the
Tatum hit, in an attempt to bolster his argument against football and
perhaps vilify Tatum. But after a careful examination of the incident,
some analysts could lay the blame for the Stingley injury on fate, a
possible inadvertent ducking of the head, receivers who choose to run
fearlessly across the field—or, perhaps, on inexperienced trainers. But
do Tatum critics really want to soul search for the truth. Nah! That
would be less controversial and would take some clear thinking. The more
sensational thing to do--the copout--is to simply blame the Assassin.
However, there is another simple and perhaps compassionate thing to do is
now that Darryl is finally able to rest in peace, and that might be
to ultimately let Jack live in peace.
|
