Next to the Michael Vick redemption story, the next biggest storyline this NFL season has been the overwhelming amount of penalties and fines given out against defenders for potentially dangerous hits. Football is a violent game and the league hopes to curtail injuries, especially to its prized quarterbacks.
Steelers linebacker James Harrison has become the poster child for the league’s campaign. In the short span of 11 games, he has been fined four separate times for a total of $125,000. Harrison is by far the most frequent repeat offender in the NFL. But for all the publicity these fines have received, it seems they’ve made things worse, not better.
With each new fine, the opposition has publicly increased to greater levels of suspicion and animosity. Various players from around the league have voice their opposition. Harrison thinks he is a marked man and has even contemplated retirement. Goodell has become a common enemy within the Steelers. Normally soft-spoken Troy Polamalu has complained that the commission has too much power. Coach Mike Tomlin complained that “[Harrison’s] got two kids. That’s some serious college schooling right there potentially for those kids 16, 18 years from now.” Even Steelers President Art Rooney thought that the fines are an overreaction.
I’m not saying that the NFL is wrong about the fines. Legally speaking, commissioner Roger Goodell has the power to enforce the rules how he sees fit. The question is, have they worked?
So far as I can tell, the new rules have had little affect on the field. The game isn’t safer to play, it’s just more expensive. Instead of changing how players play the game, the penalties have aroused nothing but complaints. Harrison himself has said that the fines have done nothing to change how he plays. If anything, he has become emboldened and now stubbornly refuses to change.
This is a classic example of what St. Paul said in Romans: “the law came in to increase the trespass” (5:20a). The penalties and fines imposed on players represent “the law” to them, since their violation results in punishment. Sure, the rules of the game provide the necessary parameters to promote player safety (the law is good), yet so far this has only reaped bitterness and frustration. The irony is that here the implementation of justice is received by the offender as injustice and bias.
To be clear: the Steelers reaction to the fines are not to be applauded or defended. As a player, they submit to the rules of the game and the structures in place to distribute penalties. As St. Paul says, the law induces sin (Romans 7:8).
Yet what is so often ignored is that the rebellion against the law demonstrates the law’s failure. Fines and penalties haven’t succeeded. There must be something else that breaks the cycle of punishment and resentment. Might there be another way?
COMMENTS
8 responses to “Steeler’s James Harrison and the Law”
Leave a Reply
Romans 7:
"12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure."
Isn't what Paul saying in Romans is that the sin that is in all of us is actually what produces death through the law which is good, "in order that sin might be shown to be sin." The law serves its good purpose by showing sin to be sin, and death as its consequence. That, of course, does not mean that Paul sees all "law" as of no use for any purpose in restraining the temporal adverse consequences of sin in society in general, as he makes perfectly clear in admonishing obedience to the legal authorities as appointed by God: "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." Romans 13.
Is it ironic the Goodal and the NFL for years refused to acknowledge that certain "hits" were dangerous and caused sever injuries, and now that they have finally acknowledged just how dangerous these hits are, the players feel victimized?
Maybe the NFL does need St Paul, but not to preach Law/Gospel but community. Consider, both the players and Goodal know these "hits" are potentially crippling, but still the Players persist in their ways. Maybe if the players put on the body of Christ and loved their neighbor as themselves the hits might stop?
Or am I merely being foolish?
🙂
Paul's warning in Romans 13 is to those who already HAVE "put on the body of Christ." Paul seems to have understood that "grace" and "the gospel" are not magic wands, otherwise his warning to Christian believers to "be afraid" of civil legal authorities who are appointed by God to effect "the wrath of God on the wrongdoer" makes no sense. What Paul seems to have recognized is that even Christians can play dirty, and that they need to fear the consequences.
MC – the point of my post wasn't as ambitious as your comments suggest! I do not mean to overturn the necessity of civil laws in this post (with other posts, that's a different issue).
I simply mean to suggest that Paul's insight into human nature accurately diagnoses what went wrong in the NFL disciplinary system. So far as I can tell the only thing Goodell knows is law, assuming he is being totally forthright. I guarantee that his next step is to up the consequences for hits. The fines will get bigger and players will eventually be suspended from games.
I understand, it's sports and the analogy has limitations. Though maybe, the absurdity of it really does point to just how radical Paul really was. For him, the reality of grace meant the overturning of the very fabric of his world.
If we want to deal with what Paul actually wrote, then we have to deal with Romans 13 as well. In this analogy, the NFL seems to fit well as "the authority appointed by God" to effect his wrath on the wrongdoer. Paul has absolutely no problem with that, and does not see it as contrary to the gospel message he is preaching. If we want preach that same "gospel" then we have to deal with the entire text, in my opinion anyway. I suppose we could say Romans 13 reflects that Paul did not fully understand the "radical" implications of his own message, and that we now understand it better, but I'm not ready to go there.
Hey Todd! You mentioned just now that you weren't dissing the First Use at all in your post, you were just pointing out that the Law engenders resentment, can't in itself create an obedient heart, etc. Which is certainly true!
Still, though, when I read the end of your post, it does certainly sound like you are suggesting that the First Use in this case is bad, and should be replaced with something else. You write:
"Fines and penalties haven't succeeded. There must be something else that breaks the cycle of punishment and resentment. Might there be another way?"
ANOTHER WAY links to previous MB articles about the great things that happen when athletes and umpires are forgiven. Are you suggesting that we need to abandon punitive sanctions against guys who injure players with dangerous hits — and instead forgive them? That after being forgiven enough they'll be nice and stop doing this?
I'm curious to hear more about what the Other Way is that you see replacing sanctions.
MC and Stampdawg, you are both great discussion partners and force me to think thoroughly what I actually think…
MC – I'm working out a response, but don't yet have one, but will sonne enough.
SD- I said that I wasn't exactly speaking about the first use of the law mainly because I prefer to not use those terms. Exegetically speaking, I find it hard to justify the division between the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd uses of the law (in the same way I find no grounds in Paul for a division between cermonial and ethical law). When Paul uses the term, it carries a single reference, namely to a way of life marked by conditionality and human effort in particular manifested in the Sinai legislation. But so far as Paul is concerned, the law is no longer our master (Romans 6:14). So, if I would be so bold I would suggest that Paul speaks of no use of the law.
Theologically-speaking, with respect to the first use, I would suggest that the first use is only the first use within a small scope of life. The very second it pronounces its guilty verdict it, by definition, becomes second use. Notice even in the post, Harrison believes he is a marked man… ie… the first use "do not hit a QB in the head" has become second use "you are a dirty player."
I perhaps should have said in the beginning that the failure of the law is a necessary failure. In a paradoxical way, the law is good and useful. Since one only understands grace to the extent that the see themselves in need of grace – then the law, too, has can have a role in this economy. Yet the law's failure itself demonstrates that its glory is fading, its purposes are limited and preliminary, and the only way forward is grace.
Now, what grace looks like in this situation at the time of writing the post I wasn't exactly sure what it would look like and I'm still hesitant to define. I would think that the league should have mercy at best, or at least understanding for the players and the situation they are in. Understand that these new rule enforcement came mid-season and at the point the players are UNABLE to alter how they play with such little notice. Then perhaps at the end of the season the league and players can adequately, together, address their common concern for player safety.
PS- After posting this yesterday, two bits of news came out… 1. Steelers President reiterated his opposition to the fines. 2. The league threatened violators with suspension from games to get their point across.
Hey Todd… you are really such a thoughtful guy. Thanks for taking the time to write back!
I am zonked today on meds from some post-op dental surgery, but I'll read and think about what you said more closely this weekend.
One quick point, and here I would defer to the folks at MB who really know about sports, but one thing not being addressed so far in the thread is the fact that football players may have a practical interest in hurting players on the opposing team. If I remember right there was a book published decades ago by an ex-football player called THEY CALL ME ASSASSIN, which touched briefly about this, as has at least a couple episodes from Friday Night Lights. If you can seriously injure a valuable player on the opposing team, that can boost your chances of winning the game.
Any time there are practical gains to be had from behaving badly (as in theft, murder, fraud, etc.) I become skeptical that we all have a common concern for wanting to do the right thing.