Bernstein: Bears' Half-Protest Weak, Pointless
By Dan Bernstein
"Um, we kinda don't want to play on the ice, because, well, it's hard, and we might get hurt. But we know we have to, if you say so."
That's the message sent by several Bears yesterday, including their NFLPA representative Robbie Gould, and it's an odd position to take.
Either organize yourselves and construct a real stance against playing on what will likely be a hockey rink, or say nothing and just go about your business, preparing for another week of work at the inherently dangerous game you play.
The middle ground serves no purpose. It made sense when initial reports out of Minneapolis yesterday indicated that the Bears were set to lodge a formal protest over playing in unsafe conditions. It would be entirely reasonable and understandable, and probably would have received fair hearing from league officials, if presented via the proper channels.
But Gould was quick to deny any such formal action, meekly conceding the NFL could and would do whatever it wanted. The subsequent concerns voiced by Gould and echoed by teammates then appeared powerless and empty, since they had already been declawed by previous, subservient statements.
Pending labor negotiations loom over any smaller, current conflicts between players and management. Perhaps Gould was told by union leaders not to pick this fight, keeping powder dry for more important things. If so, he was put in the uneasy spot of standing up for his teammates with no real ability to back up his words with actions.
And Gould still was quick to note – correctly, I might add -- the inconsistency of the NFL: they push for a game to be played on a precarious field, even in this Year of Player Safety that has seen draconian fines imposed for seemingly random reasons, all with the stated goal of reducing traumatic injuries from "unnecessary" impacts.
That is really the greater inconsistency underneath all of it, and the players are aware of it, too. The whole concept of a new push for "safety" in a game as vicious and brutal as NFL football is conflicted and confusing. Players everywhere brush off much of the new concussion-awareness, for example, saying "We're grown men, we know what we do is bad for us, just let us play." Weekly punishments for once-legal hits are met with bewildered anger.
It's possible that this is not lost on Gould, his teammates, and the rest of the union. Nobody on either side of the bargaining table really seems to know what to do about the player-endangerment issue, or even understand how far to take it in either direction.
The NFL wants to add two more games of regular-season head-slamming and bone-crunching, even as they have to admonish against hitting too hard.
Until there is resolution between the league and the players of what kind of sport they really want to play, and what risks are endemic to their business, skirmishing over one game's hard playing surface may not be worth it.
If that's the decision, though, just put your helmets on and go to work.
