Lessons from the turf

After an ugly, college football brawl on Oct. 14 between players from the University of Miami and Florida International University, the public outcry and hasty judgments from several sports reporters was almost as disconcerting as the fight itself.\nThe bench-clearing brawl included a player swinging a helmet at an opposing player, another swinging his crutches and plenty of cleat-stomping and fist-swinging in the tangle of bodies. The scene was certainly disturbing -- an embarrassing absence of sportsmanship. Undoubtedly, those who participated should be held accountable for their actions.\nBut I was appalled reading and listening to analysis of the incident.\nOne ESPN.com analyst, Bill Curry, offered brash character judgments. He described players who "ran into the fray looking for someone to maim" as "sociopaths" for whom "there are no innocents." He surmised that these players would be just as likely to swing at women and children (His journalism school also offered an arm-chair psychologist degree). Another ESPN.com columnist laced his commentary with coded racial language. The scene represented "horrifying football gang warfare," cheap shots that escalated to "street fighting." He likened the helmet swinging player to someone wielding a "medieval weapon" and branded it obscene "criminal conduct." Furthermore, several sports analysts have dubbed the school "Thug U."\nBut is it easier to classify the fight as "gang warfare" and "criminal conduct" when it features predominantly 18 to 21-year-old, black students? Are we prone to write them off as thugs from whom this behavior is expected?\nThe fight was inexcusable, but to blame the "thugs" on the field is to oversimplify the incident. We need a deeper analysis than the quick-to-condemn sound bytes that commentators and sports writers threw around.\nAt 18 or 19, we like to think we're at the peak of emotional maturity -- I certainly believed that -- but the reality is we are still figuring out how to manage our emotions, and in the heat of an adrenaline-charged football game, many of us might have made poor judgments. Was it stupid to rush the pile and swing a helmet? Yes. Was it criminal conduct? Questionable.\nFurthermore, before criticizing the students, we should reflect on a culture of sports violence in general as a root cause. Hockey is professional violence on ice. Pitchers regularly beam opponents intentionally. Off the field, parents model uncivil behavior for their children. A father in Pennsylvania recently pulled a gun on his son's coach over a playing time dispute.\nIn light of youthful emotions and violence at every turn, it seems a little rash to peg these students as "sociopaths." Anthony Reddick, the helmet-swinger, publicly apologized: "My behavior was a disgrace to my school, my family and my friends, especially the young kids who look up to me as their role model. I do understand that what I did was wrong."\nThat doesn't sound like someone who would also pummel women and children. That sounds like a young student who made a foolish judgment and learned a valuable lesson.\nI think almost anyone can relate to that ... except these snap judgment sports reporters.